In 2010 during the group stage match of the Tri-nation Tournament in Sri Lanka - India were scripting an easy win against Sri Lanka at Dambulla with Virender Sehwag reaching yet another One-day Internationa (ODI) hundred.
With the scores leveled, Suraj Randiv bowled a no-ball to
deny Sehwag a hundred, and the ploy was condemned by everyone as it was not
within the spirit of the game. Sehwag was left stranded on 99 though he hit the
no-ball for a six. It was a deliberate no-ball to deny Sehwag a hundred and
when you bowl a deliberate no-ball, surely, the Spirit of the Game is dented.
According to The
Island, it was Dilshan who suggested Randiv to bowl a no ball at the fag end of
the match which India won by six wickets. Dilshan, who was fielding at cover
point, shouted in Sinhalese 'Oney nam, no ball ekak danna puluwan' (if you
want, you can bowl a no ball).
None of the Sri Lankan players reacted to Dilshan's advice
to bowl the no-ball, the report said.
Hindustan Times stated that at the post-match press
conference, captain Kumar Sangakkara had given indication that someone may have
suggested to Randiv to bowl the no ball.
"If it was deliberate, I will have to have a chat to him (Suraj) and make sure it does not happen again. I will have to see also
whether there was any talk about it on the field, prior to that delivery,"
Sangakkara had said.
Sangakkara also came under the scanner as he was heard
instructing Randiv in Sinhalese "If he hits the ball, he gets the
run" - after Sri Lanka Cricket examined stump microphone audios to
determine whether any player had played a role in coaxing Randiv to bowl a
'no-ball.’
Embarrassed by the controversial incident, Sri Lanka Cricket
on Tuesday initiated an inquiry under team manager Anura Tennekoon even as
Randiv and top SLC officials offered apologies to calm things down.
The apologies prompted the Indian team management to declare
the episode a "closed chapter" while the BCCI also made it clear that
it would not pursue the case any further.
Four years later, during the fifth One-day International
between England and Sri Lanka at Edgbaston in 2014 – Sachitra Senanayake, a
spinner with a suspected bowling action became the topic of discussion for a
couple of days around the cricketing globe.
Having twice stopped in his delivery stride during the 42nd
over to warn both Jos Buttler and Chris Jordan for backing up too far,
Senanayake followed through on the threat in the 44th, turning slowly to break
the wicket with Buttler a yard or so down the pitch.
The on-field umpires consulted then Sri Lankan skipper
–Angelo Mathews and he nodded his assent
in upholding the appeal. That meant the first instance of 'Mankading' in
international cricket since Peter Kirsten's innings was ended by Kapil Dev in
such a manner during an ODI between South Africa and India in 1992.
The cricket pundits were divided with their opinions
regarding the Spirit of Cricket but Mathews did not bother as Sri Lanka won the
ODI and Mahela Jayawardene had his backing for the skipper back then.
Jayawardene said that Sri Lanka had warned Buttler twice
before the incident and felt he had been claiming an unfair advantage by
leaving his ground early.
"We gave him a fair chance. Twice. Before the first
warning, we told the umpires that he was taking too much of a lead and then he
was warned again. We had to do that because they kept doing it.”
"We analyzed our game after Lord's. They took 22 twos
in the last 12 overs. Ravi Bopara and him ran riot. And most of the time they
were taking starts that are not legal by the written laws. We just wanted to make
sure we got a fair chance. We warned them and we warned the umpires, but they
didn't listen to us, so we had to take the right steps”
"We always try to play in the right spirit, but if the
other team is not playing in the right spirit and not going with the law, then
unfortunately we had to take the law into our hands. It was the third time. It
is fair enough, I think. We all need to play by the rules.”
"If the other sides are not going by the rules, then
they're not playing by the spirit, so what can you do?"
Mathews was not wrong in his stance neither Senanayake was
not wrong because mankading exists in the laws of cricket – people may be
divided by the issue of Spirit of the Game – but if any action is done within
the laws then how could it hamper the spirit of the game remains a moot
question.
In that sense, whatever Shakib Al Hasan did against Sri
Lanka during the group stage match of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2023 in Delhi
was not at all wrong
ESPN Cricinfo states, “Mathews was already on the pitch and
in his final preparations before taking strike against Shakib Al Hasan. His
helmet strap broke just as he was tightening it around his chin.”
“He called for a replacement helmet, which was run out to
him by Chamika Karunaratne. Shakib then appeared to initiate a discussion with
umpire Marais Erasmus, after which Mathews, as he was not ready to face his
first ball within the two minutes to do so as allowed in the ICC playing
conditions, was informed he was timed out.”
“During the innings break, reserve umpire Adrian Holdstock
explained the process behind the dismissal to broadcaster ICC.tv: "The
fielding captain initiated the appeal to Marais Erasmus, who was the standing
umpire, that he wanted to appeal for timed out."
“Mathews was yet to
put on the new helmet and Karunaratne was still standing near the pitch when
the news of his dismissal was relayed to Mathews. At this stage, at least three
minutes and twenty seconds had elapsed since previous batter Sadeera
Samarawickrama's dismissal.”
“Mathews initially seemed to think the umpire was not
serious, but quickly wore a worried expression, and engaged in a long
discussion with both Erasmus and square-leg umpire Richard Illingworth.”
