Search This Blog

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Lankans and the interpretation of rule denies Virender Sehwag a hundred

There were times when the on field happenings were tough and tension filled. With more matches being played and the IPL had changed the way (so one thought) – lot of foreign players played for Indian clubs under Indian captains alongside senior and junior players and the camaraderie was all to be seen to be believed.

In the 3 Nation tournament at Srilanka, India after the ignominious defeat against Kiwis scored a convincing victory over the hosts and got a bonus point also. The win was marred by a controversy on the winning run or to be precise the approach of Lankans exhibited in the last ball. It would be too naïve to believe that the young Suraj Randiv would have decided on his own to overstep and bowl a massive no ball which left Virender Sehwag stranded at 99.

Viru slammed that ball over long off for a six and celebrated completion of his century only to be told that that sixer would not count. Sehwag did not hide his disappointment and started that such things have no place in good cricket and it was a deliberate act. Sehwag is not he one to be unduly perturbed on missing out a hundred having scored 12 tons in One dayers and 21 in Tests with 2 scores of 300 +. Here after ensuring the Indian win, he blasted 29 off the last 33 runs. When he moved to 99 and Suraj Ranadiv started his 34th over – 5 were required for a win. Fans were expecting a huge smack out of the ground completing his ton and Indian win.

The first ball slipped past Sangakkara and went for 4 byes bringing the scores level. Next two were non events, then Ranadiv overstepped long way to end the match and deny Sehwag the century. Recently at Cuttack, Malinga slipped one down the leg side when Sachin was denied a century.

India won the match and got one bonus point also but the sour incident has left a rancid taste. Sangakkara denied having a role and defended the bowler stating that it was not intentional.

Rule no. 12 (penalty for a No ball) states ‘a penalty of one run shall be awarded instantly on the call of No ball’. – and the direct interpretation of the instance ensured denial of century. Sehwag was not aware of the No ball rule which stipulated that match was over once the no ball was bowled. It is strange logic that it will be dissected and only part of the delivery would be taken for records.

Factually, it was the ball where Sehwag hit a six – but ironically, the no ball would count as a delivery – one extra debited and it ends at that – the subsequent delivery stride and the stroke that sent it soaring over long off would not be part of the record book.

Strange are the rules and strange are the attitude of people – Sehwag certainly deserved to complete a good century.

Regards - Sampathkumar

No comments:

Post a Comment