For years the MCC could be relied on for its crustiness, an unwavering bastion of the old establishment, but you cannot trust it to behave according to expectation in the 21st century.
Suspicions have been aroused for a while – the advent of a sign erected outside the toilets at the back of a stand at Lord’s has been a bit of a giveaway. “Gentlemen” it proclaims but underneath is added: “Nappy Changing Facilities Available.” One can only surmise what Gubby Allen, a former president whose hand was constantly on the MCC tiller in the post-war years, would have made of that.
Further evidence has surfaced in Mumbai, where the MCC World Committee, chaired by Mike Brearley, has announced radical plans for the game. Changes are afoot that relate to umpires being given the power to eject players from the match, limitations to the size of a bat and renewed advocacy for cricket to be part of the Olympics. His committee also discussed the merits of four-day Tests and in a very modern way no absolute conclusion was reached as it was acknowledged both sides had excellent arguments to put forward.
The possible introduction of a red card in cricket is the most striking innovation. Umpires have never had the authority to send a player from the field. The expectation of the MCC in the past made this unnecessary. It was assumed the captain, inevitably an amateur, could be trusted to patrol the game and if necessary dispatch one of his players from the field for poor behaviour.
The notion of a red card has been prompted more because of the decline in standards in the recreational game than the professional one. A survey by Portsmouth University suggested 40% of British umpires said episodes of abuse made them question whether or not to continue umpiring.
Even so, there have been moments in cricket’s rich history when the red card would have been used had it been available at the highest level.
Shakoor Rana may not have resisted the temptation to pluck his red card from his pocket when Mike Gatting was waving his forefinger in his direction in Faisalabad in 1987. Mind you, it is hard to imagine the production of a red card would have helped to defuse that situation.
A red card might have been appropriate for the West Indies’ Sylvester Clarke in Multan in 1980. Having been struck by an orange when fielding on the boundary an enraged Clarke picked up the nearest thing to hand – sadly it was a brick – and he threw it into the crowd, striking a spectator on the head. In Toronto in 1997 when India were playing Pakistan Inzamam-ul-Haq was so fed up with abuse from a spectator he asked his 12th man to bring out his bat with which he marched into the stands in pursuit of his tormentor. Probably a red-card offence.
The most graceful act of dissent was delivered by Michael Holding in Dunedin 1979 when he demolished the stumps at the batsman’s end in the wake of New Zealand’s John Parker being given not out after an appeal for caught behind (by all accounts he hit it). There being no recourse to a yellow card, Holding may well have had to see red in the 21st century, which would have left his captain one bowler/fielder/batsman short for the rest of the game.
The expectation – and hope – is the red card will be a deterrent, seldom if ever used, but we can be guaranteed there will be someone next summer who attains the accolade of becoming the first cricketer sent off by an umpire. Let us hope he or she does not attain celebrity status. If it happens in an international match, which is less likely since the retirement of Darrell Hair, send for Ban Ki-moon.
Checking the increasing size of a cricket bat has my support. The move halts an illogical pattern. In golf there are clubs that hit the ball farther than ever so what have they tried to do? Lengthen the courses. In cricket bats hit the ball further and what has happened? They keep reducing the size of the boundaries. Mishit sixes demean the game. However the changes proposed will not greatly alter the appearance or effectiveness of modern bats; they merely halt a trend. The relief for bowlers will be minimal.
However, those bowlers will be able to claim the odd victim who has been caught off a fielder’s helmet. This change in the regulation tallies since an English fielder close to the bat is now obliged to wear a helmet, whether he or she wants to or not. There is no choice because of safety considerations, in which case it makes sense that a ricochet catch should now count.
Yet it remains irresistible to ponder how my first county captain, Brian Close, would have reacted to all this. He never wore a helmet at short leg, nor would he have done so in the helmeted era if that took away the chance of a ricochet catch off his forehead. Moreover I have a distant memory of Close, the antithesis of the old amateur, once sending off a much-travelled Somerset paceman but that was not because the bowler had abused the opposition or an umpire. He had merely exasperated his captain beyond endurance.
