The on-field indiscipline on display at last Sunday's ill-tempered Topklasse games has stirred up still more controversy. Events at Excelsior-Hermes and ACC-HCC prompted suggestions of a general decline in both umpiring standards and player behaviour, whilst the ongoing dispute between umpires Erno Ruchtie and Ashraf Din and the KNCB, arising from the five bookings meted out at the match between ACC and VOC six weeks ago, has led some to accuse the KNCB of failing to afford their officials adequate backing.

Last Sunday's match at Thurlede between Excelsior and Hermes was never likely to be a cozy affair, with potential escape from a four-way relegation battle on the line as well as the usual pressure of a Scheidam Derby. But few expected things to get as ugly as they did, with consistent over-appealing and rising tempers eventually culminating in Luuk van Troost finding himself on his back in the middle of the pitch courtesy of a body check from Borg Lenstra, prompting Excelsior players to storm onto the pitch to remonstrate - the most egregious of several regrettable scenes in a game which saw no less than three players written up by umpires Jansen and Hilhorst.

Meanwhile the prolonged and fouled-mouthed haranguing to which Feiko Kloppenburg was subjected at ACC v HCC on the same day (for the supposed offense of failing to walk after nicking one behind), which was allowed to continue for several overs before the umpires felt compelled to step in, prompted HCC's Fred Staal to publish an open letter to the KNCB on the subject.

Staal, lamenting that language which even on the football field would warrant a red card is now apparently tolerated and even accepted in Dutch cricket, noted that the audible profanity on the field was met with a disappointingly indulgent attitude from umpires and spectators alike - in contrast with norms in international cricket, where "even a disapproving glance at the umpire is punished with a booking and/or suspension". With reference to the events following the ACC-VOC drama, Staal warns "if our umpires do not (or may not) intervene, then the 'King of Sports' [will soon face serious problems] in the Netherlands."

Staal is not alone in connecting these behavioural lapses to the handling of the five disciplinary referrals which followed the ACC-VOC game in July, implying that players may have been emboldened to flout the umpires' authority by the leniency shown the five players involved and the subsequent dispute between the KNCB and the umpires, Erno Ruchtie and Ashraf Din.

The controversy and dissent that marred the game was prompted by the dismissal of Usman Malik for obstructing the field, under somewhat confused circumstances. Five ACC players were written up for offenses ranging from level one to level three - two for dissent shown during the game, and three for their continued remonstrations afterwards. Ruchtie especially seems to have been the target of the immoderate fulminations of ACC players and spectators alike, being informed in no uncertain terms that he was no longer welcome at the club.

The five reports were duly submitted to the Bestuur, who would decide what action would be taken. To the surprise of many, not least the umpires themselves, the matter was not referred to the Tuchtcommissie (disciplinary committee), but rather the Bestuur elected to directly impose administrative sanctions. These sanctions ranged from warnings to one match suspended bans, essentially meaning that the players and the club escaped any effective repercussions from the debacle. Din and Ruchie, it seems, reacted to the decision angrily and in their subsequent email and telephone exchanges with KNCB chairman Jacques Mulders rather exceeded the bounds of civility - at least in the eyes of the SRC, who consequently informed the umpires that they would not be appointed to stand in any games until at least the 10th of August, and should not expect to be awarded any T20 games, nor any decisive matches for the remainder of the season. Din was furthermore informed that his international duties would also be subject to review.

The SRC has been keen to stress that neither umpire has been officially suspended, and none of the measures taken against the pair technically constitutes disciplinary action. Nonetheless the difference between deciding not to appoint an umpire and official suspension seems to be little more than a semantic distinction. An appeal was subsequently lodged with Commissie van Beroep, who are expected to rule on the affair next week.

Regardless of the appeals committee's decision however, effective upshot of the entire drama is that the players in question have - to all intents and purposes - gotten off with a slap on the wrist and no further tangible sanction, whilst the umpires found themselves disciplined and, in the eyes of many, publicly undermined. Ruchtie, it seems, is unlikely to continue as an umpire and if rumours are to be believed he is not alone amongst umpires in considering throwing in the towel.

Ruchtie and Din, it should be stressed, are not entirely innocent in the affair. As Mulders points out, the responsibility of the umpires ends with submitting the report, the decision to impose administrative sanctions or refer the matter to the disciplinary committee being the prerogative of the bestuur, in this case represented by Mulders together with Gerard Inden as Secretary of the SRC. Moreover, public criticism of such decisions constitutes a breach of the code of conduct for umpires, and it is understood that Din and Ruchtie's opinions on the decision were expressed vociverously and in less than temperate terms.

