- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Maybe it’s just because India is involved but it seems the “spirit of the game” has awoken with a vengeance.
First there was the “Mankad” incident involving Ravi Ashwin and Sri Lanka’s Lahiru Thirimanne.
The original appeal was ultimately withdrawn after consultation between the umpires, the Indian skipper Virender Sehwag and the game’s senior statesman, Sachin Tendulkar.
Sehwag claimed the credit but Tendulkar’s input was probably key.
Thirimanne had wandered out of his crease at the bowler’s end only for Ashwin to remove the bails and appeal. There are those who think common sense and the “spirit of cricket” won the day.
Conversely, there are those who think the run out decision should have stood and Thirimanne should have been on his way.
Those in the second category felt their argument strengthened by the fact Thirimanne continued his evening walks even after his fortuitous let off.
After all, how many warnings is a batsman entitled to before the “spirit of cricket” subscribers think he’s actually just trying to take advantage. Unfair advantage!
For the record, I think he’s entitled to no such warning because it is impossible for me to imagine that a batsman at international level is wandering out of his crease by accident.
Be that as it may, the appeal was withdrawn and India did not try to run him out again despite his continual abuse of the privelege he’d been granted.
Against Australia at the SCG poor old India were once again on the receiving end of two decisions which both went the way of the home team. Both decisions had an air of controversy about them but were they incorrect?
The first was the decision by the men in funny hats to decline India’s appeal against David Hussey for a run out. Naturally, most of the Indian fans thought it should have been given out for “obstructing the field” or, possibly, “handling the ba’ll”.
The wording of Law 37 says in part, “Furthermore, it shall be regarded as obstruction if while the ball is in play either batsman wilfully, and without consent of a fielder, strikes the ball with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, after the ball has been touched by a fielder”.
In this case we can clearly say “touched by a fielder”, tick, “without consent”, tick, “wilfully”, tick. It’s the “other than a hand not holding the bat” bit which creates some doubt. Clearly this was the case and, on my reading, it is perfectly legitimate for Hussey to do so.
This of course, brings us to Law 33 Handled the Ball. This in part says, “a batsman will not be out under this Law if he handles the ball to avoid injury”.
Clearly, this is how the umpires have interpreted the incident. The confusion occurs because Hussey was looking at the fielder and appeared to move his hand to the ball rather than allow the ball to come to him.
Personally, I’ve no doubt he was protecting himself from injury but his attention on the fieldsman and the ball has caused much of the controversy.
It goes without saying that he could not stop the ball from hitting him if he was not watching the ball. Something of a Catch 22 for Hussey. Not surprisingly, there are some who consider he simply should have “manned up” and taken the hit. No, I’m not one of them!
Clearly he would have made his ground had the ball somehow managed to find its way past him (despite what many Indian fans seem to think) and the ball was in no danger of hitting the stumps directly (again despite what some Indian fans may think).
The law, however, cares not for the ultimate result of the run out attempt. It simply does not matter whether Hussey would have made his ground. The Laws are only concerned with the definition of Obstruction or Handled the Ball.
Ironically, several of Channel Nine’s Australian commentators thought Hussey should have been given out while ESPN’s Ravi Shastri and Sanjay Manjrekar thought he was safe. When experienced Test players can have differing opinions then is it any wonder the umpires erred on the side of caution. More of this point later.
Of course, being an India / Australia match the fun was just beginning. No sooner had the noise subsided from the commentators and any and all other interested parties than we embarked on the next crisis.
Sachin Tendulkar, having been awarded honorary life membership of the SCG just before play commenced, then proceeded to get run out in controversial fashion.
It is difficult now to decide who called who. Many seem to be blaming Ghambir for calling the Little Master through for what was, at best, a sharp single. To the naked eye, however, Ghambir seemed to be most reluctant to move and only ran when Tendulkar seemed to commit himself. So who called who?
