A letter to Simon Taufel
by S. Skandakumar
Dear Mr. Taufel
As you were an Umpire who was held in the highest esteem throughout your tenure, I read your comments on the Bairstow dismissal with interest. Since it was an incident that raised comments from two Prime Ministers and turned the sacred Long Room at Lord’s temporarily into an angry English football stadium, I thought of writing to you.
I am not an International Cricketer but have played the game at the highest level in my country Sri Lanka, and also been an administrator of the game having held the position of Hony Secretary and Vice Chairman of the Sri Lanka Cricket Board in times gone by.I have also been a non professional Radio and TV commentator on cricket in the pre-new millennium period.
In 1990 I attended on behalf of our Board a meeting of the Chief Executives of the seven Test playing nations of that time which was Chaired by the late Sir Colin Cowdrey.The event was convened by the ICC to discuss the future of the game, including its marketing, and was held over three days in October of that year in the committee room of Lord’s.On the Agenda were items as ‘Match Referee’, ‘Third Umpire’ ‘A Chief Executive for the ICC’ and a ‘Code of Conduct for Players’ all of which came to pass.
Thirty three years later, a serious review of the fourth item will reflect its own share of violations / infringements and yet through those sessions at Lords the main focus was obvious, viz to ensure an environment for continuing to play the game through the laws as laid down, whereby no player would be allowed to take any unfair advantage or be indisciplined..
Returning to your valid analysis of the sequence of events leading to the dismissal of Bairstow, therefore, nowhere can it be said that he attempted any unfair advantage.He was undisputedly at fault for walking down the pitch before over was called. Alex Carey was well within the rules and his rights to throw the stumps down and the umpire was quite right in ruling him out.
My point here is should there not be mitigating considerations when no advantage is sought in a careless oversight?
I mention this for future consideration as I note that you are on a sub-committee for the Laws of Cricket.Could some thought be given for Umpire discretion being incorporated in matters such as these where no unfair advantage is sought by a player in an unwitting action that results in his dismissal. Unruly behaviour is naturally excluded!
In fact, it is my vague recollection that the ‘Players Code of Conduct’ as framed then may have even encouraged men as Carey to have warned the batsman when the infringement was initially observed . One can well imagine the impact that gesture could have had on millions of viewers: one that may well have elevated the game and the Ashes to a premium level of goodwill, while the battle continued to be fiercely fought!
Finally, I would like to share my introduction to cricket sixty-five years ago at age ten at Royal Primary School in Colombo.On my first day in the nets, my cricket master took me to a board on the boundary which read, ‘When that one great scorer comes to write against your name, he writes not that you won or lost but how you played the game.’
I never ever forgot those profound words!
That one great scorer has long since passed on and those lines have seen progressive change to “He now writes only that you won or lost and not how you played the game.”
Should we resurrect that One Scorer and ring in the old values?
The current laws with Umpire discretion may achieve that.
If the game has changed in its values since that crucial 1990 ICC meeting, it may well be because we have let it happen!
Kind regards and many blessings in your well-earned retirement.
Sports Editor’s Note:
This writer played school cricket for Royal College and First Class cricket for Tamil Union. He went onto become the Chairman of George Steuart’s, the nation’s leading business establishment and was later Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to Australia.