“Erasmus then approached Shakib and had a quick discussion
(the second between the two), following which Mathews also spoke briefly to
Shakib, who offered a consoling tap on Mathews' shoulder. But ultimately, the
decision to rule him timed out was upheld, prompting more animated and visibly
upset gesturing from Mathews at his broken helmet strap.”
The ICC playing conditions stipulate clearly that the batter
must be ready to receive the ball within two minutes, which Mathews was not as
the law says, 40.1.1: “After the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a
batter, the incoming batter must unless Time has been called, be ready to
receive the ball or for the other batter to be ready to receive the next ball
within two minutes of the dismissal or retirement. If this requirement is not
met, the incoming batter will be out, Timed Out."
Bangladesh held their nerves to beat Sri Lanka while the
anger among the Sri Lankan players and especially Mathews was evident – who
expressed his frustration at the presser after the match:
"It was obviously disgraceful from Shakib and
Bangladesh," Mathews said. "If they want to take wickets like that
and stoop down to that level, there's something wrong, drastically”.
"It's very disappointing way that Bangladesh played. If
it was mankading or obstructing the field, there's no issue. Within two minutes
I was at the crease, and it was when I was at the crease that my helmet broke.
The umpires saw this. I still had five seconds left. After I showed my helmet,
the umpires said [Bangladesh] had appealed. So I asked where common sense was
because my two minutes hadn't passed.”
"I've got no words to explain it. In my 15 years of
playing, I've never seen a team or a player stoop so low.”
While Shakib Al Hasan stated, “One of our fielders (Najmul
Hossain Shanto) came to me and said, 'If you appeal now, he will be out, if you
are serious'. Then I appealed and the umpire asked me whether I was serious and
whether I was going to take it back or not. I said no if it is in the rule if
it's out, I [won't] take it back."
“It is in the laws. I don't know if it is right or wrong.
But I felt like I was at war. I had to take decision to make sure my team wins
and whatever I had to do, I had to do. Right or wrong - there will be debates.
But if it's in the rules, I don't mind taking those chances," said Shakib.
ICC and MCC have made laws for cricket worldwide.
The rules are followed by the players and the umpires give
their decisions according to the laws and if any dismissal is produced under the
law, a player has to follow that rather than getting emotion about the Spirit
of the Game.
Even though - the laws of cricket have also had an
introductory statement or preamble. It states that cricket should be played not
only according to the laws but also in the “spirit of cricket.”
This preamble is aimed at reminding players and officials of
their responsibility for ensuring cricket is played in a truly sportsmanlike
manner.
But frankly speaking – the concept of the “Spirit of
Cricket” is subjective and has remained hazy since 1882 when even the great WG
Grace denied following it.
In the one-off Test match against Australia in 1882 at the
Oval, Australia were 114 for six in their second innings, with a lead of just
38, when the young batsman Sammy Jones completed a run and made his ground at
the end of an over.
Jones then went back down the pitch to talk to his captain
Billy Murdoch at the other end, and certainly to pat down divots in the pitch.
WG threw down the stumps, demanding a run out in his
high-pitched voice. The umpires were Bob Thoms and Luke Greenwood, a former
Yorkshire player who had played Test cricket for England had responded to the
appeal of Grace, and Jones had to walk back to the hut.
131 years later, at Trent Bridge, during the first Ashes
Test, 2013 - On the third day at a delicate point in the match with England
leading by 297 with four second innings wickets remaining, Broad fairly smashed
an Ashton Agar delivery off Brad Haddin and into Michael Clarke’s hands at
slip.
Inexplicably, Aleem Dar failed to give him out; Broad
wandered down the wicket and tapped gloves with Ian Bell. Australia had no
reviews remaining. Broad went on to make 65 and England won by 14 runs. Aus coach
Darren Lehmann called it “blatant cheating”, but Broad pointed out he was under
no obligation to walk and replied “I’ve never walked in cricket. I don’t see
why I would.”
10 years later, in the second Test at Lord’s – England
batsman England batsman Bairstow was stumped by Australian wicketkeeper Alex
Carey on day five of the second Ashes Test when Bairstow left his crease. The
incident triggered controversy but Carey was within the rules to dismiss
Bairstow who was repeating this for a while. If you don’t reach the crease
after the ball is in the end of the keeper then you have to face the
consequences.
Neither did Justin Langer start to walk during the second
Test at Hobart in 1999
Shortly after Pakistan had taken the new ball, Justin Langer,
on 76, appeared clearly to have snicked one to wicket-keeper Moin Khan off
Wasim Akram but 'home' umpire Parker ruled that not out. Australia's total then
was 5 for 237, chasing 369 – that decision broke the Pakistani spirit and
helped Australia trigger one of the most successful runs in the history of Test
cricket – that decision gave rise to the invincible Australia – Langer decided
not to walk because the umpire did not give him out and he had every right to
stay at the wicket – the Spirit of the Game factor becomes irrelevant in the
crucial juncture of play.
The lawmakers need to sit down and decide whether the
“Spirit of the Game” and the Laws of Cricket co-exist or not.
Whatever the cricketers of the past and present are doing –
most of them are within the laws of the game.
It’s better to take a look at modifying the Spirit of the
Game.
Everyone plays the game hard to win – and of course, by
following the rules of the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment