CAREW CRICKET CLUB has come under intense criticism for the act of gamesmanship which ensured they finished the season ahead of Cresselly and has made national and international news.

The decision by Carew to declare their innings closed at 18-1, denying their title rivals Cresselly the chance to close the gap on them – depending on your point of view – was either the cynical and calculating act of a club that places more importance on holding a tin cup for 12 months than the interests of the game, or a masterstroke in which the strict letter of the rules was exploited in a wholly blameless way by a club whose win at all costs attitude is a shining example of how to win.

That there is no middle ground is demonstrated by the reactions – mostly condemnatory – on social media and by cricket journalists.

The mathematics of the final game gave Cresselly the chance of overhauling Carew if – and only if – they won by a large enough margin to overhaul Carew’s 21 point lead going into the last round of fixtures.

With the maximum number of points available for a win 30 points and the possibility of Carew batting out for a draw to stymie any Cresselly victory attempt, Cresselly would have had to limit Carew to eight bonus points. In practical terms, that would have meant bowling Carew out for either 120 or 150 and passing that total without losing more than six wickets.

The decision to declare on 18-1 meant that Creselly could – at most – gain a bare 20 points for the win, leaving them one point shy of closing the gap and doomed to finish in second place.

And so, Carew are ‘champions’.

The club’s boosters on social media point out that Carew had won more games than any other side and had lost bonus points due to bowling out opposition cheaply, leaving them unable to reap a full thirty points. In addition, the same supporters point out that Cresselly won the toss and elected to field, thereby making Carew’s decision possible. However, by far the most common attitude expressed – particularly by current Carew players on social media – is the old Millwall line ‘nobody loves us, and we don’t care’.

Arrogant and petulant, the words of some Carew players suggest that they blame everyone else for their tarnished success. And they have been quick to fling around personal attacks towards those who have dared criticised their club.

‘It’s not our fault, it’s the rules’; ‘it’s not our fault, it’s Cresselly’s’; ‘it’s not our fault, we are the champions’.

But, in the case of the last of those, the question is open as to how long they will be able to retain their crown.

And while Carew’s players and supporters have been very forthcoming, the Club is saying nothing.

A Carew statement read: “In consequence of the coverage of this matter in some sections of the media, we, as a club, have decided not to comment further. We stand together.”

There is precedent against Carew here from first class cricket. In 1979, Brian Rose, then the Somerset skipper, worked out that his side would qualify for the knockout stages of a cup competition if they declared their innings closed early. He did so and Somerset qualified for the next round of the competition.

The TCCB – as it then was – met and expelled Somerset from the competition by seventeen votes to one, with even Somerset voting with the motion.

Somerset’s actions were within the rules but outside their spirit and the spirit of the game.

So it is that the focus now turns to what – of anything – the usually spineless County Club will do about the situation.

Past experience is not promising, the league having historically failed to act over shamateurism and being particularly reluctant to do anything to offend larger clubs.

Last year, both Haverfordwest and Llechryd played an unregistered player in competition. Haverfordwest were excused, whereas Llechryd were penalised. It was a decision that allowed the strong inference to be drawn that it was one rule for some sides and one rule for others. There was a protest at the Harrison Allen final, reached by Haverfordwest, which some media reported was ill-judged, implying that the ‘we’re all old pals’ act still holds sway in some parts of the game.

The signs are not promising that the County Club will do anything.

The County Club’s chair, Paul Webb, has declined to comment. Perhaps understandably so, as he now plays for Cresselly.

The County Club’s secretary, Steve Blowes, has told BBC Wales he is ‘personally disappointed’ by Carew’s actions, even though they have not ‘technically broken any rules’.

However, the County Club is bound by its own rules to promote the interests of the game and, in addition, has sweeping powers conferred upon it by its Code of Conduct, which incorporates the MCC’s ‘Spirit of Cricket’.

The ‘Spirit of Cricket’ is a preamble to the Laws of the game. It provides that cricket ‘should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game’. It continues to say: ‘Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself’.

And the County Club’s Code of Conduct supports that position. It claims that the County Club ‘is committed to maintaining the highest standards of behaviour and conduct at cricket matches both on and off the field. All clubs and players … explicitly agree to abide by this Code of Conduct, which incorporates the Spirit of Cricket, and are bound by the provisions in these Regulations.

‘The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit and Laws of Cricket’.

The implication of that could not be clearer. The ‘Laws’ and the ‘Spirit’ go together and are not divisible. That means that playing within the rules of play is not enough; games must be conducted within the rules of play AND within the ‘Spirit of the Game’. The inclusion is not conditional, but explicit. Gaming the system is plainly outside the Spirit and therefore outside the rules.

It appears, therefore, that not only does the County Club have the power to act, but that it is bound to by its own rules and the Laws of the game it is supposed to promote.

Bearing in mind the Code of Conduct’s scope, however, it appears that it is Carew skipper Brian Hall who is potentially in the cart for any breach of the Code of Conduct. That is harsh, as it is clear that the scheme was hatched not spontaneously by Brian Hall on August 26, but was the result of consideration by others within Carew Cricket Club.

Perhaps as they all ‘stand together’, the County Club might consider whether it ought to take Carew at their word.

If the Spirit of Cricket’s interpolation in the County Club’s own rules has any force and is not just lip service paid to a concept, then it is for the County Club to decide that playing (just) within the rules is more important than protecting the game.