More »
Showing posts with label Suraj Randiv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Suraj Randiv. Show all posts
Dharmasena apologises to Sehwag.
Are You Upholding The Appeal?
So asked the umpires, and Paul Collingwood later admitted he probably made the wrong decision. The subsequent reactions from first New Zealand and later the press must have affected the English captain and a short while later he resigned from the position. New Zealand's reaction was viewed with cynicism by some, considering wicket-keeper Brendon McCullum infamously ran-out Muralitharan when the latter walked over to congratulate his skipper on reaching a fine century in December 2006, a move that then skipper Stephen Flemming justified by saying
You can't just wander off when the ball's in mid-air and if we'd had an overthrow I'm sure they would have taken that.Yet little over a year later, when McCullum pulled the stunt again (apparently he'd even managed to do it once more between these two occasions when he ran out Chris Mpofu as he walked out to congratulate his partner on scoring a fifty) to run-out none other than Paul Collingwood, skipper Daniel Vettori withdrew the appeal after Daryl Harper spoke to the Kiwi skipper.
The circumstances in which each of these incidents took place are interesting. In the first instance, the game was close and Elliot's run out swung the game heavily in England's favor. In the second, Sangakkara played an absolute blinder and with New Zealand batting last obviously would have wanted to chase as little as possible. In the final case New Zealand were in a reasonably strong position with England struggling at 27/3 in the 11th over but Collingwood's dismissal at that stage would no doubt have improved their chances of making the semifinals of the Champions Trophy. So its not like you could say that sides are ruthless when they need to be and willing to adhere to spirit of cricket only when the odds are already stacked heavily in their favor.
But the key issue here is that all three incidents could have had a decisive bearing on the match's result, and but for an umpire's intervention, all three captains were happy to stick within the laws at the cost of cricket's over-hyped conduct of sportsmanship because at the end of the day, as RajaB said in the last post, it comes down to the numbers. For this generation, maybe even the next, the circumstances will leave an indelible mark, but what about after that? History will remember the numbers, the stats and it takes considerable digging up to find the fascinating story behind the numbers, an effort that all too often will be too much bother unless the incident has been researched for that specific purpose.
Which is why sometimes in focusing too much on the numbers, in striving too hard to maintain the only records that history will judge you by, you do something that gains you notoriety. How you then react is what makes the difference between whether the issue will be deemed inconsequential and confined only to a paragraph in annual review, or whether it makes the centerpiece of the decade's review. Jardine's "I'm not here to win friends. I'm here to win the Ashes" gave writers the opportunity to paint him as cricket's primary villain for years. Steve Waugh's "They make the rules, we try to make sure we play within them" response* fitted perfectly with the ruthless, ice-man persona the press had created. Indeed you would find such retorts litter the landscape of events in cricket that went down as controversial, right from W.G.Grace to Fleming's stubborn support for McCullum.
By his early action on the field though, Vettori managed to successfully quash a controversy before it had the chance to become one, and but for the line about Harper's instigation, even if you did notice the event you would believe Vettori had conducted himself strictly by the Spirit of Cricket immediately. Collingwood made the wrong decision but did apologize after the match, which while not sparing him from criticism at the time, didn't leave him with the ridiculed legacy Brad Haddin will have to live with for flatly denying and refusing to believe even with available video evidence that he had made a mistake.
It would appear then that the only place where the spirit of cricket seems to find a place today is in making a qualitative assessment of a cricketer's morality in determining the degree to which an incident is reported and recorded, as inconsequential or outrageous. The only exception being in justifying whether an Australian captain is capable of counting and organizing, skills you would have thought were prerequisites for leading your national side, but that is another issue.
Which brings me to Randhiv. He might have been coaxed into bowling the no-ball, but whether by volition or by instruction, he did apologize and he hasn't complained about SLC's punishment. But the board's reaction is interesting, and not just because the common consensus is that it is over-the-top. In recognizing the place where the spirit has the most relevance, which is most certainly not on the field, they have acted in a manner that shall forever taint Randhiv whilst reflecting their actions in a quite different light. After all, can it honestly be asked a few decades from now whether theirs was an overreaction? Quite likely it will be remembered as the days when administrators felt they had an obligation uphold the spirit.
I'm not criticizing them. What I'm trying to say is, they felt they were asked "Are you upholding the appeal?" to which they answered decisively in the negative and so lives on this fascinating aspect of the game... where all manner of individuals use the spirit as required at the moment and then react based on how they believe history will judge them for it.
