- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
As Dinesh Ramdin insouciantly rolled the ball towards the square leg umpire and ran to the centre of the pitch to join his teammates to celebrate the dismissal of Misbah-ul-Haq in their recent Champions Trophy game against Pakistan, he opened the Pandora’s box of honesty in cricket at the highest level.
If reasonable expectation of ‘honest player’ behaviour includes not claiming catches that were not taken cleanly, it should also be expected of batsmen to ‘walk’ when they know they are out.
Walking has always been vehemently debated, with arguments both for and against a batsman doing it. Some firmly believe that the decision must always be left to the umpire; even if you are a ‘walker’, there will be instances when you are given out when you are actually not, and not walking would neutralize these umpiring errors over the span of a batsman’s career.
Some even believe walking is disrespectful of the umpire’s authority – especially if you walk after the umpire has ruled in your favour. A few others, like Gilchrist famously did in the 2003 World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka, choose to walk when they think that they are out. (This breed has mostly died out today.)
Every batsman in the modern game walks without waiting for the umpire’s decision when the catch is taken in the deep or in the slips (when it is obvious that he is out). Therefore, a refusal to walk by a batsman in less obvious circumstances can only be construed as an assertion by him that he is not out.
While one could make a case for the batsman, that he himself is not sure whether he has feathered the leather, the edge is way too pronounced for even that line of reasoning to hold in certain cases – like this instance of Ponting against Pakistan in the 2011 World Cup. Isn’t claiming to be not out when you have clearly edged the ball a similar offence to claiming to have taken a catch that you actually have not?
(YouTube links to incidents provided at the end of the article)
Essentially, the player in the cauldron – whether claiming a catch or deciding to walk – has two options to make a choice from – leave it to the umpire or take it upon himself to act ‘honestly’ under the circumstances. It is only fair that any ICC Code of Conduct should be applied keeping these fundamental choices available to the player in mind.
How different then – with respect to the choices made by the players – were the two incidents involving Ramdin and Ponting?
|
Player |
Incident |
Player’s thought process |
Choice made |
Result |
|
Dinesh Ramdin |
Claims to have taken a catch he actually did not |
I know I have dropped the catch. Let the umpire decide if it is out or not. |
Leave it to the umpire |
Suspended for two ODIs for behaving contrary to the spirit of the game |
|
Ricky Ponting |
Clearly edged the ball to the keeper but stood his ground |
I know I have edged the ball. Let the umpire give me out. |
Leave it to the umpire |
A few poor souls in the crowd raised their eyebrows |
Dinesh Ramdin was charged under the ICC Code of Conduct for “conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game”. If indeed his actions (the choice of leaving the decision to the umpire) were against the spirit of the game, then so must be Ponting’s and that of countless other batsmen who have committed similar deeds at various stages in their careers.
It is difficult to understand cricket’s obsession with honesty with respect to claiming catches. The infamous India tour of Australia in 2008 – epitomized by the Sydney Test – saw both captains agreeing before the series “to take the fielder’s word” for doubtful catches, while neither of them thought of getting their batsmen to show some heart and walk when they are out. A player claiming a catch he has not taken cleanly is somehow a far greater crime in cricket’s penal code than a batsman standing his ground even after clearly edging the ball. The dichotomy of the reactions to essentially similar player choices (of leaving the decision to the umpire) is perplexing.
Irrespective of the contention on the degree of harshness of the two ODIs suspension handed out to Ramdin, the least one can expect from the ICC is consistency in applying its own rules across different games, players and situations. Is the message the ICC would like to send out that honesty is largely restricted to claiming catches, while edging the ball and standing your ground does not fall under its purview? Is honesty with respect to catches honesty enough in international cricket?
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.