Public criticism of, or inappropriate comment in relation to an incident occurring in an International Match or any Player, Player Support Personnel, Match official or team participating in any International Match, irrespective of when such criticism or inappropriate comment is made.
Since the new code came into effect, 2.1.7 has bee applied 6 times. It is distinct from 2.1.3, which applied to dissent during an International match (this is typically limited to conduct on the field). Of these six offenses, 4 have involved criticism of the Umpires. In April 2012, West Indies coach Ottis Gibson was sanctioned and fined 20% of his match fee by Referee Jeff Crowe for criticizing the way DRS was used during a couple of Test matches. In June 2012, Dwayne Bravo was fined 20% of his match fee by Referee Jeff Crowe for criticizing an Umpire's decision (which involved a referral). In 2011, William Porterfield was reprimanded by Match Referee Roshan Mahanama for criticizing an LBW decision given by after a video review. In March 2014, Stuart Broad was fined 15% of his match fee by Referee Javagal Srinath for criticizing the Umpires decision to stay on the field during a lightning strike.
In some of these instances, the umpires made a mistake. In some of these instances, a specific decision was the issue. In Ottis Gibson's case, it was more general frustration about a series of marginal calls going against West Indies in Gibson's view. In any event, the substantive merit of the Umpires' judgment is beside the point.
Matt Prior made 86 in England's first innings at Lord's. On the 2nd day, he claimed a catch off the bowling of Stuart Broad which was rejected by the Umpires after consultation with the TV Umpire. He discussed the episode later:
"I felt it carried, in your keeping gloves you have rubber tips and I felt the ball hit the rubber tip and there's no doubt in my mind that it did carry but, unfortunately, this day and age it goes upstairs. We are disappointed the decision didn't stand but we move on."Firstly, Prior is flatly wrong that the "decision didn't stand". Exactly one decision was made in this case, and it was Not Out. It is not the case that the Umpires ruled it out on the field and then asked for a review of the catch. It was the appeal which didn't stand, not the decision. A skeptical mind might consider this a Freudian slip, but I think it is far more likely that Prior doesn't understand the difference between a Player Review and an Umpire Review.
Secondly, Prior blames the fact that "it goes upstairs" for the eventual decision. This is clearly a breach of 2.1.7, albeit a sophisticated breach. The standard line here would be that Prior is walking the fine line between disappointment and dissent. A reasonable reading of his comments would suggest that he is in fact dismantling any such boundary entirely. Prior made these comments after the day's play, and at this time there was still no doubt in his mind that the ball carried.
Prior is clearly disputing the method used by the Umpires to reach conclusions about low catches. How is this substantively different from Gibson's comments about DRS? Gibson said "If the ICC is going to use DRS I think they should use all the technology and I think if we haven't got all the technology we shouldn't use it at all."
Will Prior be sanctioned? Its upto the Umpires to report his comments. Failing that, it is upto either team's coach or the ICC's Chief Executive to bring the charge. The Referee cannot act under the rules unless a charge is brought by one of these people.
One of the most underrated consequences of DRS has been to change the way we consider dissent. The ICC has repeatedly said that DRS has reduced the amount of dissent on the field. This is true, in the sense that breaches under 2.1.3 are rare. But if dissent is understood as contesting an umpire's decision, DRS has merely shifted the venues of dissent and legitimized some of them.
The ICC has to sanction dissent like Prior's if it wants to prevent players from undermining its review system. Dissent like Prior's is arguably more damaging than dissent like Gibson's or Bravo's because it does not come from a position of disadvantage in the match.
Will Billy Bowden, Paul Reiffel and Steve Davis do the needful? Umpire Davis was recently involved in a case in which his decision to rule a low catch Not Out was criticized to such an extent that the ICC felt it necessary to release the exact footage Davis used to reach his decision. The footage showed that Davis was right.
Comments like Prior's continue to undermine Umpires. Match officials deserve protection in such cases.