Appeals appal and cricket loses its shine

When it comes to excessive appealing, international cricketers cannot be trusted. How else do you explain why, after every thunderous yet rejected appeal, there’s not an immediate request for the DRS process?

If you, the hard-charging bowler, are that convinced that you’ve trapped the batter lbw or induced an edge through to the wicketkeeper, then why, when the umpire has turned down your vociferous demand that a wicket falls, do you not insist beyond all debate that your skipper must call upon the television umpire to fix this egregious crime that’s befallen you?

The suspicion is that the bowler – and usually the surrounding fielders also – are endeavouring to overtly persuade the umpire to give a decision they themselves are not full of conviction for.

That feels disingenuous at the least and more in line – once ball-tracker has confirmed it – with deception.

Appealing has come a long and undignified way since it was a polite inquiry of the men in white coats, of which television, and its reward for attention-seeking, bears its share of blame.

Appealing excessively constitutes a Level 1 offence, as does advancing towards an umpire in an aggressive manner when appealing, yet players are seldom hauled over the coals for these indiscretions.

Bangladesh were guilty of appealing excessively during their recent twotest series here – although not in the eyes of match

referee Jeff

Crowe. The tourists could probably be excused with having chiefly innocent aims mixing with excited overenthusiasm, particularly during New Zealand’s second innings in the first test at Bay Oval as Bangladesh drew closer to a remarkable away victory.

The other reasoning for pointless, over-exuberant appeals is that the offenders are simply awful judges of what’s out and not out. You’d suspect an elite cricketer would be a great judge of whether the ball has missed or hit the bad, or struck the pad before the bat, than anyone else – yet we’ve been bombarded with proof this summer that’s incontrovertibly not so.

On that field, Bangladesh are far from alone.

Marnus Labuschagne hilariously displayed during the latter stages of the Ashes series he has no clue and should be directed by Australian skipper Pat Cummins to give the appealing lark an extravagant leave, while the Black

Caps also occasionally waste breath and energy.

Appeals are a necessary part of cricket – in Law 31 of The Laws of Cricket, an umpire shall not give a batter out without an appeal, but with room for the batter to wander back to the pavilion for the most obvious of dismissals.

But a questioning ‘‘How’s That?’’, or the shortened form (‘howzat?’) that Sherbet rhapsodised about, seems no longer to be enough for the rampaging inquisitors, who descend upon the umpire accompanied by an impenetrable self-belief that their pleas could be answered in no other way than the affirmative.

It’s a Level 3 offence to intimidate an umpire by language or gesture, and many appeals now are pushing towards, if not already, entering that zone.

We regularly witness the unedifying sight of the bowler sprinting off in their follow-through without looking at the umpire, arms aloft in triumph.

The ‘celebrappeal’ – partcelebration, part-appeal – has

England’s Stuart Broad is its bestknown practitioner, but the headbanded one is far from the sole miscreant indulging in the ugliest form of ‘asking a question’.

The ‘celebrappeal’ could be seen as a Level 3 offence – it’s certainly intimating that the batter is unquestionably out and any umpire would be a buffoon to adjudge otherwise.

Hence a proposal here that any international cricketer guilty of performing a ‘celebrappeal’ and then

not insisting on a referral if given not out should face a minimum one-match ban.

Batters, you don’t get off scot free either – walking when you know you’re out would help, as

would not acting like a pork chop from fourth slip for an lbw appeal.

The Black Caps have earned widespread praise recently for how they play the game in relation to the spirit of cricket – who better to

lead the way?