Not in the spirit of the game
Earlier this week, I Burbled about Paul Best's deliberate dropped catch for England Under 19s against Sri Lanka, as some had questioned if it was in the spirit of the game. Personally I think it was entirely justified and totally above board.
Bowling a deliberate no ball to deprive a batsman a century isn't as clear cut to me though. With India cruising to victory and Sehwag on 99 yesterday, Randiv bowled a deliberate no ball for Sri Lanka - it appears that everyone agrees it was deliberate as his back foot was pretty close to being in front of the line. To be honest I didn't realise that the batsman didn't get the credit for their runs in this situation - common sense would seem to suggest (to me at least!) that if a batsman hits a no ball for six with one to win it should be treated just as it would be at any other time - they are credited with the six.
The circumstances seem a little strange as Randiv bowled 3 legitimite balls before over-stepping. I guess we have to assume he got bored of Sehwag suddenly taking his time having reached 99 at more than a run a ball and, having given him 3 chances to get the runs, thought that was enough?
Would it ever happen in a club match? I'd like to think not, but I couldn't rule it out completely. I've had a couple of games where I haven't clapped an opposition batsman when they've got a hundred because they haven't deserved it - either they've been out caught behind and not given by the umpire, they've scored most of their runs off the edge, or they've been gifted a load of runs as the team I've been playing for has tried to keep the opposition chasing rather than the game ending in a boring draw. So if you don't think they deserve a hundred, it would only take the batsman being particularly unpleasant during the match for me to consider it. I'd like to think I'd consider it and dismiss it though, unlike Randiv!
13 comments:
It was just petulant, at least lose with a little dignity.
And speaking as someone who's unlikely to ever get near a century, even if I'm gifted runs, I think I'd only consider not applauding a century if there had been some shocking cheating going on. If they were runs off the edge, or soft runs given up by an opponent, they still need to be scored.
If you saw the game Andrew, do you have any idea why Ranjiv didn't bowl a no ball the first ball of the over rather than bowling a couple of legitimate ones first?
Fair point on clapping a 'poor' century, I'm just a miserable git obviously!! There was nothing poor about sehwag's innings though....it was sheer class so there was no reason for Sri Lanka to be petulant - he simply outclassed the Sri Lankan bowlers on the day.
Come to think of it, this Findon v Steyning game a few weeks ago is a good example of me being miserable!
The guy that got a hundred (Felix) was caught behind on about 30 but didn't walk and happily told everyone afterwards he'd hit it. He didn't get a clap from me for his hundred I'm afraid as he'd cheated, but the guy that came in at 7 (Mickey) did for his 50 as that was a class legitimate innings that took the game away from us....
I too didn't understand why it wasn't give as runs too. Say he'd hit a legitimate ball and started off for a single, completed it, before the ball then went over the boundary. It'd be signalled as a Four. Despite them having already scored all the runs necessary. (Correct me if that's wrong)
I haven't seen the ball in question, but perhaps the bowler thought that the shout of no ball must push the batsman into actually trying to hit his hundred before the match was over. Would there have been as much of a furore had he bowled a deliberate wide (a legitimate wicket taking ball for a spinner, as Mavis has proved!)
I can see why someone would do this, if a team have decided to engineer the last 15-20 runs to get someone to a landmark (other batsman turning down runs and blocking balls he would previously have hit runs off) rather than just finishing the game how the rest of the innings has gone. Theres nothing more frustrating than when you know you are beaten than being played with for personal gain. Its a team game after all and personal milestones should be less important.
This can become a big issue in games where run rate (I vaguely remember this from one of the many IPL league games) is important and a teams league position can be adversely affected by a personal milestone.
I'm not sure if you are right Sam as Collingwood hit the last ball of the Twenty20 final v Australia to the boundary for four but was credited with only one. I can see why there needs to be an order to events as if the side are 9 down and a player is stumped off a wide with one to win, one event needs to come first. But if I was in charge (thank goodness I'm not!) I would be amending things so that all events (runs, no balls, wides, leg byes etc) count from the final ball (even with one to win), with all of those coming prior to a wicket should a wicket also occur.
I also always thought that whatever got hit off the last ball counted and you weren't restricted to the number of runs required for victory. I think if you have clubbed it for 6 when only needing 3 to win, while it may be a slight waste of energy, i don't see why you should be denied a 6 to your name.
Re not clapping 100s, like most people on here (i think Ed excepted), I will always applause unless they are a particularly nasty piece of work or have cheated in some way in my view. Luck, edges etc - all part of the game and to be honest 100 runs is a lot. You can't in your heart of hearts claim an entire 100 is luck!
Umpires view again! Once the no ball is bowled the runs required (i.e. one)have been achieved so the ball is effectively dead and no more runs are scored. This is different from hitting a six when three are needed as the runs are only registered once the ball crosses the boundary. I trust this makes sense!
Ed, I didn't see the game, only the delivery in question (thank you YouTube), however apparently he did it when someone suggested it to him, so presumably he would have done it earlier if they had suggested it earlier, and presumably it only occurred to them at that point.
So Grov, if someone needs 4 for a century and the ball is trickling for four with one needed to win, does that mean they should not complete the first run or they will be credited with only one rather than the four then need for their 100? (Excuse my ignorance!)
No, Ed - the issue is when the ball is deemed to be dead. In your example it would be four if it crossed the boundary but only the completed runs would count if the ball got back to fielder at either end thus making it dead. Hopefully this makes sense!
So Ranjiv's been banned for one match by the Sri Lankan board, and he and Dilshan (whose idea it was) have been fined. Seems a bit harsh, no laws broken after all, a quiet word would surely have sufficed, although that presumably wouldn't have satisfied the Indian board.
Ok grov, makes good sense. But why didn't collingwood get 4 when he hit the winning runs in the world t20 final? Something to do with the crowd running onto the pitch perhaps?
Post a Comment