I know it’s very postmodern, the elimination of the frontier between performer and audience; reader and text. But while it all looks like Derrida and Foucault in elegant action, the idea that YOU, dear audience, are co-stars in the show is much more prosaic: it is, in fact, money-driven.

You are being rewarded with participation for the fact that you shell out your hard-earned money and/or priceless time to watch the show. Having the commentators split their orientation between describing the action and reading your Tweets makes you feel as important as the players themselves. What’s more, your comments generate conversation, which generates “news”, which everyone then gets to comment on. The Big Bubble Blower of the media whips up a whole fizzing edifice of the stuff and extracts as much entertainment from it as they can before it pops.

Which brings us to a couple of recent BBL incidents, and the reaction to them. Cricket Australia viewed commentator Mark Howard’s “heads up” to Brad Hodge about Shane Watson’s batting form against Ben Laughlin as a matter of “integrity”. What integrity would that be? The entire situation might make for good viewing at times, but it has the integrity of a noodle tunic in a briar patch.

The media, without irony, declared it was a crossing of “the line”. Suddenly there’s a line? I’d have thought if there was a line at all, it would be so remote you’d need a change of underwear to go find it.

Commentators interact with players in order to take us onto the field. To maximise entertainment value. Even if some sort of protocol for the interaction existed, it would be regularly breached just by virtue of the nature of the interaction.

Umpires, CA and media viewed Kevin Pietesen’s comments about an umpiring decision as “inappropriate”. What is appropriate in these circumstances? Pietersen was prompted and gave his opinion. Presumably the set-up exists in the first place to keep our attention engaged and our fingers away from the remote control. The ambiguity in that sentence is deliberate: Pietersen was, indeed, set up.  

How can anyone take any indignation about the exchange between Lehmann and Pietersen, on social and mainstream media, seriously when the means are provided for it to take place, and BBL’s interests live in hope that just such an exchange will take place? It’s pantomime, folks!

Having players miked up on the field was a silly idea even in the days of World Series Cricket, and Packer soon put a stop to it. Back then, when it was a long time between innings and a batsman actually acted disappointed, even angry, at being dismissed, one boundary rider made the mistake of asking Ian Chappell to dissect his own dismissal straight after he was done cheaply in Super Test. His reply, “what the f*** do you think happened?”, sent producers into a panic and Packer into a rage, and the innovation was consigned to the sphere of the bad idea.

Sometime later, a new innovation, stump mike, picked up Dennis Lillee’s reaction to a short ball from Garth LeRoux, which went something along the lines of “F**K!” This was long before our grandmas were buying us CDs for Christmas with strong language warnings and terms of endearment like “M***F***” were wafting over our suburbs by Yuletide arvo in strong counterpoint to White Christmas. The interminable silence in the commentary box took on mastodon proportions in the few minutes that silence lasted – and to viewers, that silence was hilarious. Today it would barely register, unless the comment breached one of the increasing number “isms” that circumscribe our public behaviour.  

Pietersen, Lehmann and Howard apparently broke some kind of unwritten law, but to legislate at all against such “unacceptable” behaviour would be like weaving nets to catch the wind in this blowy climate.

As long as the situation remains possible at all, the reactions against it are as disingenuous as Donald Trump claiming he hates attention. The only way to address it is to remove the microphone, but it’s doubtful the holy trinity of audience, protagonist and commentator will be thus compromised. After all, content is king and entertainment today is nothing if not undivided engagement.