Big Bash Humour Loss

BBL coach fined for comments detrimental to ‘Spirit of Cricket'.

Jon Pierik.

Melbourne Age.

Saturday, 25 January 2020.

PTG 3008-14904.

The Big Bash League’s (BBL) Melbourne Stars coach David Hussey was fined $A2,000 (£UK1,045) by Cricket Australia (CA) on Friday for a Code of Conduct (CoC) breach that was deemed to have been contrary to the ‘Spirit of Cricket’.  Hussey joked in a television interview during the ninth over of Wednesday night’s BBL match against the Adelaide Strikers that he had worn spiked footwear on the pitch before the match - one in which the Stars ultimately lost.

After viewing a replay of Hussey’s comments, match officials Greg Davidson, David Koch, Gerard Abood and Harry Singh charged him with the Level Three offence of "Attempting to gain an unfair advantage during a match”.  He disputed the charge and as a result the issue went to independent CoC commissioner Adrian Anderson for consideration.  As Hussey had not actually worn spiked shoes Anderson found him not guilty of the Level Three charge, but the coach accepted that his comments had not been in the spirit of the sport.

The fine set by Anderson fell under article 2.23 of CA’s CoC which covers “… conduct that either: (a) is contrary to the spirit of cricket; (b) is unbecoming of a representative or official; (c) is or could be harmful to the interests of cricket; or (d) does or could bring the game of cricket into disrepute”.  Section 6.3.4 of BBL Playing Conditions specifically states that "prior to the start of play, only the captain and team coach may walk on the pitch to assess its condition. Spiked footwear is not permitted at this time”.  

Hussey, whilst preparing his team for Saturday night’s game against the Brisbane Heat at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, apologised for his comments, saying:  "I would like to apologise for my comments made at our match against the Strikers on Wednesday. These comments were made in jest and in a light-hearted moment with the commentators.  I never intended to suggest that I had in any way broken the rules of the game. I realise that my comments, broadcast to our fans and supporters, may have undermined the Spirit of Cricket and for this I apologise”.

Rabada's ban highlights imperfections in ICC Code of Conduct.

Sam Morshead.

The Cricketer Magazine.

PTG 3004-14887.

Last Friday, South African bowler Kagiso Rabada was banned from this week's fourth Test against England, having accumulated a fourth demerit point in 24 months for his reaction to dismissing Joe Root in the third Test of the series in Port Elizabeth (PTG 3001-14875, 18 January 2020).  The clause within the ICC's Code of Conduct (CoC) which Rabada was found to have breached is vague, article 2.5 reading:  “Using language, actions or gestures which disparage or which could Provoke an aggressive reaction from a batter upon his/her dismissal during an international match".

This includes, but is not limited to, verbal abuse of the batsman, pointing towards the pavilion and - and this was presumably the part which match referee Andy Pycroft felt applied to Rabada’s celebration on Thursday - “excessive celebration directed at and in close proximity to the dismissed batter”.  The “and” is critical, here. It is not “or”. While there is no doubt that Rabada was in Root’s “personal space”, he was clearly not shouting at the England captain - as was the case in his previous indiscretions against Shikhar Dhawan and David Warner. Nor did he make any physical contact, as he did with Steve Smith in March 2018. 

So, the bowler’s offence was not outlined by any of the specifics. Instead, it fell under the much looser, considerably more subjective terms of article 2.5, relating to the potential to provoke - a somewhat Orwellian concept which asks match officials to assess events not by set criteria but by cross-referencing their own perceptions of what happened against how they might feel in the same scenario; a curious method of arbitration.  “You might not have robbed that bank, sir, but it sure as hell looked as though you might have thought about it last week”.

The ICC documentation is at pains to state that the clause is not intended “to stop players celebrating, in an appropriate fashion, the dismissal of the opposing team’s batter”.  Yet “appropriate” - perhaps the most important word in the entire article - remains undefined.  It would not be entirely unreasonable, for example, if you viewed West Indian Sheldon Cottrell’s ‘army’ salute when he takes a wicket as “inappropriate”, or Shahid Afridi’s power pose, or Imran Tahir’s 100 m sprint.  That ambiguity leaves this particular part of the CoC incredibly difficult to police fairly.