*In the match in question, Aus vs WI, the Windies had been bowled out for 110 and Australia crawled to 111 off 40.4 overs (in stark contrast to their lightning quick chase of 180 in under 20 overs against Bangladesh in the previous match) as they tried to prevent the West Indies' nrr from falling too far behind New Zealands'. The reason being the Kiwis had won against Australia and would carry those points forward to the Super Six stage which would mean Australia would carry none. With only a game against Scotland left, New Zealand would have to win by a large margin to overtake the West Indies nrr, which they did.
Why Cricket is no more a gentleman’s game…
Suraj Randiv, the latest reason for all of us to dive deep into the Old Testament of Cricket which contains incorrigible words and phrases such as “Fair play” , “Spirit of Cricket”, “Cricket is a gentleman’s game” et all. Before we proceed further, let me say what the world is saying… What Randiv and Dilshan did was criminal, especially denying a century for a beloved Indian cricketer. They should ideally have tried these guys at The Hague, than these hogwash fines and match bans.
As we keep fanatically persecuting the Sri Lankan cricketers for this dastardly act, I asked myself, “Is cricket really a gentleman’s game?”
You might see an answer to that question in this post. If you don’t, let me know your point of view.
1993, was the year when this famous word “recusal” was added to my vocabulary thanks to one Prof. Rajagopalan. This man was a cricketer of some repute during his youth, at 50+ he was a decent bat yet. He could famously win 3-point basketball challenges against the best of the basketball players from the college. He was the chief selector of our college cricket team. The man stood down because his son was in the fray, an aspirant for a place in the college cricket team. He made sure the others didn’t know who his son was, he wasn’t selected in the team that year although he came back into the B team next year flaunting his connection (or was that talent ?) to the Prof’s annoyance. That for me was an introduction to the “Spirit of cricket” and “a gentleman’s game”. But unfortunately that also was the last time I heard about those words or phrases.
1994, it was an intramural tournament and I was batting on 47 (I was sure). I glided the ball down the fine leg and ran 2 to hear & see my teammates standing up and applauding. They were sure that I had made my 50 and I played to the gallery, celebrated and promptly got out the next ball. As I was walking out, I could hear my captain telling the guys around “Come on we did well, this guy wouldn’t stop talking for eons had he made it to 50”. I didn’t quite understand it till I saw the scoresheet “R Baradwaj, Runout 49”
1996, many of the guys I knew were abusing a particular parent, the father of the guy who captained a cricket team. The accusation was that he interfered in selection, the toss, the field placement and the batting order. Why should he do it ? He always wanted his son on top of things.
1997, we were playing an intramural cricket match. It was the semifinals, a closely fought one. Our opponents need 33 with their last recognized batsman shepherding the tail. We needed to get “Srinivasan” out. He was having a ball in the middle, but still he was tense. After every ball he was rushing out like a mad man to speak to his partner who was playing snooker on the cricket field. The wicketkeeper (one Mr RajaB) took advantage of this attitude of Srini and ran him out, he knew Srini wasn’t trying to steal a single but still he put him out of the game. And his team won.
1999, I lived in a lodge (what they call a mansion in Triplicane, Madras) near the famed MAC stadium in Madras. Every morning as I went for a jog I could see kids, as young as 4-5 buried between the kitbag and the stepney of a slow moving scooter as his father ferried him to his cricket coaching camp. For want of space the kid invariably had his helmet on. One day, the curious I went in to see what happens in the nets. I could see parents standing behind the net and barking orders “put your leg forward”, “Drive that one straight”, “In the back foot”, “Fool, don’t commit yourself there” etc. I also saw fathers arguing with the coach about the time their kid got to bat vis-à-vis another
2000, I befriended a dad, who was an officer with SBI. His 9 year old son was too small even for that age. His kid had a problem, he was what we call the “Rabbit on headlight”. Every time he was put in a match situation, he had a problem running between wickets. He would freeze the moment he saw the fielder throwing the ball, endangering himself and his partner. The dad was livid as we spoke about this particular shortcoming of his son, “That idiot doesn’t change. Have told him many times… At least you don’t get out, I have tried to reason… but he doesn’t understand the value of his wicket… It is a minimum 30 runs”. I didn’t quite understand the 30 run logic till one of my friends confirmed that 30 is the minimum on board in your name you require to see your name on the next day’s papers.
There are many parents today who think cricket brings them easy money and hence goading and prodding their kids to take the game up. At one point they come to a stage where they do anything for their kids to get selected, to be in the playing 11 and to score and get seen. We have heard stories of parents gifting the selectors with televisions, mobile phones, mopeds and cars. There is also this nauseating story of a mother sleeping with a selector to ensure her sons selection (the fact that the selector found that the dad had tricked him by pressing the services of a prostitute to proxy for his wife is another story)
The expectations of the parents, the pressure they put on their kids, their greed for seeing their kids name on the scorecard and in the newspapers & television, the lure of IPL and the monies it offers, the endorsement contracts it would bring in and most importantly the urge for being on top at any cost have made this game a business.
