Just Not Cricket!

By the time you read this, the State Elections will be over, or at least the votes will have been cast, and the Iraq "war" will have moved in directions no one would have expected. But, apart from these two big issues, there was another matter which received considerable attention in the media last week. And this issue could well turn out to be more significant for the future than either the Elections or the War.

The matter of such deep seriousness, and long-term significance is the fact that, in the cricket match between Australia and Sri Lanka, Adam Gilchrist walked! For those lesser mortals who are not followers of the game of cricket, let me explain. An incident occurred where Gilchrist took a swipe at the ball, which cannoned off his pads into the air, and was caught. The umpire declared him to be "Not Out", apparently on the assumption that he had not connected with the ball. However, in spite of the Umpire's decision, Adam Gilchrist walked to the dressing room because , as he told the later press conference, he knew he had definitely hit the ball.

Ritchie Benaud, a former Test Captain and now and aging commentator, declared at the time that this was "a wonderful moment for sport". However, other younger cricketers roundly criticised Gilchrist for "jeopardising Australia's chances".

This was much more than a discussion about a particular form of sport, about which some Australians are quite fanatical. The real issue was the underlying moral debate between the maintenance of personal values of honesty and integrity versus the bigger demands of the team, or the nation, and the desire to win at all costs. This debate is occurring almost daily in all forms of sport, and even more intensely in the realm of business.

However, in the game of cricket it is shown up more clearly than, perhaps, anywhere else. From its earliest origins on the village greens of England, and especially from its promotion in the English Public Schools, the game of cricket has traditionally been associated with moral rectitude. It was a game for gentlemen, who might be absolute cads off the field, but once they donned their whites they were expected to "play the game". This involved accepting the Umpire's decision without complaint and owning up when you knew you had been fairly caught out. So strong was this sense of moral uprightness that the term "that's just not cricket" came into general use for those who had broken, or bent, the rules in all sorts of circumstances.

It was this attitude that Adam Gilchrist displayed, and was so applauded by Richie Benaud. But new, opposing attitudes have been creeping into the game of cricket over the past few decades. Perhaps it is because the game has grown in countries that do not hold to the same ethical standards as do the English. More probably it results from the fact that western society has moved far from the Christian ethical values, the question for most is not "Is it right?", but "can I get away with it?" or "does it give a good result?".

The desire to win at all costs and the ethical view that the end justifies the means is rampant in our society today. This is not only on the sporting field, but in politics, in business, in our schools and in our personal lives. It is the culture that is subtly sucking us all in if we are not alert.

In the political campaign that has just ended there has been so much of this displayed. Promises were made that no one ever expects to be fulfilled. The truth was often "manipulated" to produce a desired result and the role of "spin doctor" has become an essential part of modern politics, on both sides. The tragedy is that this has become so widespread that people almost expect it.

Congratulations to Adam Gilchrist for acting on principle, rather than espediency. I do not know if he is a Christian, but he was certainly displaying Christian values. In the course of the game, Australia could well have lost. But it is better to lose being honest than to win by cheating. As the writer of Proverbs said thousands of years ago; "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." (Prov 14:34)

With regard to the war in Iraq, similar issues apply. The ultimate criteria are not the final body count of Iraqis, Americans or Australians, the supposed benefits for oil, trade, etc. or even the establishment of 'democracy.' The real issues is whether this is the right way to deal with a regime that has brought terror and suffering to many, has consistently broken the agreement it made as a basis for peace in 1991, and has thumbed its nose at the lawful authority of the umpire.

It's just not cricket!

John Davies

23 March 2003