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The original appeal was ultimately withdrawn after consultation between the umpires, the Indian skipper Virender Sehwag and the game’s senior statesman, Sachin Tendulkar.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Be that as it may, the appeal was withdrawn and India did not try to run him out again despite his continual abuse of the privelege he’d been granted.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.
Bayman
Guest
Ben, Brett, As I have stated previously, on balance I think Hussey was out but I can understand why he was not. As you say, it doesn't look good. Had he kept his hand in closer to his body and allowed the ball to hit him there I would have no problems at all. When he put his hand out, waiting for the ball, then moved it further out to intercept the ball then he entered very murky waters indeed. The irony, of course, is that he would never have been run out had the ball continued on its journey - he was virtually in when the ball met his hand. I await with fascination the next batsman to extend a helping hand to the ball now that a clear precedent has been set.
Bayman
Guest
Brett, Exactly.
Bayman
Guest
G'day Ben, I tend to agree with your mate. Lee is entitled to chase the ball and is equally entitled to stop doing so to avoid getting in the way of either Warner (in this instance) or the ball on its way to the stumps. He is also not required to get out of Tendulkar's way - it is up to Tendulkar to get around him the best way he can. What Lee cannot do is, in the opinion of the umpires, deliberately step into Tendulkar's path and intentionally obstruct him. This he clearly did not do so Sachin was out. The best way to think of it is that nobody, batsman or fielder, has the right of way. Whoever gets to "point A" first wins. It really is as simple as that. As far as Hussey goes he clearly was given the benefit of the doubt about "avoiding injury" which is his right. To compound the problem there is no way known he would have been run out as he was almost over the crease line when the ball "struck him". The law, however, does not care about that. Did he handle or not, did he obstruct or not? The problem I have with the Hussey decision is that he had his hand out waiting for the ball then moved his hand to the ball rather than allow the ball to come to him. Even if I accept he may have been trying to avoid injury I think that if you go and meet the ball then there has to be some doubt as to his intentions. I think he should have been given out given the actions that took place in this instance.
Bayman
Guest
Ben, As a mate said to me today, "These Indians would not have beaten Custer!"
Bayman
Guest
Nate, I think the issue with the Hussey decision is the argument between "protecting himself from injury" and "wilfully handling the ball". Most cases have been given when the ball is heading towards the stumps and the batsman pushes it away. This is the classic case. The law is also designed to stop a batsman from blocking the ball on its way to the keeper, bowler, stumps in the situation of a run being taken. This was the Hussey example. Incidentally, Hussey would have clearly made his ground before the ball reached the keeper but the rule makes no comment on this. In fact, the rule does not care. If the batsman handles the ball he risks dismissal even if he clearly would have been safe - again as in the Hussey example. I think Hussey was very lucky. Lee's spatial awareness probably doesn't extend to eyes in the back of his head but, equally, I have no doubt he was vaguely aware of where Tendulkar might be. As you say, had he moved to the right a little and stepped in front of Tendulkar then the result may have been different. In fact, he stepped to the left and opened the space in front of Tendulkar. The truth is though that I suspect Tendulkar just gave it up. Any problem Tendulkar had with Lee's positioning was largely because Sachin made no attempt to go around Lee but just kept running on the same line - perhaps his eyes were on Warner instead and he knew he was gone with a direct hit.
Bayman
Guest
Matt F, The line he took when chasing the ball - which he is perfectly entitled to do. If Ghambir drops the ball into a zone into which fielders may potentially move and block his partner's run then that's India's problem, not Australia's. As long as one or more of those fielders do not deliberately step into Tendulkar's path to force him wide. Lee was there first, thus it was Tendulkar's job to find his way home - which he did not do in time and, in my opinion, would not have done even without Lee in front of him. Sachin simply gave up.
Bayman
Guest
Brett, Yep, the doubtful one is Hussey. While I tend to agree he was probably trying to avoid being hit - as is his right - that movement of his hand towards the ball was a worry. I'm sure the umpires choked a little bit and gave him the benefit of the doubt re avoiding injury but, in reality, they have set a standard for what is, and is not, deliberate handling of the ball. Far better, I think, that they fired off Hussey to set the tone for the future. He does everything that I suspect he should not - He looks at the fielder, not the crease to which he's running; he puts his hand out long before the ball is thrown; then he compounds the problem by going to meet the ball rather than let it come to him. I think he was very lucky. Thirimanne and Tendulkar were just out, plain and simple.
Bayman
Guest
Red, The problem is that it does matter if it's intentional or not. Lee had the front position and is not required to get out of Tendulkar's way. It is no different to a bowler following through and standing his ground so that the striker has to run around him for the run. That happens every match. You may think it all very unfair but the fact is - it's not. It's the rules. There is no right of way in a run out situation. A player may not deliberately obstruct the batsman (in this case) but he's under no obligation to get out of his way either. Ultimately, finding a way to safety is really Tendulkar's problem, not Lee's.
