The third issue is the judgment of the match referee. And this is where the ICC have a major decision to take. It is generally felt that the referee’s job is a good retirement posting. You continue to meet old friends, fly the world and watch cricket and don’t really do anything. And sadly, cricketing stature has often been equated with being worldly-wise and intelligent. Most cricketers are good at hurling a ball and belting it. They may have many other skills, but to assume that they do is dangerous and, indeed, we often expect too much from our cricketers, expecting them to have a considered point of view on most matters. Indeed, few have exposure to other facets of life and certainly very few are equipped to handle a volatile, near-legal hearing. A lawyer can’t bat and a cricketer cannot interpret law unless they have been trained in both professions. And so, a confused Mike Procter ends up accepting one man’s word over another. Unless that is swiftly squashed, the game will be mired in petty squabbles over whose word to accept. So far only mothers have been able to figure that out.

Now Procter has no option but to hand Brad Hogg a three game ban, and at this rate there will be more three game bans than traffic violations. Cricket will become impossible to police, and we will all spend more time playing us and them rather than enjoying a beautiful sport.

Cricket has no option but to ban chatter completely and who knows, in doing so, it might become the hard and pleasant game that all of us seek it to be.

... contd.