Cricket likes complexities. On the field and also in its laws. In the last few weeks, in different countries, inconsistency in interpretation of rules regarding improper behaviour has come under scrutiny. Mostly, it concerns the rule of awarding demerit points to players found guilty of improper behaviour. Initially, they are warned, then fined. If these points cross a limit over a period, a player can be suspended. But how many points such acts entail depends on how the match referee interprets the matter.
In South Africa, match referee Jeff Crowe finds Kagiso Rabada’s offence grave enough to hand him three demerit points. In Sri Lanka, match referee Chris Broad gives Bangladesh’s Shakib Al Hasan just one, despite finding the captain guilty of asking his team to walk out of a match. Virat Kohli gets away with screaming at outgoing batsmen, while bowlers of various teams get reprimanded for doing the same.
Due to incidents like these, the International Cricket Council’s system dealing with such cases appears flawed. That’s because letting match referees judge how many demerit points one gets means the matter becomes subjective. And if yardsticks vary, inconsistency in judgement is inevitable. This has been debated in the past and there are instances of boards legally contesting a match referee’s verdict and getting it overturned. Needless to say, such incidents embarrass the establishment as well as question the efficiency of its mechanism.
Doing away with the points system is one way of addressing this. Let there be an instant decision from the referee, as soon as someone breaks rules. It can be a fine, warning, ban or even a red card, which was introduced in cricket last October, but is still to be used in the international game. This means action is taken on the spot instead of calculating how many points the guilty has accumulated. Other than expediting the process of delivering judgement, this will reduce complications and talk on what is wrong with the system.