Bayman
Guest
Vas, I agree completely - Thirimanne out, Hussey out, Tendulkar out. Hussey reaching for the ball did it for me. If that's not out then no batsmen will ever be given out. I suspect the umpires (third included) choked on that one.
Bayman
Guest
Red Kev, In short, and in my view, Dave above is absolutely correct. Lee was in front of Tendulkar but has no obligation to attempt to get out of his way. Tendulkar had the clear view of all involved but made no real attempt to bypass Lee. If you ask me, he simply gave it up. Let's face it - short, sharp singles are not Sachin's forte.
Bayman
Guest
GB, Let me be clear, Taylor stated that a batsman's first obligation is to not get out. If he stays in then the runs will come. I am quite confident that Taylor would have seen the Tendulkar incident as a high risk run and, as such, Tendulkar provided the opposition with an opportunity to dismiss him. In other words, he broke the "first law" and did not "stay in". Tendulkar paid his money and took his chance - and lost. As unpalatable as that may be to some that is the simple fact of the matter. In the runout situation there is no right of way - for batsman or fielder. Both are fully entitled to take the shortest route to their destination. There is no obligation for either to get out of the other's way. Equally, Lee is quite entitled to stop running to allow Warner clear passage. It is up to Tendulkar to find a way past Lee. It is not up to Lee to step out of the way. As for your view that Tendulkar would have made his ground easily I simply disagree. This is a guy who spent the summer turning threes into twos and twos into singles. He would not run out of sight in a fog. The very idea that Tendulkar would cover twenty-two yards - with pads on - faster than Warner could cover fifteen to twenty yards without pads is fanciful. Given the swift pick-up and direct hit, the positioning of Lee would have made no difference. As for conjuring up allusions of the "spirit of the game" you presume this has a role in this case. It does not. Taylor was referring to the incidents involving Thirimanne and Hussey. This was not a spirit of the game issue, It was simply a poorly judged run with the appropriate consequences.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
"[I]n order to" is a matter of intent, not success.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Oh, don't let that concern you, has very little to do with this incident that's just the standard policy position for the Times of India's readership regarding Australia :) And they're moderates!
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Well articulated Hornblower, agree substantively. That's definitely the reading I took from Law 33.
Dave
Guest
A player from the fielding team is under NO obligation to move for the batsman. The batsman is under NO obligation to divert his line around the fielder. Collisions happen and batsmen get out unless they run around. Them's the rules.
M
Guest
"Hussey was clearly trying to avoid injury, with a hand not holding the bat, and in the umpires’ view, any impediment of Tendulkar from Lee wasn’t wilful." So if hussey had of broken a finger on his hand and thus not avoided injury he would've been out?
Ken
Guest
' So, according to Taylor, the “spirit of the game” decisions are always in favor of the batsmen, but you concluded that Taylor would’ve judged Tendulkar out in his case. Interesting!' That's not contradictory, Taylor was merely pondering that this is the way it seems to work not that this is way it should be. The article clearly points out that Taylor also thought Hussey should have been given out. Taylor obviously believes batsmen should be more accountable in these types of situations. 'From what I have seen Tendulkar would’ve made his ground quite easily if Lee was not in front of him with his legs wide open.' Lee is not that wide, besides although he's not allowed to intentionally block the batsman, he's under no obligation to ensure he has a clear passage, in the same way the batsman has no obligation to ensure that the fielder has a clear run to the ball (short of intentional blocking). These principles have been tested in run-out situations since the dawn of cricket.
Brett McKay
Expert
Ben, as I mentioned to Sheek above, I was still 50/50 on Hussey's until I saw the law wordings. As you say, in both cases, there doesn't look to be any intention to obstruct ball or batsman, but sure, Hussey's doesn't look good..
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
You've just converted me Brett. In both cases, the umpires deemed that Hussey and Lee had not intentionally taken the action they took. I will admit, however, that Hussey's hand does look rather iffy and Lee could have still been an obstruction, but if it isn't willful in the view of the umpire, then it is not an obstruction... Hmmm...
Razza
Guest
Hussey did what i would do, protect himself, he put his nobatting hand out straight so the ball would not hit any part of his body, eg elbow, hip, knee, these are crucial points where injury could occur from a hard thrown cricket ball, cricket is his employment. Lee, was lucky i thought, he did move over further then he should knowing Tendulkar was running behind him, but Tendulkar had plenty of time to change his direction that would not have slowed him down, he was always going to be runout. Typical whinging from India.