If this episode has taught us anything, it is that the boundary between acceptable and inappropriate is different for everyone, as an engrossing exchange between television commentators Michael Holding and Nasser Hussain on Sky Sports during the lunch break proved.  While Hussain criticised the punishment, decrying it as “sanitising” the game, Holding was more pragmatic.  Rabada, he argued, was the motorist with nine points on his licence who continues to test the elasticity of the speed limit. He had only himself to blame.

Is it not possible for both men to be right? Holding’s point is sensible and would absolutely be applicable if Rabada’s actions breached the specifics of the CoC as it is written, but the code is fundamentally flawed to the point of being detrimental to the sport - as noted by Hussain.  Rabada was indeed on a final warning, brought on by three previous offences which all fell within the limited wording of the CoC’s article 2.5. And yes, as a result, he has developed a reputation as something of a loose cannon; a repeat offender; a man on his final warning. But none of those facts should have had any influence in the way this particular incident was assessed.

Which brings us on to another important question: what actually constitutes a “potential” provocation?  There is no universal answer. Every batsman has different motivations, sensitivities and triggers, all of which might be affected by mood, circumstance and timing; that is just human nature. The spectrum of actions which could conceivably lead to an aggressive reaction is so vast that for the ICC’s officials to fairly implement the governing body’s own CoC, they would need to punish a litany of possible infractions.  Rabada’s are more easily identifiable because he is a fiery and fierce fast bowler, who struggles to filter his emotions on the field - especially when he claims the wicket of England’s premier batsman at a vital juncture in a crucial Test match.

Yet a whole-hearted celebration such as his last Thursday is not necessarily more likely to incite a batsman than an under-the-breath remark or gentle gesture from yards away which, without context, might seem innocuous enough for the umpires to either discount or miss altogether.   Only Joe Root can tell us whether he felt like throttling Rabada - but because of the way the code is worded, it would not matter whether he was incandescent with rage or completely oblivious.  That can’t be right. 

Article 2.5 includes any language, action or gesture used by a player and directed towards a batter upon his/her dismissal which has the potential to provoke an aggressive reaction from the dismissed batter, whether or not any reaction results, or which could be considered to disparage or demean the dismissed batter, regardless of whether the batter him/herself feels disparaged or demeaned (in other words, a ‘send-off’).

Without limitation, article 2.5 includes: (a) excessive celebration directed at and in close proximity to the dismissed batter; (b) verbally abusing the dismissed batter; and (c) pointing or gesturing towards the pavilion.  Nothing in this article 2.5 is, however, intended to stop players celebrating, in an appropriate fashion, the dismissal of the opposing team’s batter.  And besides, if we were being truly fair, there would be an equivalent item within the CoC for batsmen.

Should Virat Kohli, for example, be allowed to goad the West Indies’ Kesrick Williams by mocking his wicket celebration or gawping at him in faux awe after hitting the West Indies seamer for six?  Kohli was widely celebrated for those actions in December, and understandably; moments like those bring character and colour into the sport, heighten entertainment levels, and draw eyeballs on social media.   But the argument that they did not amount to provocation is flimsy at best.

Article 2.5 is not the most ambiguous in in the code.  Article 2.20 relates to “all types of conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game and which is not specifically and adequately covered by the specific offences set out elsewhere in this code of conduct”, which, quite frankly, reads like the final 10 paragraphs of a university history student who’s just got wind of a house party. When it comes to governing behaviour, which can have knock-on effects for careers and reputations, specifics matter. 

The code of conduct was introduced in the early 1990s, along with match referees, as part of then-ICC president Colin Cowdrey’s concerted effort to halt what he deemed to be a decline in player behaviour and establish boundaries for the “Spirit of Cricket”.  Its intentions are admirable but, like the players whose attitudes it seek to influence, it is not perfect.  The Rabada incident is a very stark example.