David Leggat: When punishments outweigh the gravity of the crime

Bowls New Zealand replaced the ban with a $500 fine. Photo / Glenn Jeffrey

When Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were facing jail terms on drug charges in July 1967, an editorial in the Times newspaper was headlined, "Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?"

The point of the piece by Times editor William Rees-Mogg was essentially that the punishments seemed to far outweigh the crime. When the Rolling Stones chums subsequently successfully appealed against their sentences, that editorial was regarded as an important factor in their release.

So what would old rubber lips Mick - a big cricket fan incidentally, which we'll come to - have made of the penalty initially handed down to Gisborne bowler David File?

File, remember, was rubbed out for 10 years after exposing himself in the men's changing room at a tournament in Gisborne to make a particular point about his team's performance.

Okay, it was locker room humour to be sure. At the time File, a former NZ representative, admitted that he "flopped out my old fella" after a trip to the bathroom to tell his teammates they were "playing like dicks".

Yes, and we can be sure they got the point, along with having a few chortles. But 10 years? Rather stiff, you'd have thought.

Yesterday, Bowls New Zealand, who have some form themselves for the occasional heavy-handed treatment (think Gary Lawson in recent times), ensured sense entered the debate.

They knocked the ban on its head and replaced it with a $500 fine, noting that "more accurately reflects the nature of the misconduct".

BNZ did make reference to "distasteful" behaviour and concerns over a "growing tendency for talented bowlers to seek to excuse improper, unethical or unacceptable behaviour or language because of their talent".

That sounds a bit sniffy, but you get the point. Anyway they came to the right conclusion in File's case.

Speaking of crime and punishment, what to do about the Pakistani cricketers? A fine, individual bans or the swingeing "sling 'em all out" approach?

Among the sad outcomes of the whole spot fixing issue is what lies ahead for Pakistan.

It is naive to think they are the only offenders, but certainly their name pops up more often than most. Unless you subscribe to the old John F. Kennedy theory that "where there's smoke there's a smoke-making machine", they have much to answer down the years.

So in the future - even next summer when they are due to return to New Zealand - when you've watched Pakistan play an ODI or test and lose, how will you know with absolute certainty that the contest was on the up and up? You'll have that niggling doubt in the back of the mind, and that's why you'll wonder. What about that dropped catch? How come he bowled two no-balls in that over? Why did two class batsmen play ropy shots when they should have had their heads down in a tight spot?

At the Basin Reserve last season, Salman Butt, fielding at short leg, juggled a catch off Daniel Flynn six times before spilling it. A genuine boo-boo or something more sinister? For ever and a day players have made mistakes. Players do drop catches, or muff a run out opportunity with a wild throw, or fail to ground their bat on a sharp single.

Do the events of this week mean players are simply not allowed to err any more? Does every mistake go under a microscope? That's the real damage of this week's no-ball sting. Who is to say what is real and what is a sham?