There has been quite a lot of debate recently about what is meant by the spirit of cricket.
The controversial dismissal of English batsman Jonny Bairstow by the Australians in the second ashes test at Lord’s recently, having ignited this discussion. According to the rules he was correctly given out, but the English players in particular alleged that the Australians had not acted in the spirit of the game and their unsporting behaviour enabled this dismissal to happen. Some sour feelings were evident in the Long Room at Lord’s afterwards. The respective countries’ prime ministers also entered the fray with predictably diverging views.
It seems now a level of civility has been restored though for teams and spectators incidents like this are not forgotten.
So what is the spirit of cricket? In simple terms it is a notion of absolute fair play where winning is important, but not at all costs. In 2000, when cricket’s code of laws was introduced, it included for the first time a preamble on the spirit of cricket.
This states "Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its laws but also within the spirit of the game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself."
I grew up long before technology played a role in the game. School boy cricket in South Otago during the 1960s was relatively uncomplicated. A number of concrete cricket pitches could be found in farmer’s paddocks throughout the district. A rudimentary mat was usually laid on top.
Sheep sometimes had to be temporarily relocated. Unlike Lord’s the outfields were not manicured. Rabbit holes and other indentations could be a trap for the unwary. Boundaries weren’t always clearly defined so there was reliance on the honesty of a fielder to indicate whether a four or six had been scored.
Stumps in those days never ignited in a blinding flash of colour on impact such as the case in the modern, shorter versions of cricket. An umpire from respective teams gave the appearance, but doubtful, sense of impartiality.
At the provincial and international levels of cricket there were a few batsmen who, if they knew or thought they had connected with the ball leading to a catch would walk even if given not out by an umpire. Such players gained a lot of respect, with their actions being very much in the spirit of the game.
The 1932-33 Ashes series in Australia was a low point in this regard. The English pace bowlers were encouraged to bowl at the chest of the opposing batsman in the hope that by having to protect themselves, they would be more likely to edge deliveries leading to dismissals. This was aggressive and dangerous bowling at a time when players had no helmets or upper body protection. Clearly this was not in the spirit of the game.
Nor were the events in a one day international cricket match between Australia and New Zealand in 1981, with the fallout from that match still resonating more than five decades on. New Zealand was batting. They were eight wickets down and required six runs off the final delivery to achieve a draw. Brian McKechnie was the batsman facing.
Australian captain Greg Chappell asked his brother Trevor who was the bowler, to send an underarm delivery along the ground making it impossible for the batsman to score the required runs. The bowler duly obliged.
Not surprisingly this precipitated a massive transtasman war of words. Oddly enough at the time, this type of bowl was permitted under the rules of cricket but was subsequently banned.
Memories are long. Whether playing backyard cricket or at Lord’s, the spirit of the game is crucially important. The last two lines of a cricketing poem capture this sentiment.
"For in the game of cricket, Victory is sweet,
But it’s the spirit of the game that can’t be beat."
— Joss Miller is a retired Dunedin lawyer.
