The debate goes on, after Mike Atherton’s article (Grey Clouds Lie Over Moral High Ground) calling for the preamble to the laws of the game, entitled The Spirit of Cricket, to be given out. Simon Barnes has joined in by writing that cricketers lost in the finest and most complex of moral mazes are desperate for clarification, something made more difficult by the laws and the spirit of cricket being two quite different things. Cricket is not an easy game at which to cheat, but it is easily tarnished.

The interpretation of the spirit of the game generally considered to mean what is thought of as being honourable and less than honourable is essentially a matter of personal discernment, and highly susceptible to changing times. That cricket is a game to be played according to written laws, and at the same time within a code that is not written, lays it open to dispute.

In one of several examples given by Atherton, when a batsman might or might not have been done a favour by the fielding captain, his view and mine of the outcome are diametrically opposed. Like me, he can have seen the incident, which took place in a recent Champions Trophy match between England and New Zealand, only on television; but that provided more than enough evidence on which to form an opinion.

The batsman was Paul Collingwood, who, having played and missed at the last ball of an over, started, after a brief pause, to walk down the pitch for the now customary between-overs chat with his partner, to be concluded no doubt by the modern fad of touching each other’s gloves in that peculiarly demure way. Nothing could have been clearer than that Collingwood had no intention of stealing a run.

The square-leg umpire was already moving in to take up his position for the next over when Brendon McCullum, the New Zealand wicketkeeper, threw down the batsman’s wicket and appealed, with Collingwood comfortably, or uncomfortably, out of his ground.

Because the umpire at the bowler’s end had apparently not called over, the ball was still in play, and legally, therefore, Collingwood was out. So taken aback were both umpires by McCullum’s appeal that no immediate decision was forthcoming, although in the end, after much agitated discussion, Collingwood was told he would have to go. After further discussion, Daniel Vettori, the New Zealand captain, relented, and Collingwood was reprieved.

Whereas Atherton felt that Collingwood should have had to pay the full price for being dozy, and Andrew Strauss, the England captain, called it a grey area, I would have exhorted McCullum, had I had anything to do with it, never to do that again. So there you have three different interpretations of something that had everything to do with the spirit of the game: the hard-nosed modern one from one of the game’s most respected and influential figures, the guarded one from a captain who knows the scenario all too well and the old man’s.

When something similar happened at Port of Spain after the last ball of the second day of the first Test match between West Indies and England in 1974, the collective reaction was significantly less equivocal. In an excess of zeal, to put it kindly, Tony Greig threw down the wicket at the non-striker’s end as he (Alvin Kallicharran) made off down the pitch and towards the pavilion. Alan Knott, the England wicketkeeper, had already pulled out the stumps, but the umpire at the bowler’s end had not yet said, as umpires like to do, “and that, gentlemen, concludes the entertainment for the day”.

Like Collingwood, Kallicharran had to be given out, although two hours later and in the interests of cricket generally, it was announced that England had withdrawn Greig’s appeal and been happy to do so. No one watching, I think, had been in the slightest doubt that the line between fair and unfair play had been crossed.

Charlie Elliott, an experienced English Test umpire, who was at the ground on holiday, said he liked to think that had he been standing in the match he would have had the wit to say “I hope I didn’t hear an appeal”. It was an isolated incident. What occurred in South Africa the other day, on the other hand, was one of an increasing number of incidents that challenge the spirit of the game, and that has to be a worry.

Sharp practice on the field of play is as old as the game itself. No one can have taken more liberties in this respect than W. G. Grace. But the more competitive cricket becomes, the more closely and forcefully the standard on which its still good name depends needs protecting. It is positively alarming how much more impenitent players at all levels have become in the past few years.

As it happens, I had a small part in framing the preamble to the present Laws of Cricket, described by Atherton as a lot of well-meaning guff. There was more of it in its original form, but it was still intended to send the same message. Mike may well be right, and perhaps it does need rewriting. On reading it again I think he is right and that he might like to have a shot at it himself.

But I am sure it is as well to have something of the sort, even if we all know really what is meant by the spirit of the game. Even now, is chivalry not the word that says it all?

In the name of the laws

• In 2000, a new preamble to the laws was introduced, stating that cricket “should be played not only within its Laws, but also within the Spirit of the Game”.

• Responsibility for upholding the Spirit of the Game rests firmly with the captains. They have a general responsibility for the behaviour of their team.

• The umpires are sole judges of what constitutes fair and unfair play. They are authorised to intervene in cases of time-wasting, damaging the pitch, dangerous or unfair bowling, tampering with the ball and any other actions they consider unfair.

• Players are required to show respect for their opponents, their own captain and team-mates, the umpires and traditional values.

• Examples of actions that contravene the Spirit of the Game include disputing an umpire’s decision and directing abusive language towards an opponent or umpire.

• Undesirable examples of “sharp practice” are also given: appealing in the knowledge that the batsman is not out; advancing towards the umpire when appealing; distracting an opponent verbally or with “unnecessary noise under the guise of enthusiasm and motivation of one’s own side”.