As it turned out, the bowler Brett Lee had spotted the possibility and was racing down the track to field the ball which had politely strolled toward backward point. Half way down Lee observed David Warner racing in and rightly concluded Warner would clearly get there first.
At which point Lee stopped in his run. At all times Tendulkar was behind Lee and the bowler could not have known where the batsman was and, indeed, should not care. That’s the batsman’s problem.
After a slight pause Lee actually stepped toward the pitch which opened up the space for Tendulkar to run through. Clearly Tendulkar showed some uncertainty about Lee’s ultimate movements but it appeared to me that he simply stopped attempting to make his ground and when he moved again it was too late.
Tendulkar was comfortably run out and, in my view, would not have made his ground even if the way had been completely clear. Warner had displayed an excellent piece of fielding and had hit the stumps with a direct underarm throw.
At first glance Tendulkar seemed to be giving Ghambir a spray but it may have been aimed at the umpire for not considering what the Little Master considered was a block by Lee. This, of course, was not the umpire who made the decision.
In truth it was simply a poorly judged run and given the ball went behind the wicket off the bat, coupled with Ghambir’s apparent hesitation, it led some – including me – to conclude that it was Tendulkar who had made the call. We may never know and, really, it probably doesn’t matter.
What may matter, however, is Tendulkar’s apparent reluctance to exert himself. He clearly slowed down but whether he was actually blocked by Lee or simply thought he was about to be is a moot point.
Certainly, when asked to chase a ball to the long off boundary during Australia’s innings the Master clearly stopped trying to run it down long before the likes of Kohli would have. In fact, I’m quietly confident the brash young Kohli would have prevented the boundary. Sachin just trotted behind to pick it out of the gutter.
As India crashed to yet another embarassing defeat the press conference went along party lines. MS Dhoni thought Hussey was out and Tendulkar should have been in – or at least reprieved.
Stand-in skipper Watson put his faith in the umpires to make the right decisions which, from Australia’s viewpoint, they clearly did. Two-nil to the home team.
No doubt some Indian fans will see this as yet another part of a monumental world wide conspiracy against the Indian team. We call back Bell and Thirimanne and this is how they thank us!
Sadly, the truth is somewhat different. India is simply a demoralised rabble. World champions at home, world chumps away.
Sehwag has been largely a waste of space and compounded his captain’s woes by his complete lack of positive contribution.
The major strike weapon at the top of the order has been a failure. Raina continues to nick wide balls for fun and Sachin is wondering when, or if, that hundredth hundred will ever come. Perhaps the cricketing Gods will leave him, like Bradman, stranded on 99. There’s some symmetry in that.
The captain has been personable but largely ineffective. Certainly he guided his team to two great wins which, without him, would have been impossible. He also got himself suspended not once but twice for the same offence in two different forms of the game. A slow learner or simply lacking interest?
How can we know how Dhoni is thinking about India’s cricket right now. Disapointed probably does not begin to cover it.
The upshot is that India needs a miracle to make the ODI finals. Apparently there is some mathematical possibility if the Indians win with a bonus point and a stack of runs. It could happen but it’s hard to see how. Dhoni himself doesn’t think it will happen.
On the subject of controversy and cautious decision making former skipper Mark Taylor made an interesting observation in regard to the Hussey incident. It must be said that Taylor thought it was out.
He concluded, however, that one problem is in deciding what is controversial and perhaps everyone needs to realign their thinking. The accepted view would seem to be that giving Hussey out was deemed to be too radical a call whereby, in Taylor’s view, the really radical decision was to let him stay at the crease.
He also made the interesting observation that the so-called “spirit of the game” decisions always seem to be in favour of the batsmen. The poor old fielding team always misses out.
So Bell is recalled, Thirimanne is recalled, Hussey is reprieved courtesy of the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions. I never did get to ask Taylor about the Brett Lee “block” but given his stated view earlier that a batsman’s first job is to “not get out” I can only conclude he’d have sent Sachin on his way – after all, dismissal is the penalty for carelessness and poor judgement.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.