No one cares anything about being a gentleman or about spirits, all they care about is the scorecard & winning, how they or their wards and their teams fared.
So, let us not recite the Old Testament and fool ourselves. Cricket is no more a gentleman’s game. The only spirit cricket and the cricketers have is Ethyl Alcohol !!
PS: Heard NC is upset with me not writing my two lines to commemorate the two years of BCC!, “Sorry NC, I’ve never wish myself on my birthday”
The futility of applying Randivian tactics for social welfare
INT . Inside BCCI offices. Some time in the near future. Much water , if not spirit-of-cricket , has flowed under the bridge since Randiv famously thrust his worst foot forward. We come in to the scene when a BCCI fixtures scheduling meeting is on . In attendance are the fixtures committee and a very socially-conscientious Bored Peon.
CHAIRMAN : " Hmm , OK , up next for us is a Sri Lanka series. 25 tests , 50 ODI's and 100 T20's , that will take care of the six months begining Aug 1st , 2013."
The s-c. Bored Peon , an adherent of sorts of Randiv's revolutionary tactics , very quickly and very deftly turns the pages of the calendar forward by a year.
BORED PEON (brightly) : " But sir , we are already in Aug 2014 - so we are past that date. I don't think the tour can take place now , sir"
CHAIRMAN : " What ! Oh , i see. Oh well , never mind. Let's start the tour tommorow then"
Meeting ends. We find a despondent s-c. B.P. utter a hollow groan.
BORED PEON (to himself) : " Nahi , nahi , nahi ! Not another Ind-SL series , please sir ji !!!! We can't take it anymore - those 22 bored players , those nine spectators and half a dog in the stands. No , we can't ! Society . . . , this country , .....why , humanity ...will collapse. ..."
ENTER News TV journalist
TV J (to camera) : " Breaking news , live from the BCCI . Collapse of humanity is imminent , says Bored Peon !"
to BORED PEON " But half a dog in the stands watching an IND-SL match you said .Explain? "
BORED PEON : " Yeah , its mind is not on the game."
Aftermath of Randivgate
a century to remember...
before you correct me by saying it wasn't a century... let me counter in advance by saying that you are in a way supporting that act of randiv...
more than the deliberate attempt of randiv to deny it... in fact had he thrown the ball out of the boundary he would have looked more innocent... i will remember this century for the way it was achieved...
sehwag from the very beginning looked like he was on some mission... he played the balls on merit and never tried to manufacture a shot out of a good ball... for once he respected conditions... bowlers bowling good balls and more importantly being the senior most batsmen of the team he showed remarkable restraint throughout the innings and yet he scored a run a ball century!
this just goes to show, as yours truly has been arguing at various platforms for some time, that those who think that the only way sehwag plays is to just attack and dominate from the start... ought to keep the dvd of this innings of sehwag and vow to never ever comment on this aspect of sehwag's game till he/she watches cricket...
Whither the laws?
Law 18 (Scoring runs)
1. A run
The score shall be reckoned by runs. A run is scored
(a) so often as the batsmen, at any time while the ball is in play, have crossed and made good their ground from end to end.
(b) when a boundary is scored. See Law 19 (Boundaries).
(c) when penalty runs are awarded. See 6 below.
(d) when Lost ball is called. See Law 20 (Lost ball).
2. Runs disallowed
Notwithstanding 1 above, or any other provisions elsewhere in the Laws, the scoring of runs or awarding of penalties will be subject to any disallowance of runs provided for within the Laws that may be applicable.
Notwithstanding 1 above, or any other provisions elsewhere in the Laws, the scoring of runs or awarding of penalties will be subject to any disallowance of runs provided for within the Laws that may be applicable.
Law 19 (Boundaries)
5. Runs scored
When a boundary is scored,
(a) the penalty for a No ball or a Wide, if applicable, shall stand, together with any penalties under either of Laws 18.5(b) (Deliberate short runs) or 42 (Fair and unfair play) that apply before the boundary is scored.
When a boundary is scored,
(a) the penalty for a No ball or a Wide, if applicable, shall stand, together with any penalties under either of Laws 18.5(b) (Deliberate short runs) or 42 (Fair and unfair play) that apply before the boundary is scored.
