Ban the bad boys

Press, 19 November 1982, Page 23

Ban the bad boys

... suggests R. T. BRITTENDEN

The suggestion that fences be erected at the Sydney Cricket Ground to keep spectators at bay is not so much another nail in the coffin of cricket as a further daubing, with mud, of what used to be a fair face.

The proposal was made after the awful intrusion of the test ground at Perth by spectators when England played Australia last weekend. The test grounds in India already look like concentration camps. Are Australian grounds to assume this depressing appearance? Spectator involvement in sport is now a world-wide problem. But can it not be traced, accurately, to the behaviour of the players themselves?

Of the major sports, golf leads the way in player behaviour. The golfers in the big tournaments are chasing bigger prize money than cricketers — even soccer players — ever dreamed about, yet they keep their cool. Seldom, if ever, are they guilty of ill behaviour. The code of conduct which governs the performances demands a proper approach.

It is certainly not the same in tennis, or soccer, the two most popular games the world over. There have been some spectacular outbursts by wielders of the racquet, at the top level, and the demonstrativeness of leading soccer players is almost as objectionable as the per-

formances of their supporters. Cricket, sadly, is now in this category. The “sledging” of Australians, is not confined to the players under the green caps. Umpire abuse has become almost commonplace. It is easy to work out a scale for offences, on which an umpire could act; half an hour behind the sight-screen for a rude remark, up to expulsion for the whole remainder of the match for some more heinous offence. It does not require a long memory to recall the behaviour of the West Indies team in New Zealand — Michael Holding kicking over the stumps at Carisbrook, Colin Croft barging into the umpire, Fred Goodall, at Lancaster Park. Even last weekend, in a Christchurch club match, there was a regrettable incident. The suggestion has been made that umpires in cricket matches should have some of the powers of rugby referees, who have used the sin bin effectively and can order players off for the duration of a game. The idea has its merits. Had Croft been banished to the pavilion that dreadful day. at Lancaster Park, and no replacement fieldsman been allowed, it may be that the message would have been appreciated.

It is unfortunate that cricket umpires are unlikely to be armed with any such powers. In rugby, for instance, a player sent off penalises his own side. It might not be so in a cricket match. Imagine, for instance, a game which has only one over to be bowled, and the batting side needing say four runs with nine wickets down. If a bowler, turned down on an appeal, should question the umpire’s parentage sending him off would penalise the batting side as well. Many such situations can be imagined. It may be a pious hope that cricket will put its own house in order, that players will no longer abuse each other or the umpires, that the “orderly, decent, calm, serene” crowds of Arnold Wall’s verses will return. The behaviour of modern test cricketers — or a few of them— may be attributed to the richer rewards now offering, and to the overexposure of them through television, radio and the newspapers. The sad thing is that if the money left the game, the probability is that the- crowds would too. Cricket survives largely through sponsorship which brings with it the modern ballyhoo which makes some players feel they are larger than life size.