Ian Chappell: Sledging on cricket field has gone too far, offenders should be given suspensions

DAVID Warner is a recidivist when it comes to agitation but administrators deserve as much blame as the cricketers for the escalation in confrontations.

22/11/2008 SPORT: Ian Chappell. Headshot. Pic. Supplied

David Warner is the poster boy for misbehaviour on the international cricket field.

Warner is a recidivist when it comes to agitation on the cricket field but he’s far from the only guilty player and the administrators deserve as much blame as the cricketers for the escalation in confrontations.

WARNER FINDS FRIENDS IN AKRAM, BELL

THE ICC HAS DROPPED THE BALL ON DISCIPLINE

A major concern with on-field misbehaviour is the administrators lack of understanding of the simple premise, the more you allow players to say on the field, the more likely it is something personal will be said. If such a comment is uttered at the wrong moment then there’ll be trouble.

Any time two combatants are ‘going at it’ on the field one will have a bat in his hand. A bat is a dangerous weapon. If there’s an altercation on the field it could easily turn ugly and that day is looming as the ‘war of words’ escalates.

When it comes to on-field behaviour in cricket there’s a lot of fiction among the offered opinions. Let’s try and decipher what is fiction.

The greatest fallacy is that the chatter; “Is part of the game.”

Excess chatter has become part of the game, because it’s virtually been condoned by the administrators failure to apply stiff penalties, having fallen for the “it’s part of the game” line and the encouragement of coaches and captains.

It shouldn’t be part of the game as a batsman is entitled to peace and quiet in the middle. Some players thrive on a verbal battle but most are distracted by it and they need to stand up for themselves and let the umpires know they want it stopped. What would happen if the batsmen started talking to the bowlers as they walked back to their mark?

There would be an outcry. So does that mean that only the fielding team is allowed to agitate on the field?

It’s eleven versus one out in the middle. Baiting is not part of the game, it’s not being tough, it’s bullying.

The mystical “line” is fiction. “We know there’s a line and we try not to cross it,” is a common catch cry from players. Ask a player; “Where is the line?” and I’ll bet he can’t give you a plausible answer.

“That’s how we need to play to be aggressive,” is another catch cry, mostly from Australian players. Bollocks.

Two of the more aggressive and most competitive fast bowlers I batted against, Andy Roberts of the West Indies and John Snow of England, never said a word to me on the field. Nevertheless, I wasn’t in any doubt I was in a fierce contest and they were hellbent on my demise. They conveyed that message with their testing deliveries, the occasional glare and their positive body language. They didn’t need to say a word.

The ICC have stated they’re going to clamp down on misbehaviour during the World Cup.

Why the sudden decision to crack down? Is it because it’s a world event and they don’t want any ugly incidents being beamed to millions?

The ICC should’ve cracked down a long time ago but in their inimitable fashion they only react to things as they happen on the field rather than being proactive. Now we have more and more instances of players entering the fray rather than just one-on-one confrontations.

Because so much of cricket’s administration is haphazard — some of it is run by the ICC and the rest by the individual boards — there’s far too much opportunity for buck-passing. It’s easier to say; “That’s not under our jurisdiction,” rather than come up with a serious deterrent.

The ICC should’ve directed the umpires to get tough with baiters and told the arbiters they would then back them to the hilt with sizeable player suspensions. If a couple of players had been outed for a decent length of time the message would quickly have got through and the cricketers would’ve known exactly where that line was.

I had misgivings when the idea of international cricket coaches was originally mooted and the major concern was one of justification. Would the coach be making his decisions in the best interest of the players and the team or on him retaining his job and the big contract that went with it?

In the words of former Prime Minister Paul Keating; “Always back self-interest because you know it’s a goer.”

Just like soccer coaches who encourage jersey tugging and diving, a cricket coach looking for victories to retain his contract will try and gain an “edge” by urging his players to bait the opposition.

It’s not part of the game and the line was crossed long ago. It’s bullying and it needs to be treated as such.