Law 21 (The result)
6. Winning hit or extras
(a) As soon as a result is reached, as defined in 1, 2, 3 or 4 above, the match is at an end. Nothing that happens thereafter, except as in Law 42.17(b) (Penalty runs), shall be regarded as part of it. Note also 9 below.
(a) As soon as a result is reached, as defined in 1, 2, 3 or 4 above, the match is at an end. Nothing that happens thereafter, except as in Law 42.17(b) (Penalty runs), shall be regarded as part of it. Note also 9 below.
(b) The side batting last will have scored enough runs to win only if its total of runs is sufficient without including any runs completed before the dismissal of the striker by the completion of a catch or by the obstruction of a catch.
(c) If a boundary is scored before the batsmen have completed sufficient runs to win the match, then the whole of the boundary allowance shall be credited to the side's total and, in the case of a hit by the bat, to the striker's score.
Law 24 (No ball)
11. Ball not dead
The ball does not become dead on the call of No ball.
The ball does not become dead on the call of No ball.
12. Penalty for a No ball
A penalty of one run shall be awarded instantly on the call of No ball. Unless the call is revoked, this penalty shall stand even if a batsman is dismissed. It shall be in addition to any other runs scored, any boundary allowance and any other penalties awarded.
A penalty of one run shall be awarded instantly on the call of No ball. Unless the call is revoked, this penalty shall stand even if a batsman is dismissed. It shall be in addition to any other runs scored, any boundary allowance and any other penalties awarded.
13. Runs resulting from a No ball - how scored
The one run penalty for a No ball shall be scored as a No ball extra. If other penalty runs have been awarded to either side, these shall be scored as in Law 42.17 (Penalty runs). Any runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the striker if the ball has been struck by the bat; otherwise they also shall be scored as No ball extras.
Apart from any award of a 5 run penalty, all runs resulting from a No ball, whether as No ball extras or credited to the striker, shall be debited against the bowler.
The one run penalty for a No ball shall be scored as a No ball extra. If other penalty runs have been awarded to either side, these shall be scored as in Law 42.17 (Penalty runs). Any runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the striker if the ball has been struck by the bat; otherwise they also shall be scored as No ball extras.
Apart from any award of a 5 run penalty, all runs resulting from a No ball, whether as No ball extras or credited to the striker, shall be debited against the bowler.
Law 42 (Fair and unfair play)
17. Penalty runs
(a) When penalty runs are awarded to either side, when the ball is dead the umpire shall signal the penalty runs to the scorers as laid down in Law 3.14 (Signals).
(a) When penalty runs are awarded to either side, when the ball is dead the umpire shall signal the penalty runs to the scorers as laid down in Law 3.14 (Signals).
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Law 21.6 (Winning hit or extras), penalty runs shall be awarded in each case where the Laws require the award. Note, however, that the restrictions on awarding penalty runs in Laws 26.3 (Leg byes not to be awarded), 34.4(d) (Runs permitted from ball struck lawfully more than once) and Law 41.4 (Penalty runs not to be awarded) will apply.
--
34.4 Randiv to Sehwag, 1 no ball, match is over, but Sehwag has been denied the century. And this is a big no-ball, must I point out? His back foot was close to over-steeping, forget about the front foot. Anyway Sehwag smashed it for six over long-off, but they don't count because the game finishes at no-ball. He raises his arms, but then realises the century is not completed. Doesn't matter to him. He says: "It often happens. When a batsman is on 99 and the scores are level, bowlers try to bowl no-balls and wides. It happens in cricket. Fair enough." What a man
So much for the rules, eh?
Suraj Randiv's inpiration and other assorted confessions.
As a young boy I was inspired by Murali, especially that time when he was called for no-balling down under. More than learning how to bowl new deliveries, I always wanted to bowl no-balls to create new controversies.
While chucking the ball is one way to be called, you can’t always rely on this method. It is very complex, what with the angles, and umpires shying away from their responsibilities.
The moment Sehwag hit me for that big six I decided, I will also hit him for six. First the four byes, you’ll never know, will you? And then when India needed just one run to win.
Thanks to all the ICC Rules books I’ve consumed, I knew, if I bowled a no-ball, Sehwag will be denied a richly deserved hundred. That will hurt, just like he hurt me with that 6. Of course, I could have bowled a wide, a beamer but that would’ve been too blatant.
I was first thinking to run halfway down the pitch and bowl the ball, but again too blatant. So before I overstepped, by only a few feet, mind you, I nudged the umpire, Ranmore Martinesz, and then whispered to him in Sinhalese…watch my foot, watch my foot. First he replied no ball in Sinhalese, and then extended his arm. Just proves, no balls speak a universal language but we Sri Lankans have a better accent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
