Randiv's Know-Ball

As two nations clung to their televisions, Indians hoped for a win that would equalize their position in the points table, while Srilanka looked for the same result to strengthen the same table. It was an exciting game from Indian cricket's point of view because the depleted bowling department came to the rescue of our team in a one-day game. That our batting is Himalayan is known, and the man who is arguably its everest went on to lash his freewill as he so often does. Virender Sehwag finished his innings with an unbeaten 99, and then the match became infamous. Sehwag raised his hands, Suraj Randiv knew what he had done, and the rest went berserk. What is now coming to be known as the Randiv No-Ball controversy, isn't a controversy at all. There is no bending of the rules, though the rule itself is bent. Nothing was left to interpretation, everyone played within limits.

Let's not give anything to the rules here. The match ended the moment Randiv released the ball at probably half-down-the-pitch, but the run should be counted for the result to happen. So, an extra was counted as a single, and then, what, that's that? What happens to the ball that is still flying off someone's bat? Why count the ball for the batsman, but not the runs off the bat? Doesn't facing a ball mean batting it? The Indian score should have read 177/4, the ball counted as faced by Sehwag, and 6 runs going to him, like it would have if the scores weren't level. Or, a no-ball should not be considered in the batsman's count at anytime, an extra conceded as a "foul" and the runs off the bat should be nullified.

Let's not give Sehwag anything here. Sehwag was probably the victim ... of nothing. He had three-balls before this for the one-shot that would take him there, and he didn't make it - strangely. The man usually does not need two balls for a six, even in test matches. He only needs to tell the ball to go over and it will. Four byes and two balls later, he had his chance. The only way he could not tell the ball to fly was if it was not a ball at all, and that's what Randiv made sure of. I can't tell if it is unsportsmanly to do that, may be it is. What if Sehwag had been bowled, inconsequential though, would we have created the same ruckus? The result would all be the same, but the mouths wouldn't. But nothing would matter to the man himself, he is probably already making plans for the next century.

Let's not give anything to Randiv either. He reminded me of the Axe Ad, I thought he was going to run all the way towards Sehwag. His front foot was well outside the crease, as if his entire concentration was to suddenly make sure the back foot did not cross it. But he spoiled the whole episode by meeting Sehwag in his room and asking for an apology. I wonder which is more unsportsmanly. He has done what he had done, why apologize? He joins the ranks of Trevor Chappell who denied New Zealand a chance at victory by bowling underarm. Is there a Greg Chappell in the Srilankan team who told him to do so? At least the Chappell brothers have not apologized yet for that incident and left the shame on the ground.

Cricket is so often plagued by controversies, that one has to wonder if it is anymore a gentleman's game. It is definitely not a gentle game anymore, at least. Teams want to win at any cost, fans want entertainment at any cost, and bowlers want a wicket at any cost. Randiv was probably too sensitive to hand over a victory along with a century, when he knew he had a way to give only one. What he bowled was not a no-ball, it was a know-ball.