Much ado about nothing

Much has been made out of the Suraj Randiv no-ball that saw Virender Sehwag miss a much-desired century. The situation was such that the batsman was on 99, and India needed a solitary run to win, whereby the bowler decided to bowl a no-ball to prevent the batsman from getting to the hundred.

Two days on, the repercussions from the incident have threatened to carry on and on. This, despite the bowler having apologised, the captain having done the same, and the secretary of the Sri Lankan board also expressing his regret for the incident.

First of all, what Randiv did was within the laws of the game. Whether it was within the spirit of the game is what the debate is. Probably, it happened in the heat of the moment, and the bowler seems to have accepted that and called upon the batsman to apologise. Why should be penalised now? Either by the board or the ICC?

Only ten days back, Stuart Broad has thrown the ball back at Zulqarnain Haider after fielding it on his follow-through. Haider was injured, and he misses out on two Test matches. What will one call that incident? Against the spirit? Against the laws? Or both? And yet, Broad was fined only 50% of his match fee. Compare that with what Haider would have had to go through – he was a debutant, and is now out of the series. It was probably a career-changing injury.

The point one is trying to make is that if a bowler deliberately bowls a no-ball to deny the batsman a century, it is hardly in the same league as another who injures the batsman with an unnecessary and deliberate throw, or for that matter, someone who swears at the batsman for no plausible rhyme or reason. Time to understand that Sehwag’s greatness will not be challenged by remaining unbeaten on 99 in the game.

For the latest cricket news visit CricketFanatic.com

Tags: ICC, India, Sri Lanka, Stuart Broad, Suraj Randiv, Virender Sehwag, Zulqarnain Haider