Cricket no place for code violations

CIVILITY has been an issue in cricket since the time of the "ugly Australians". It was never about turning cricketers into toastmasters, wallflower or monks, but it is about developing an acceptance that it is possible to play fierce and confrontational games without suspending all the rules of civil life.

Ten years ago, the International Cricket Council introduced a formal code of conduct. Seven years ago, the ICC revamped it. Six years ago, Australia produced its own code that was even more stringent than the ICC's. Meantime, international codes injuncting sexism, racism and drug-taking were brought into force. The line that must not be crossed could hardly be clearer.

Today's budding international cricketer is drafted into elite squads from a young age, then into one or a series of academies, then into professional outfits. All these are under the supervision of accredited coaches and managers. Collectively, they amount not merely to training, but to a supposed education in the game in all its aspects. One is appropriate behaviour.

Shane Watson is 28. He has been a cricketer all his life. He has played all his cricket under the game's myriad codes. He has never known a time when there was not a minimum acceptable level of decent conduct on the cricket field. He has never known a time when there was not a clear line that could not be crossed.

About Watson, it can assuredly be said that he should know better. Yet upon dismissing Chris Gayle in Perth, Watson flaunted his success in the face of the departing Gayle in as childish a display as can be imagined from a notionally grown-up man. Geoff Lawson yesterday likened Watson's behaviour to a four-year-old's. Presumably, he added two for the fact that he was speaking. The generic word is twerp.

Watson's behaviour was especially egregious because it was premeditated. His first reaction was to raise his arms in celebration and only then to make his petulant rush at Gayle.

It was only a moment but, for a professional sportsman, a moment is an eternity. When Watson is batting, he makes up his mind and changes it in a moment, sometimes more than once. Watson had longer than a moment to consider what he was doing after claiming Gayle. He knew what he was doing.

In this context, the sanction against Watson — 15 per cent of his match fee — was pitiful. A cricketer's chief income is his base payment. The match fee is the icing on the cake. Fifteen per cent is a few specks of icing sugar. It is open to Cricket Australia to apply its own punishment and essential that it does. Otherwise, its code is merely a piece of paper.

The unexpectedly robust showing by the West Indies made for an engrossing series, but it also exposed an old Australian tendency to tetchiness under pressure. Three Australians other than Watson were disciplined in the series. So was West Indian Sulieman Benn, who got the most severe penalty, a two-match suspension.

In this, it was not hard to detect a familiar undercurrent. "Word" emerged from "contacts" in the Australian rooms that Benn had been a rude, precious and prickly opponent all series, and that in engaging with Benn in Perth, Brad Haddin and Mitchell Johnson had merely been standing up for their mates. These "contacts" remained nameless.

It is hard not to be cynical. If Benn has shown himself to be volatile, you can be certain that the Australians have not missed an opportunity to prod and provoke him. When he reacts, they throw up their arms, as if shocked and affronted, their innocence plain for all to see.

We have seen this demonisation path before: remember Harbhajan Singh, two summers ago? Here is one line the Australians have found that they can scuff without crossing it.

Of course, some of the Australian cricket public love this. As far as they are concerned, there is "us" and there is "them", and they are fair game, a schoolboy mentality.

But a sizeable proportion of cricket fans were disgusted by Watson's display of triumphalism and discomforted by the brawl over Benn. These incidents jar on their sense of how cricket should be played.

Most were probably as overjoyed as Watson to see the back of Gayle in Perth, but they also had grown to respect and admire the West Indian captain, and were aghast to see Watson rub his nose in his dismissal. It was a graceless moment.

It is a curious thing that the Australian cricket team, which is our oldest, best-known and best-performed, is not always our best-loved. Cricket Australia will dispute it and at the same time know it. And it will know why.