Nonetheless it is undeniable that the sanctions imposed - three warnings and two suspended bans - were considerably more lenient than one might expect from the Richtlijn Straffen bij Overtredingen given the seriousness of the offences as reported. Whilst there seems little doubt that procedures were followed to the letter, it is hardly surprising that the downgrading of the offences, which as reported included a level three offence for intimidation, should provoke a response from the umpires in question - especially given that the umpires themselves were the target of the alleged improper conduct. Whilst there is no obligation for the Bestuur to involve, consult or even inform the umpires about such decisions, neither is there anything preventing them from doing so. In the circumstances the reaction of the umpires to finding out second-hand about a decision they understandably perceive as a public humiliation was, if not excusable, nonetheless entirely foreseeable. The subsequent suspension of Ruchtie and Din in all but name, regardless of the provocation, paints an extremely unfortunate public picture of the confidence of the KNCB in its umpires.

Whilst there is little question that the Bestuur acted entirely in accordance with the procedures as they are laid down in the Tuchtregelment, one may certainly ask whether the course they chose was a wise one. Referring the matter to the disciplinary committee might equally have been perceived as kicking the whole business into the long grass, and the very point of the current procedure is to bypass the potential delays and complications involved in such a move in favour of prompt action on disciplinary breaches. But if it was the opinion of the Bestuur, contrary to that of the umpires, that the offences were not so severe as to merit suspensions, then surely the prudent course would have been to allow the Disciplinary Committee to deliver that judgment down the line, after tempers had cooled. The point of the option of immediate administrative sanction is surely to allow swift and decisive action - it is difficult to see any merit in this swift and decisive inaction.

If players are permitted to publicly question the competence and authority of umpires on the field without severe sanction, it risks making the position of umpires essentially untenable. The situation is only further exacerbated if, as seems increasingly evident, the weight accorded to umpires' reports is made dependent on the (perceived)quality of an umpire's management of a game. The fact that during its deliberations the Bestuur consulted the views of an umpire assessor and a supposedly unaffiliated spectator with umpiring experience carries with it the unfortunate implication that the umpires' reported (mis)handling of the game had a direct bearing on the decision not to refer the bookings to the disciplinary committee or to impose more severe sanctions.

Quite simply, the authority of an umpire should not be predicated upon his match performance. And it is incumbent on the Bestuur to stress this point. The credibility of umpires in the Topklasse has come under attack repeatedly in recent weeks, with a number of commentators alleging a consistent decline in umpiring standards on social media and indeed on our own forum. There is, in truth, little evidence to support these assertions, and such evidence as is supplied is invariably anecdotal, but in such circumstances the support of the KNCB for its officials is all the more indispensable.

Mulders himself, to his credit, went to some length to refute this position in these pages, pointing out that on available statistical evidence from captain's reports and the like the standard of umpiring has in fact improved in recent years - albeit marginally. Moreover the KNCB has not been entirely inactive in addressing the question of player indiscipline which has been a consistent problem in the lower leagues, instituting a policy of deploying senior umpires and observers to "high-risk" games in an attempt to curb the issue.

It is in any case regrettable that such measures are even necessary, and however one apportions blame between the KNCB and the umpires the fact remains that the principle culpability for reprehensible on-field behaviour lies with the captains and, above all, with the players themselves. After all we are talking about grown men, presumably capable of navigating daily life without resorting to streams of obscenity and invective, who should not have to depend on the threat of sanction to behave with a modicum of civility on the field. The Topklasse is after all a cricket league. Not a reform school.

Nonetheless it is difficult to see the handling of this affair as having any effect but to encourage players to believe that unruliness and insolence on the field will go effectively unpunished, and to discourage umpires from reporting such behaviour. It is fair to say that much of the criticism directed at the KNCB over this business has been based on misinformation and a lack of understanding of disciplinary procedures, but then little effort has been made to correct this. To date no rationale for downgrading the offences to level one has been offered, nor, based on the facts, does it seem likely that a convincing one could be made.

Even could such a case be made however, it would do little to change how the affair is perceived, and perception matters as much as practice. In fact in the case of the Board having confidence in and being prepared to back umpires, perception is effectively all that matters. If it is widely believed that the authority of umpires is being undermined by the KNCB, then their credibility is compromised in practice - regardless of whether the authorities acted appropriately in the circumstances or not.

The mishandling of this affair quite clearly illustrates the shortcomings of the present system of dealing with disciplinary issues. Whilst the desirability of a streamlined method of dealing with offences is clear, placing such decisions entirely in the hands of a two-man committee - making the disciplinary committee functionally redundant - looks less and less defensible. At the very least, downgrading the level of offences as reported by the umpires or imposing sanctions substantially out of line with those prescribed by the disciplinary guidelines should be the sole prerogative of the full disciplinary committee. Cases where the offence is clear and uncontested can and should be speedily resolved, ideally with the agreement of all parties. But arbitrary administrative sanctions which are either disputed by players or which effectively undermine umpires should not be the sole decision of an unaccountable subcommittee, as very clearly shown by this entirely avoidable controversy - one that nobody would have hoped for but anybody could have predicted.