The forgotten law

September 1, the day the revisions to cricket's playing conditions made by the ICC's Cricket Committee-Playing officially came into affect, might be as quickly forgotten as one of its trial laws.

Amid the progressive and innovative updates, like mandating the use of lights and the addition of bonus points to maintain interest in dull tri-series events, is the pointless extension of the penalty runs rule to cover a wider range of disciplinary breaches.

It must have miscreant cricketers running scared. After being penalised only for some offences, players can now be hit with five for a range of breaches, but only for a trial period of 12 months. It may as well be a permanent 15-run penalty for all the difference it will make to improving player behaviour.

Seriously, has anyone even noticed that for the last 12 months, on-field disciplinary breaches have been punishable by the docking of runs? Have you witnessed a decline in sledging and dissent as more players have begun observing the spirit of the game in the knowledge their verbal bouncers will soon be hit for four by umpires?

The wise and experienced members of the Cricket Committee-Playing must have thought they were inviting controversy when they initially introduced the penalty runs concept for ill conduct. It sounded like a strong deterrent, seemed simple enough in theory, and was surely designed to help quell the outcries against the bad behaviour that is undoubtedly present in the game.

In reality, like the old chucking law, it is a disaster waiting to happen in the hands of an autonomous umpire, if indeed anything happens at all, which it won't. The law will join the ranks of several others that are observed in the rule book rather than in practice.

The penalty runs concept seemed to originate from the desire to curb sledging, the seriousness of which depending on who you believe, as this form of intimidation falls under the category "deliberate attempt to distract striker while preparing to receive or receiving a delivery".

But if sledging and violations other than dissent (which is punished so adeptly by match referees rather than umpires) are so prevalent as to warrant the introduction of a penalty runs rule, why have no players in recent memory even been reported for the offence? It's not like bad behaviour has suddenly become illegal in the past couple of years. In the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials, there are already rules against it. Section C, point 4: "Players and/or Team Officials shall not verbally abuse, assault, intimidate or attempt to assault or intimidate any umpire, spectator, Referee, Player or Team Official."

Given that, if sledging has been occurring and the umpires have negligently opted not to act against it, then they will continue to do so whether the penalty for it is 5, 10 or 15 runs. There is no point in introducing a penalty for something umpires are incapable of or unwilling to notice.

Important decisions against players are no longer supposed to be made by umpires and this is where all forms of umpire-enforced penalties fall down. The advent of the match referee has undermined the arbitrator role of the umpire, as the ICC has ensured that influential actions by umpires have become diluted by convoluted processes.

By way of example, a report of a bowler for throwing no longer has the impact it once did, which is positive for the bowler as it need not be a disastrous setback, but at the same time must have the umpires questioning their own authority in serious cases. Once upon a time, when the term "sports science" would have been thought an oxymoron, being called for throwing virtually meant the end of a bowler's career. Now, being reported for having a suspect action has minimal immediate effect. Cricket boards can effectively ignore a report, since a bowler has to be reported at least twice within 12 months before bearing any consequences.

In the first Test between India and Sri Lanka, Steve Bucknor reported Suresh Perera for having a suspect action, but he was selected for the second Test regardless. How must Bucknor have felt? Despite what the law states, the reality is that umpires can no longer call bowlers for throwing in all but the most blatant cases, which for a contentious judgement is never. The strongest action they can reasonably take is to make a report.

Suspect bowlers are perfectly entitled to keep playing, but it has to be frustrating for umpires that their concerns, in the short term, are effectively ignored. Perera's action may be perfectly clean and it would be grossly unfair on him to be suspended when he has a legitimate action. But even if a bowler's action is blatantly illegal, there is little an umpire can do about it without creating a storm of controversy and jeopardising his future.

Since umpires were effectively barred from calling bowlers for throwing (some would say barred from calling front-foot no-balls, too!), when have they ever adjudicated on instant punishments?

Umpires have had their authority gradually eroded to such an extent that they are now accustomed to letting others make the important decisions. Match referees handle impropriety, the ICC acts on throwing concerns, and the third umpire rules on contentious dismissals. Through no real fault of their own, umpires are not in a position to actually take a stand on anything, which is why they will continue to distance themselves from the penalty runs rule as much as possible. Individual actions, whether or not taken with positive intentions, bring nothing but disrepute upon an umpire.

Unless some brave umpire is prepared to put his reputation on the line, the five-run penalty law will join the other conduct regulations as a nominal rule existing on paper alone.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw