Sachithra Senanayake was booed each time he came up
to bowl, each time he touched the ball.
This is after he ‘Mankaded’ Jos Buttler.
A lot has been said and written about the incident. There has been self-righteous indignation,
there’s been ‘titting-for-tatting’ arguments and there has been sober reference
to ICC laws.
Ravi Bopara said ‘It is definitely not within the
spirit of the game. I wouldn’t say Jos was stealing yards, he was just casually
leaving the crease. It is just the done thing.’
He adds, ‘if that’s the way Mathews and Sri Lanka want to play their
cricket then it’s up to them; hopefully we don’t step to that level.’
Oh!
Wow!
Now
Bopara and Buttler had almost brought England a hard-to-imagine win in the 4th
ODI. There were some 20 plus occasions
when ones were converted into twos.
‘Good running,’ the commentators said.
They weren’t watching Buttler doing the ‘done thing’ though. However,
the only difference between this ‘done thing’ and running in a manner that
compels the umpire to signal ‘one short’ is that the former happens at delivery
point and the latter post-delivery and post-stroke. If one is the ‘done thing’ then the other is
too.
According
to Bopara, though, stepping out early is morally superior to being punished for
doing so after being warned more than
once. Should we not say
‘fiddlesticks!’?
The
last word on the issue, to my mind, came from my colleague Callistus Davy: ‘It
is not something that players should sort out. It’s for the umpires to
decide.’ True. The ‘spirit of the game,’ frequently alluded
to with reference to this incident is way too subjective to come to any
conclusion one way or another. ‘Laws’
are more robust and they are pretty clear on this matter. If you are deliberately taking cover under
‘spirit of the game’ to steal a few singles and with it a game, that’s the
worst kind of violation of this ‘spirit of the game’.
The
warning should have come from the umpire, not the players. The umpire watched for no-balls and is
required to ascertain if a run has been completed. People get run out by fractions of an inch
and therefore gaining a couple of yards by ‘doing the done thing’ is
cheating. What Bopara is therefore
saying is ‘We cheat and that’s the “done thing” as far as England is
concerned’. In this instance Senanayake,
by warning, was being kind. Rightfully,
though, Sri Lanka need not refer to the warning to buttress justification. Mankaading is legal. That’s it.
The
‘booing point’ however is that Senanayake’s action was brought into question before the final game began. He was the most successful Sri Lankan bowler
in the series. His action has been cleared by many on many occasions. This of course doesn’t mean that he cannot or
would never again err, but the timing of the complaint is significant. It coincides with England facing a
decider.
Is
this cricket? Is it politics (as
usual)? Here’s an analogy. Sri Lankan
security forces were about to vanquish the LTTE in the first few months of
2009. ‘War crimes!’ was the word for
‘Mankaading’ in that context. ‘Not in
the spirit of the game’, was the argument, the relevant reference being the
Geneva Convention, never mind that the said document is like used toilet paper
if the USA and its allies (the UK included) are involved. That match was won, but the Bopara-like
whines didn’t stop. In that instance,
apart from ‘tokenist’ objection to LTTE’s preferred methodologies of ‘playing
the game,’ there was largely silence on what the other side was doing. Like holding some 300,000 civilians hostage,
for example. That was the equivalent of
doing Buttler’s ‘done thing’. Calling a
probe on bowling action, then, is also the ‘done thing’, as ‘done’ as trying to
steal a single and as ‘done’ as being horrified when the thief is caught
napping.
One
thing is certain. The call to hang
Sachithra Senanayake will continue.
There are Navi Pillays in the cricketing world too, after all. Obamas and Camerons too. It’s called ‘doing the done thing’. That’s polite-speak for getting away with
cheating and what better way than to pass the cheat-buck back to the enemy,
huh?
0 comments:
Post a Comment