The Djinns of Cricket

Had Ian Bell been dismissed at Trent Bridge when he was trying to innocently walk out for his humble cup of tea (really?), it would have certainly opened a Pandora ’s Box. The case is certainly an interesting one as it highlights a greater discrepancy than just being another unusual dismissal. What assumes greater authority, the laws of cricket or “the spirit of cricket”?

To start off with, there is no defined set of directions that may be called the “spirit of cricket” to my knowledge. MCC does host some of the most respected men in world cricket to come and listen to a lecture annually, delivered by men of coherent credentials. The do articulate on the fine nuances of this invisible being, “the spirit”. In the past, people like Sunil Gavaskar and Geoffery Boycott have delivered these lectures, who were incidentally on the opposite sides when Ian Bell’s dismissal came up for debate. To just tell you how worthy these lectures are, Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu lectured at the annual event in 2008.

The Spirit of Cricket

Since, there is no set of defined “directives” that compel a player to act in “spirit of the game” there are other ambiguities that have come to the fore. For instance, a common criticism given when India had finally withdrawn their appeal against Ian Bell was, that why is it that only one team has to uphold the said spirit? It might seem juvenile on first thought but it is not. Since, the spirit of cricket is only a “directive”, an individual or a team may choose to follow it whereas another might choose to flout it.

In a world where sport has attained greater stakes, it is difficult to expect impractical honesty. God forbid, if it’s an India-Pakistan match, a dubious decision taken under the rule-book may undo years of diplomacy! On a more serious note, no team would want to lose out competitively just for the sake of “spirit of cricket” when other teams continue to use it with selectiveness. The trust is marginal and hence, vulnerable.

In the wake of this recent controversy, one may ask why the English appealed when Inzamam was ruled run out while trying to defend himself of a screaming throw by Steven Harmison? This is in fact a much more concerning case, since there is clearly no effort on the batsman’s part to steal a run. Maybe, if the English were scared at the thought of Inzamam casually jumping and changing sides! Ian Bell started jogging instantly after completing the 3^rd run and he had sneaked a look at the fielder the purpose of which can be nothing but to determine the position of the ball.

Irrespective of the technicalities of one particular case, we can safely assume that selective exercise of the “spirit of the game” will only discourage teams and we may end up with nobody upholding it at all. In that context, India made the right decision by calling Ian Bell and in being vocal about the other teams following suit. It is not to say that the Indian team is one of exclusive pure blood. It is only to emphasize that such decisions can change the face of any game, as it did in Peshawar, Pakistan 2006. Coincidentally, the victim was once again Inzamam ul Haq and the victimizers, India.

Flamed by different sorts of "spirits"

Michael Holding did well to emphasize upon the dilemma that I have tried to address in this article. He said, “According to the law he (Inzamam) is out, he is out of his ground, he is out of his crease…but I know a lot of laws in the game that people don’t appeal for, and am not too sure if that’s in the spirit of the game.” India won that match and considering the margins that one decision might have been very crucial. We can’t say it for certain, but maybe had Ian Bell not been called back, India could have won at Trent Bridge. Irrespective of that, the dilemma remains.

There are more connotations to the selective application of the spirit of cricket as have been principally raised by Sunil Gavaskar. He has held through his career as a cricketer and as a cricket commentator that cricketers from the sub-continent have suffered for “non-cricketing reasons”. He was himself involved in a controversial attempted walkout when adjudged leg-before wicket wrongly; he was annoyed by the antics of his opponent who crossed all humanly limits during and after the appeal.

The ICC needs to interfere in some manner and produce more than a word of appreciation for a side that passingly upholds the spirit when it likes. In what specific manner, is something that more knowledgeable people than I should discuss? For the moment, ay wonder what is that spirit of cricket!