On no-balling ourselves off the moral high ground

Suraj Randiv denied Virendra Sehwag a century in a one-day international cricket encounter a few days ago by bowling a no-ball. At that point in the game, the scores were level and India needed just one run to win the game. Sehwag, who was on 99, whacked Randiv’s no-ball for a six but alas according to the rule-book, the match was over the moment Randiv stepped over the line and the umpire shouted ‘No ball’. The six didn’t count and Sehwag was denied a deserved century.

Randiv clearly didn’t know the rule for he bowled two ‘dot-balls’ before the controversial no-ball. Sehwag didn’t know either. Had he known, he would have not bothered to swing his bat at all. Randiv, we are told, was instructed by a senior player to bowl a no-ball in order to leave Sehwag stranded on 99.

The ‘senior player’ may have known the rule. On the other hand, considering that the no-ball bamboozled all commentators, players, spectators and most fans commenting on blogs for quite some time, I am a bit skeptical about ‘intention’ here. If I didn’t know this rule, I would have bowled a wide, aiming it wide of where a leg-slip might have been. That’s if I was small-minded of course.

Everyone has ‘apologized’ since. I’d like to know what exactly Randiv said, what Dilshan told Randiv and what he told Sri Lanka Cricket and the Indians. I’d like to know who told what to these cricketers to make them say what they said to Sehwag, Dhoni and the rest of the Indian cricket team. Just to get a better idea of what kind of post no-ball machinations took place.

Gamesmanship

To my mind, it all boils down to gamesmanship. It is not cheating. Sure, even when it comes to gamesmanship there are things that are made for grin-and-bear and things that are clearly unacceptable. One is not required to apologize for gamesmanship. If that was the norm, then Ricky Ponting would have nothing else to do than to apologize to opposing batsman, captain and management and the fans in general after each and every delivery.

Some have pointed out that Randiv’s no-ball was not a first. Countless batsmen have been denied landmarks at all levels of the game. Indians themselves have not been averse to tweaking rule every now and then to put one over the opposition, it has been revealed. I am sure it would have left a bad taste in the mouth and prompted people to spit out of a few for-letter words, but rarely have people pouted like Sehwag did and rarely have ‘offenders’ been called up and asked to say ‘sorry’.

All of the above is ‘context’, i.e. just to put some perspective. What is more important, I believe, is to discuss the issue of standards, who sets them and which frames of reference we should use as guideline.

The easiest thing to do is to dig around until one finds a case that is decidedly more objectionable, preferably one where victim remained silent and the offender got off scot-free. The easy thing is to assess self against someone else. Randiv and Sri Lanka certainly look saintly compared to Ponting and the Aussies, for example.

Is this enough, though? That’s like justifying thuggery, ‘pick-pocketing’, highway robbery etc because someone else also did it. That’s like saying ‘if they can perpetrate acts of terrorism, what’s wrong in us bumping off a few people?’ That’s like saying ‘the USA is guilty of crimes against humanity which are not random, but system-born and system-bred and therefore we should be allowed to get away with some civilian killings’.

Century

It is not enough. Sure, we must object to thuggery. We must capture pickpocket. We must question the moral authority of terrorists to cry foul. On the other hand, we look silly, if we too are engaged in hanky panky.

Randiv didn’t do anything illegal. He didn’t cover himself with glory either. I am not sure what he apologized for, but I think an apology was not out of order. Ponting wouldn’t, but Randiv is not Ponting and Sri Lanka is not and should not be Australia. Murali was called a cheat. He didn’t spit back at the Aussies. He stood his ground. His captain, Arjuna Ranatunga, stood his ground. They didn’t pout as Sehwag did. They let the bat and ball do the talking. Sehwag was denied a century. Did anyone cheer? No. Sehwag pouted, Randiv apologized. Both looked small, Randiv more than Sehwag though.

There’s a man who played 87 tests, captained his country, scored 7,110 runs at an average of 53.86 with a highest score of 247 not out. He scored 24 test centuries and 31 half-centuries. Greg Chappell is his name. Guess what he’s most remembered for? Well, for asking his brother Trevor to send down an underarm delivery to stop the opposing batsman, from hitting the last-ball 6 needed to win the game for his team. There’s a lesson there. I am sure Dilshan and Randiv would have heard of these two men. It is sad they didn’t think it necessary to be better men when faced with the moment of truth.

The bottom line is that we have to set our own standards and set them higher than the rest of the field if we are to aspire to anything close to a ‘moral high ground’. That’s how we add value to the sport, to life, to living.

We all err. We have to learn and move on. Hopefully correcting our flaws. This was blemish, whichever way we look at it. India can’t complain, but Sri Lanka and Sri Lankans must. That’s how we become better. I am sure all this is not lost on Kumar Sangakkara and Sri Lanka Cricket.

[email protected]