The IPL salaries of certain retained players were made public recently. Virat Kohli was the highest paid cricketer, earning about 2.25 million USD for a season spanning 2 months. He has countless endorsements and is obviously among the highest paid Indian cricketers. He is not a one off example. A multitude of international cricketers make a fortune every year, not to say that they don't deserve it, but extorting fines out of them isn't really going to make much of a difference to them.
According to the rule book, any rebuke or admonishment of a player, unless his deed is astronomically punishable, is characterised by a fine or to put it in cricket terminology, "cut from match fee". This covers almost all bases, from slow over rate to ball tampering to showing dissent to even inappropriate behaviour. Now, the only problem here isn't only the dearth of characterisations of the extent of the offence, but also of its means of punishment. Also, just altering the amount to be paid isn't a just evaluation and representation of what happened.
A seemingly stringent rebuke may even be liberal in many cases due to these rules. Therefore it is clear to differentiate and make a plausible distinction, because players ultimately earn double of what they pay in the match they are fined itself!
So what is the way to go forward? Banning Yasir Shah and Kusal Perera is justified, but to what extent? Both have committed the same offence but one has been banned for 5 years and the other 'without further notice'. Granted the substance they consumed might have been different but to what end? Furthermore, five years down the line, when Kusal Perera will be eligible for selection, who decides how easy will it be for him to get instantly selected? PCB selected Mohammad Amir to represent Pakistan but BCCI hasn’t allowed Sreesanth to play for India yet despite the lack of the substantiation of his match fixing reports. Does this suggest that the boards responsible should also be consulted while carrying out a ban because an offence could be viewed differently from different boards, as seen above?
The laws have to be more flexible and inclusive. Apart from the conventional match bans, there can be other restrictions also. For instance, a batsman could not be allowed to play at his conventional position (like come in after the end of a certain number of overs) or a bowler could be prohibited from bowling his quota. A "punishment" should be something that ensures that ones conduct is not repeated or at least something that informs one of the extent of his action. Fines are not the best way to do that. Laws in ODI cricket like that of a batsman not being allowed to come to bat before a certain number of overs because he didn't field can be extended to include other reasons as well. There can be a similar such rule in test cricket where slow over rate costs only your team and not the opponents team too (as the general number of playable overs decrease- a factor that can significantly affect the game's outcome). This could be done by giving bonus runs to the opponent when a team deliberately wastes time in order to get a day over with delaying to bowl the stipulated overs. A new form of extras can be introduced, like the penalty 5 runs given when the ball hits the wicketkeeper's helmet.
These changes may not be easy to bring about immediately because a lot of thought has to go into it. However, one thing is clear. If there is a list of offences in the rulebook, then there must be a list of 'solutions' to those as well. One monotonous penalty just can't continue. Evidently, there is some difference between why Chris Gayle was fined recently and why Jason Holder or AB De Villiers was fined. Therefore there should be some sort of treatment that quantifies this difference. Extorting fines is not the best way to go. There should be something more or even less, in some cases. There should be a distinct line with no ambiguity.
According to the rule book, any rebuke or admonishment of a player, unless his deed is astronomically punishable, is characterised by a fine or to put it in cricket terminology, "cut from match fee". This covers almost all bases, from slow over rate to ball tampering to showing dissent to even inappropriate behaviour. Now, the only problem here isn't only the dearth of characterisations of the extent of the offence, but also of its means of punishment. Also, just altering the amount to be paid isn't a just evaluation and representation of what happened.
A seemingly stringent rebuke may even be liberal in many cases due to these rules. Therefore it is clear to differentiate and make a plausible distinction, because players ultimately earn double of what they pay in the match they are fined itself!
So what is the way to go forward? Banning Yasir Shah and Kusal Perera is justified, but to what extent? Both have committed the same offence but one has been banned for 5 years and the other 'without further notice'. Granted the substance they consumed might have been different but to what end? Furthermore, five years down the line, when Kusal Perera will be eligible for selection, who decides how easy will it be for him to get instantly selected? PCB selected Mohammad Amir to represent Pakistan but BCCI hasn’t allowed Sreesanth to play for India yet despite the lack of the substantiation of his match fixing reports. Does this suggest that the boards responsible should also be consulted while carrying out a ban because an offence could be viewed differently from different boards, as seen above?
The laws have to be more flexible and inclusive. Apart from the conventional match bans, there can be other restrictions also. For instance, a batsman could not be allowed to play at his conventional position (like come in after the end of a certain number of overs) or a bowler could be prohibited from bowling his quota. A "punishment" should be something that ensures that ones conduct is not repeated or at least something that informs one of the extent of his action. Fines are not the best way to do that. Laws in ODI cricket like that of a batsman not being allowed to come to bat before a certain number of overs because he didn't field can be extended to include other reasons as well. There can be a similar such rule in test cricket where slow over rate costs only your team and not the opponents team too (as the general number of playable overs decrease- a factor that can significantly affect the game's outcome). This could be done by giving bonus runs to the opponent when a team deliberately wastes time in order to get a day over with delaying to bowl the stipulated overs. A new form of extras can be introduced, like the penalty 5 runs given when the ball hits the wicketkeeper's helmet.
These changes may not be easy to bring about immediately because a lot of thought has to go into it. However, one thing is clear. If there is a list of offences in the rulebook, then there must be a list of 'solutions' to those as well. One monotonous penalty just can't continue. Evidently, there is some difference between why Chris Gayle was fined recently and why Jason Holder or AB De Villiers was fined. Therefore there should be some sort of treatment that quantifies this difference. Extorting fines is not the best way to go. There should be something more or even less, in some cases. There should be a distinct line with no ambiguity.
