Does the punishment match the crime? Our writers go head-to-head

A bowler in the Somerset Cricket League has been banned for nine matches after throwing the ball over the boundary to deny the opposing batsman reaching a century. HUW TURBERVILL and SAM MORSHEAD have conflicting views of the incident...

^{An incident in Somerset has caught the national eye this week. Neither player pictured is associated with the matter in question}

HUW TURBERVILL

Nine matches is probably a bit long. I would have gone for five or six, perhaps, but I have no sympathy.

It was a craven, yobbish, obnoxious act. Why did he do it?

When a batsman is on 98 not out with only a couple of runs to win, he is going to be nervous. It is your best chance of taking a wicket.

Have a good contest. But play it fair…

Either he gets a century, or you get him out.

If I had been captain, I would have told the bowler to run and fetch the ball, given him an almighty rollocking, apologised to the batsman and pretended it never happened.

Cricket could do without pillocks like this.

Read my Googly this week for further case studies.

READ ABOUT THE STORY BEHIND THE DEBATE

SAM MORSHEAD

Presuming the Somerset Cricket League have imposed a half-season ban for the matter of bringing the game into disrepute alone (the chairman Malcolm Fox confirmed via email on Wednesday that is the case), it seems wholly excessive.

That's not excusing the actions of the unnamed bowler; it was callous, bitter and ultimately unsporting.

But was there more to the situation? Was the player's general character taken into account by the league when it decided upon its punishment? Did the opposition approve of a nine-match ban? Will the SCL now be looking to uphold their own precedent when other matters relating to onfield behaviour pop into their intray? Was the reaction amplified by the media attention the flashpoint received?

It could be that the bowler in question is well known for this sort of thing down in Somerset, though I've yet to hear evidence to that extent. Purnell, his club, seem to have acted quickly on the day to defuse the situation. Minehead say in a statement they hold nothing against him. It all adds up to suggest this was an isolated incident, out of character and massively regrettable.

The thought crossed my mind that perhaps league officials consider it match-fixing, though until an Al Jazeera sting reveals a Singaporean bookmaker making a killing on wides bowled in The Shrubbery Hotel League you'll excuse me if I remain doubtful. Maybe this miserably petulant act is thought of in a dimmer light than abusive or threatening behaviour, the likes of which are becoming more and more commonplace, it seems, in our amateur game.

Punishments should encourage some form of rehabilitation, not arbitrarily pound one individual because their case has received national exposure. A suspension for the rest of this season would have been perfectly sufficient, what is the need to extend this into next May? What does that teach the bowler? 

Banning him for the remainder of the campaign would rule him out of a promotion race - Purnell are only 22 points off second with four to play; lots of opportunity to sit and steam in the pavilion, thinking about the whole matter. But if you really are drawing a line under the matter, why should it be a full nine months before he can take part in competitive cricket in that part of the world again?

Yes, the sport needs to address its anti-social behaviour problem, but the punishment must fit the crime.

And on a sidenote... The Cricketer has confirmed the identity of the individual in question - which was wrongly reported elsewhere over the weekend. But will being 'named and shamed' do any good? In our increasingly vitriolic online world, I'd struggle to argue the case.