An interesting point has been raised. Should cricketers today "walk" or
maintain their ground? Should a player be brought back if the captain thinks
he is not out (Vishy in the Jubilee test comes to mind) ?
Does the professionalization of the game mean that such acts are "taking
things a little too far" ?
In a broader sense, is a professional attitude at odds with sportsmanship?
Here is my perspective:
As a fan, displays of sporting conduct gladdens the heart and
reinforces some gut feelings and values (which I will leave for a netter
with a better feel for words to fill in). Even if such actions have a
negative impact on "my team's" fortunes, I will consider it well worth it.
I personally do not think my feelings on this issue are limited to cricket.
However, IME (in my experience) such displays are more common in cricket
(albeit becoming increasingly rare) than in other sports I watch/am interested
in.
The question then is what should a professional player do? Is he
obligated to his "customers" - the fans, and his peers, the team - to not
engage in such acts? Do any of the following variations -
What goes around comes around
Things will ultimately even out
We have had our share of bad calls
(and many more)
- have any validity to them? If so, do they take precedence over other
factors (which I elaborate below) ?
The other factors:
Here I attempt to describe other factors that I think should go into helping
a player arrive at such a decision. Any gains made on the playing field by
following the letter, rather than the spirit of the game, detracts from the
value of such gains and their resulting consequences. Now, I am not bringing
up the m***ramifications of such actions, which should be clear. What I am
trying to get at is that, in my opinion, there are valid grounds to engage in
sporting conduct, other than strictly moral. The following statement is, in
my view, applicable to professional players:
All professionals should give their best on the field.
Now if you know that the ball snicked the bat (substitute other such situations
as you please) and you "walk", what you have just done is in keeping with
the above statement, which I shall refer to as the professional paradigm.
If you do not walk, you have cheated this paradigm, because you are pursuing
an avenue beyond what your best was capable of.
The obvious argument against the above will delve into the interpretation of
best. Possibly, a valid point can be made that I am just rephrasing the m***
argument in so many more words. To this I have the following to offer:
If somehow, an oracle could be found to adjudicate the game, the question of
sporting conduct does not arise. The right decision will be made in every
case. Under such circumstances, the "right" result is always achieved.
Clearly then, only those attributes of players that contribute to performance
on the field will count. Thus only the more competent professionals will
triumph.
The argument can be made that as such an oracle does not exist, players should
use whatever means to gain the competitive edge. My counter-arguments to
the above are the following points:
1) Further advances in technology and 2) amendment of the rules (in
cricket, the third umpire; in tennis electronic lining of the court parameters
etc.) are bringing us closer to this ideal. Please no arguments that the
tennis example is frought with problems - it is proffered as an illustration,
nothing more.
Discussions very welcome.
PS: I tried to avoid the m***dimension in my argument but a glance at the
above text shows that I have not been entirely successful :) Maybe, these
issues are too intertwined to extricate successfully. I hope I have gotten
the gist of my point across. However, I am unable to find a suitably
convincing argument of the same, other than this stubborn voice in my head.
can already anticipate the wisecrack "Cuz there are none shithead!".
Oh well ...
Kartik