Opinion | Ian Chappell >> Can the chatter The ICC doesn't need to define on-field abuse, as it has recently attempted to do. It needs to ask umpires to report players who indulge in it March 30, 2008 Umpires should demand that captains crack down on sledging by their players © AFP One of the C's in ICC should stand for Confusion, following the jumbled alphabet the organisation sent out in the guise of a letter to international captains and officials asking for an improvement in on-field behaviour. A body famous for its inertia, the speed of the ICC's response to a cancer that has been spreading for at least a decade was downright glacial. The ICC all but admitted the problem had it totally flummoxed, saying in the letter; "It is impossible to define which words or combination of words will be regarded as offensive." The ICC doesn't need to provide a definition. What they need to do is ask umpires to report any player guilty of abusing an opponent and then make sure the first offender receives a stiff penalty. Then they should demand that captains crack down on the amount of inane chatter indulged in by their players, and ensure that any batsman who takes the law into his own hands in quieting the fielding side is awarded a medal for doing the game a belated service, rather than be reported for a misdemeanour. If batsmen hadn't become so timid in the face of a mounting barrage, the incidence of inane chatter would have been substantially reduced. In 1980 at the SCG, the Englishman Derek Randall's constant, "Well bowled, Deadly" from silly mid-off every time I played a Derek Underwood delivery with the middle of the bat, became rather tiresome. Consequently I politely pointed out to Randall that at the first opportunity I would cover-drive his head instead of the ball if he didn't shut up. This short, sharp reminder had the desired effect and I was able to go on batting in relative quiet, which is the way a batsman should be able to conduct his business in the middle. If, as modern players regularly assert, inane chatter is "part of the game", then why don't batsmen talk to the bowler while he's running up? It was fascinating to read the response of some Australian players to the ICC's letter - basically along the same lines as pace bowler Stuart Clark's thoughts: "It's going to be very boring for six hours if you can't talk to one another and can't do anything like that. What is a sledge and what's not a sledge is my big question there." I would assert the opposite: it is bloody boring having to endure the constant inane chatter, and I've never associated a hard-fought contest on the cricket field with boredom. It seems to have become accepted wisdom that "hard men" have a lot to say on the cricket field. The two toughest opposing fast bowlers I encountered were John Snow of England and Andy Roberts of the West Indies and not one word ever passed between us on the field. Mind you, if looks could have killed I wouldn't be typing this column. There are two adages I think have stood the test of time on the cricket field. Firstly, Plato's "Empty vessels make the loudest sound", and secondly, a common saying among cricketers, "Never upset a good player because he'll only perform better."     In 1980 at the SCG, Derek Randall's constant, "Well bowled, Deadly" from silly mid-off every time I played a Derek Underwood delivery with the middle of the bat, became rather tiresome. Consequently I politely pointed out to Randall that at the first opportunity I would cover-drive his head instead of the ball if he didn't shut up   The act of working on the opposition's "mental disintegration", as preached by former Australian captain Steve Waugh, is premeditated and a recent phenomenon. There were words spoken on the field when I played, some of them angry, some abusive and some humorous, but they were the result of spur-of-the moment action and reaction. If someone overstepped the mark he was spoken to by the umpire, and if that didn't resolve the issue the player was reported. The ICC has failed to earn the respect of players and, I suspect, most umpires. Not surprising when it allows the Indian board to run roughshod over it, and does nothing to rein in a recalcitrant Zimbabwe, but strongly disciplines umpires Darrell Hair and Steve Bucknor and the officials in the World Cup final debacle. Recently the ICC has been guilty of bringing the game into disrepute on a far greater scale than the players and yet here it is asking the cricketers to raise the bar. If the ICC was to substantially lift its standards, then perhaps the players wouldn't have reason to be angry at what is perceived as unfair treatment to them, and be confused by a nonsensical letter. © Cricinfo

 Read Comments (30)

Comments on this story

Comments have now been closed for this article

Read all 30 comments

Posted by ElsiMarli on April 01 2008, 11:25 AM GMT

I don't have a problem with a bit of friendly banter, but things get stupid when things turn to abuse. But where to draw the line between friendly banter and abusive language?

Posted by Nampally on March 31 2008, 15:46 PM GMT

Ian, Your thoughts are noble and correct. All Cricket lovers agree that there is no place for sledging in Cricket but is the controlling body ICC willing to ACT. All our comments are wasted if there is no ACTION. ICC should be run by keen retired Cricketers who want to clean the game and provide a level playing field for all member countries.There are a number of major issues which need urgent attentions, some of them I am including for discussion and comments: 1. Ban sledging of all forms to provide a good environment - Details in my earlier comments 2. Use the latest TV technology to adjudge all caught behinds, runouts, stumpings and LBW's. 3. Increase the panel of international Umpires making it mandatory for each country to contribute at least 3 Umpires. 4. Make ICC more accountable to Cricket related actions rather than politiking. The ICC chief should be elected based on his/her standing in cricket -no politicians. This is the only way to clean up Cricket & politcs riddled ICC.

