JOHANNESBURG - It’s not nice to start on a low note but I reckon the cancer is still with us.
I watched a bit of the Test between India and Australia live on television the other morning and it was brilliant. As usual, the wicket in India was spin-friendly from the off, but the Aussies concentrated and for once there, it was a genuine contest between bat and ball and that is the whole idea.
It seemed to be Test cricket at its best.
Then David Warner was bowled behind his legs but the wicket was disallowed due to a no-ball. Fair enough, these things happen. But the replay showed that spin trundler Jayant Yadav had overstepped by almost a foot! It was crazy and the commentators all so opined.
How is it possible for a Test slow bowler to get it so wrong? The answer, not given on air, is that it is only possible when it is done on purpose.
Remember Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif? A newspaper video showed an agent counting out blood money while promising that certain balls in certain overs would be no-balls. The Pakistan bowlers duly delivered, also by overstepping the mark by ridiculous amounts.
This is the point. In order to unfailingly deliver on the spot fix and thus collect the dirty money, the honest umpire has to be given no chance of missing the call. Thus, the bowler goes miles over the limit to a ridiculous degree.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Yadav did the same on Thursday and it ruined the whole experience. Yes, India still finished on top but Warner got a contrived life and that is not true sport.
What is the answer? I don’t know, but for the commentators, Test legends all, not to even mention the obvious indicates a lack of genuine intent. Over to you, cricket.
Meanwhile, rugby players are going to have to run their socks off this year.
Have you had a look at the new law amendments that are in effect? As usual, the early explanations given on TV totally confused. We had cones of different colours employed, ex-players all talking at the same time and a poor old ref in the middle adjudicating. It was organised chaos and it was glorious.
In fact, there are both amendments and law trials but this is hair-splitting.
Basically there are multiple changes intended to lead to three outcomes: To increase ball-in-play time, to discourage negative play and to improve player welfare. Most are insignificant and may be ignored, but players will have to be even fitter. Maybe it is even a case of “goodbye fatties!”
The area that might be very significant to enjoyment is the tackle. The high tackler, even if the tackled player slips or ducks into the tackle, may be carded as reckless. This means players must be very wary of offending.
But there is also mention of the accidental tackle which results in just a penalty. How do the refs and TV people decide between accidental and reckless but unintended? We shall see. However, if tackles go lower, that means more off-loads and more continuity and running. Again fitness will be the key.
The other area of interest is the neck roll. This developed to prevent the first player arriving at a tackle from bridging and claiming the ball. The idea was for the other side to grab him and roll him away. But many of these operations, regardless of where they started, ended around the neck, hence the sanction.
Of course safety is the issue, but if the second player in mostly favours the attacking team - and it could well do - then turnovers will be like hen’s teeth. This means defenders will not commit to the breakdown and again we have the endless boredom of the two thin lines facing each other and the ball going aimlessly up and down until mercifully, a kick ends it all. We have been there before.
It is good that rugby tries to improve but beware the unintended consequences. I hope they have it right but as usual, we will have to wait and see.
John Robbie is a former British Lions, Ireland and Transvaal scrumhalf