They called us cheats

10 June 2014 06:30 pm Views - 5590

Jo Butler had moved far out - a yard out of the crease on Sky Television replays [Not mere inches]- indeed audacious after two warnings; when Sachitra Senanayake broke the stumps and appealed for a run out.

Butler was warned previously by the same bowler for advancing outside the crease before the release of the ball as was his partner at the other end Chris Jordan.
Both warnings went unheeded.

Third time, mind you, within a few balls–tried again; duly ‘stumped’ by the bowler, as in the case of a wicket keeper, if a batsman is caught outside the crease.
Freeze the picture for a moment.

Let’s take a close up from a wide angle.
Both the batsmen were stepping ahead of the crease which meant a single could be registered covering a distance which was less in length than a legitimate one run- if it resulted in two runs - one run is still shorter in length; yet could not be ruled ‘one short’ by the umpire as it took place at the point of origin.
Is that not “collusive cheating” to pick extra runs?

An intentional sought-after advantage of the batting side, in a match where every run counted.
One thing is for sure…. It was not “dozing” at the crease as the British media made out. Professional sportsmen stay wide - awake and do not sleepwalk at the crease.
At their level, it is not affordable to cat nap. ‘Dozing’ at a critical stage of a 50 over match is not like taking a snooze in the press box after a free lunch washed down with choice wines.

"Both the batsmen were stepping ahead of the crease which meant a single could be registered covering a distance which was less in length than a legitimate one run- if it resulted in two runs - one run is still shorter in length; yet could not be ruled ‘one short’ by the umpire as it took place at the point of origin."

It takes two to tango. Both batsmen were over-stretching - not by inches but in yards - from their legitimate stations with a common intention of making the running distance shorter   gaining a lesser chance of being run out on a reduced 18 yard spurt.
Does an unfair disadvantage result to the bowling side?
It does.

Therefore it is made into a dismissal in the cricketing statute: a prohibitive measure. A common intention between two consenting adults attempting to register run/s makes the committed offence graver. An offence that carries the maximum punishment in cricket of being ruled OUT: as it was in this case.
Who erred/cheated first, erred/cheated again, erred/cheated thrice during a space of eight balls in two overs at one end but is painted squeaky clean by the British media except for a sturdy studious few.

 It’s the intention that counts-the intention to err/cheat seeking an improper gain. It’s ‘dozing’ to the British press- temporary malfunctioning in the mind of the batsmen for a dubious purpose. Does it make it NOT OUT in cricketing parlence.
A warning in not required in the law but in the spirit of the game; twice administered by Sachitra Senanayake.
Yet, he was booed a cheat by the Edgbaston crowd while TV showed replays of live acts of repeated cheating by the purported ‘innocent victims’ in terms of the specific laws of cricket. They saw it on the big screen while bowling!

"One thing is for sure…. It was not “dozing” at the crease as the British media made out. Professional sportsmen stay wide - awake and do not sleepwalk at the crease"

Edgbaston was not a full house like at Lords for the decisive 50 over game.
The local crowd that constituted the overwhelming majority at the grounds were backing England to a 3-2 win.
In the pubs around, the talk was rugby, not cricket on the bitters. There were a smattering of Sri Lankans in the cheaper stands with the Tamil diaspora conspicuously absented in numbers at all games: message was delivered ahead: don’t cheer for a rouge country! Ethnicity extends beyond cricket in UK unlike back home where many a difference is forgotten in the playing fields.

Who is described a cheat in the cricketing almanac?
The batsmen who intentionally seeks to gain an unfair advantage for his team after due notice of a sharp practice or the umpire who ruled it out strictly according to the laws of cricket or the bowler who issued two warnings to the batsmen at the crease which is not required under the laws or the captain standing unto no-nonsense or the media men who picked on Matthews and Senanayake - both buddies from two Mariyakade colleges who play their cricket tough following the style of brash cricket.
Ironically, in this series there is no officiating umpire or match referee or substitute umpire from an Asian country: more seriously, none too in the panel that will test the ‘offender’ Senanayake for throwing who is made the fall guy by the British media for playing according to the rules!

Which takes precedent… laws of cricket specifically spelt out in rule 42 or the spirit of cricket undeclared?
Umpire gave his ruling. None dared to question because it was correct. Period - it should be. Not so … instead picked on Matthews and Senanayake for vilification.
Talk of the spirit of cricket. Let’s learn it from the Brits.

Take what Tony Greig did in the Caribbean in 1974. This was 40 years ago during the second Test in Port of Spain in the West Indies, when Alvin Kallicharran, unbeaten on 142, started to make his way to the pavilion after the last ball of the day had been bowled. The batsman took his cue that there was to be no more play after the England wicketkeeper Alan Knott had removed the bails from the stumps at the other end of the pitch. So he nonchalantly walked in the direction of the pavilion. But the umpires had not officially called proceedings to a halt. So, seizing his chance, Greig cunningly removed the remaining set of bails, appealed and Kallicharran was given out.

Next day riots broke out in Trinidad and the continuation of the English tour was in jeopardy. The British embassy was embarrassed with the prevailing anarchy and there was no alternative but for the English team manager to request Kallicharran be permitted to continue his innings.
The story does not end there. It is the reaction of the British media at the relevant time that is more telling as reported by the Daily Telegraph correspondent Jim White:
“Intriguingly, in the English press, the reaction in the following days centred not on speculation as to whether Greig was leading sportsmanship to hell in a handcart. Instead, there was much concern that the reversal of the dismissal set a worrying precedent for the rest of the tour, when every decision could now be decided by mob rule.”

Patriotism is alive and kicking in the UK –they stand by their team whether right or wrong?
Instead let’s determine who is right and who is at fault.
When Vinoo Mankad of India did something similar to Senanyake; a new word was mockingly coined in the Fleet Street called ‘Mankadism’ but no such word was devised after Tony Greig’s horrendous event- instead he was elevated as the captain of the English team.
A taste of good old British Justice would call it ‘Greiged.’

Talking cricket is the most appreciative gesture towards the Brits out of colonialism in South Asia. British public is patriotic when they screamed cheats at the Sri Lankans and predictably so -don’t ask whether it was reasonable?
Brits were rooting for their country. British media - they are obliged to be more balanced and objective. They are not! Ask Cameron or Clegg, confidentially.