Posted by A_PROUD_INDIAN on March 31 2008, 12:41 PM GMT

Its a tricky situation! One cannot completely remove "on field talking" but also can't let it go out of hand. Its perfectly fine if a bowler bowls a good bouncer or yorker and says "Try to hit that for SIX!!" But just keep on abusing someone every now and then is nothing but a spoil sport, not willing to accept his opponent's superiority. We can't keep making rules for everything, its up to the players to understand the boundaries and to respect their fellow opponents. Its quite clear that its Australia is at the center of the storm. They have always crossed the line when their top spot is challenged. But there are no two ways that they are far ahead of other teams. But they need to accept a rising opponent with grace, and fight it with bat & bowl rather than words.

Posted by guptavipulv on March 31 2008, 08:58 AM GMT

Is it any wonder that the ICC is a joke as far as sporting organisations go in this day and age? One of the reasons for its pathetic posturing is that it is being run by people who do not have the vision and foresight! The 15 degree rule of flexing on chucking and the 2007 world cup which was the MOST BORING OF ALL WORLD CUPS IN THE HISTORY OF SPORT are the most glaring examples that immediately spring to mind. One of the most simple and best solutions would be to give the umpires on the field more power and closely monitor the performances of the umpires on a regular basis.

Posted by rassie on March 31 2008, 06:41 AM GMT

Sledging is supposed to be comments on the pitch to break the batsman's concentration after he has played a delivery or tried to play at one. But the game still has to be played in the spirit of sport. A true sportsman acknoledges when he has been beaten, and will applaude his rivals for doing so. Even SA disgraced captain Hansie Cronje would not tollerate his team for doing what the Aussies have done. Stop the sledging if you can't control it. Do it but yet in the spirit of the game...SA

Posted by Number_5 on March 31 2008, 02:09 AM GMT

Simply put, the ICC governs the game of cricket through its Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct is the set of values the test playing teams agree the game should be played according to. If a team thinks a rule ("sledging" in this case) needs to be changed it can put the rule forward to the ICC for discussion and debate and it can be voted on by all teams and changed if all teams agree it needs to be changed. You cant compare racism and sledging, because they are not the same things and are treated differently by the Code of Conduct . Different teams will always have different opinions (just read this site to see that), but must abide by what the majority and there for the Code of Conduct agree is the way to play the game. This whole debate is getting tiresome, the process is not complicated, it just needs some leadership to ensure it is managed correctly...

Posted by hawkeye58 on March 30 2008, 18:42 PM GMT

First of all...Well said Mr Chappel. Ban it outright. Why should one even accept ANY form of banter. You don't see Federer and Nadal exchanging words. Or Tiger Woods and Phil Michelson exchange unpleasant words. If they can ply their trade with silent decorum, why can't our cricketers? And do not forget, a round of championship golf lasts almost as long as a days cricket, and that too without lunch and tea breaks to ease the monotony. The stakes involved in a top golf or tennis tournament is higher than any cricket match will ever be. If the contention is that 2 hours of silent behaviour per session, will be boring, then players are welcome to use IPods and listen to music or soul stirring foul language. Since one will never be able to define what words are acceptable or not, the logical answer would be to ban any banter in any form, except game related words like "catch it" or "it's my catch". Any other words would result in a red card, and off goes the player for that day

Posted by ivanjoseph on March 30 2008, 17:57 PM GMT

Chappell likes to point out Steve Waugh - it is no secret that there is no love lost between the two and Chappell likes Ponting so won't say anything against him. Chappell himself was no angel and his brother had a similar 'win at all costs' attitude. The Aussies are the worst perpetrators - shut them up and we won't have any issues.

Posted by saratchandran on March 30 2008, 17:18 PM GMT

if Stuart Clark finds it boring playing international test cricket and ODI , he is not suppose to play this game. It is a game where the players are not expected to derive pleasure or enjoying the playing time by sledging. One has to focus on their primary task. Where has time for fielders who are dispersed the in the ground and the bowler (a thinking) must be thoroughly engaged . How can a sincere player keep boring by playing such a level of cricket.

Posted by OnePercentGenius on March 30 2008, 15:07 PM GMT

Do you think a yellow card, red card system, like in football will work? Or at least first warning, second warning system like a bowler running on the pitch...(if the player doesn't behave, he is sent off the field).

Add to del.icio.us | digg this | Stumble It What's this? If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content on cricket, you may use these buttons. When you add them to any of these sites, you "social bookmark" them for others to find and rate. More on del.icio.us>> More on digg>> More on stumbleupon>> Close

WI v Aus edition now live - Play now Cricinfo Cricket Quiz NEW fantasy cricket game - England v South Africa (starts July 10) Login and enter your team now Cricinfo on the go - our mobile services WAP and Mobicast