As the dust settles in the aftermath of the Sydney test match, an important development has emerged from the debris. As statesmen debate the semantics of "monkey" and "bastard", Anil Kumble and Ricky Ponting have quietly
revoked the catching agreement implemented at the start of the series.
While inevitable, this move is significant in its implications about the absurdities of cricketers self-adjudicating their contests. The equilibrium required for this to be workable would be a climate where every single individual acquiesced to an agreement of this kind. However a single defiant batsman or over-eager fielder would render such an agreement useless, particularly when exacerbated by horrific umpiring as was the case at Sydney.
Unfortunately the issue has been cloaked by the rhetoric of the 'spirit of cricket' whereby it seen as virtuous to walk when they know they are out or to accept the opinion of your opponents on contested catches. Stephen Fleming seemed to sum up the basic ethos of this movement best:
"I'm a traditionalist. I still like the human element."
The fallacy of equating the quirks and nuances of the game with the method of arbitration on its rules is the main issue here. At the risk of overt partisanship, I failed to see the humanity in Andrew Symonds being gifted the oppurtunity to compile an extra 130 runs, or the early curtailment of the innings of Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly on the fifth day.
While many issues emerged from the maelstrom, let's hope that the rest of the series can at least take a cue from the proper dismissal of these ridiculous gentlemen's agreements.
