Tri-Series: How ’low’ was Randiv’s no-ball?

Agencies
Bellevision Media Network

Dambulla, 17 August 2010: Sri Lanka Cricket embarrassment, abject apologies and a probe into the Suraj Randiv no-ball incident have followed a night of contretemps and controversy at Rangiri Stadium.

 

This follows charges that the tall Sri Lankan off-spinner Suraj Randiv had been ’shouted instructions’ in Sinhalese to deliver a no-ball to prevent Virender Sehwag from scoring a merited 13th ODI century in the current triangular series. India won their second game by six wickets in the 35th over of the innings, scoring 171 for four wickets in reply to Sri Lanka’s 170.

 

Suggestions that a call had been made surfaced on Tuesday morning in the island’s heartland, while in an effort at damage control by the management, SLC secretary, Nishantha Ranatunga, called the Indian manager, Ranjib Biswal, and apologised personally for the incident which threatened the amicable tournament, now into its second week.

 

Ranatunga called Biswal personally early on Tuesday morning to express his personal and the SLC remorse and at the same time has ordered the Sri Lanka team manger, Anura Tennekoon, to probe the incident which has earned headlines in Indian as well as Sri Lankan media and sparked a strong debate over the fairness of the way the delivery was bowled.

 

 

Sehwag has also let it be known that Randiv personally went to the Delhi opening batsman’s room and apologised. This information went out on the batsman’s ’twitter’ account in the aftermath of accusations that the delivery was a deliberate attempt to stop Sehwag from achieving an elusive 13th ODI century.

 

While the Indian management may suggest the "incident is now closed," it is still simmering and is likely to do so as the debris of the match and Sri Lanka’s poor performance is examined.

 

It has been claimed that a call, said to have been made in Sinhalese to Randiv to deliberately bowl the ill-fated delivery as a "no-ball," has been picked up by the stump mike technicians. If this is the case, the act is a deliberate infringement in the spirit of the laws of the game as well as the laws 1 (note 4) and 42 (1 – fair and unfair play).

 

Already facing an embarrassing heavy six-wicket defeat in the 35th over of the Indian innings and having secured a bonus point, with Sehwag scenting his 13th limited overs international century, suddenly the first and fourth deliveries of Randiv’s eighth over were added to the byes and no-ball totals.

 

Cunning? Well, if you want to collude and play the role of spoilsport, the laws allow for it in Law 21 (6 – winning hit or extras). Either Randiv knows the laws intimately or whoever shouted the instructions does.

 

Up to that point, Randiv had not bowled a no-ball. In fact, checking back on his statistics this India tour, in the two Tests where he bowled 127.1 overs, he managed two no-balls – one in each innings of the Saravanamuttu Oval game that India won by five wickets.

 

Deliberate? Of course, it is. The position of his feet in his follow-through can only be described as a deliberate act of sabotage on a batsman’s attempt to score runs. This is with the knowledge that the scores are tied and someone shouting Sinhalese instructions that the Indians won’t understand.

 

The Rangiri Stadium incident has been linked to the Greg Chappell’s infamous underarm-ball episode in the 1981 ODI outing at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. This is where he instructed younger brother Trevor to deliver an underarm ball to Brian McKechnie, an act that, although then legal under the laws of the game, was seen as an unsporting gesture, with New Zealand wanting a six to tie the match and force another play-off.

 

As it is, the ball was a no-ball as technically the fielders were not all in place at that time, with Dennis Lillee outside the circle at the moment the ball was rolled along the ground. It was an act that drew severe criticism from noted commentators, one of them Greg’s elder brother Ian, and Richie Benaud.

 

It all had the effect of changing the law, with the lawmakers and copyright holders - Marylebone Cricket Club - altering the law that banned underarm bowling.

 

In the post-match media session, Sehwag left you with no doubts of his opinion. Of course, it was deliberate, he said in Hindi. "It wasn’t a small no-ball – not a small margin from one foot ahead."

 

He argued as well. "They (Sri Lanka) have done it because no team wants anybody to score hundreds against them," Sehwag said. "But they did that. They are happy and we are happy. We won the game, we scored the bonus point."

 

He then referred to the ODI in Cuttack last year where Sachin Tendulkar was on 96 and Lasith Malinga bowled a deliberate wide that went to the boundary. Such a "nice way" to win matches. Sri Lankans are now also earning the reputation that they don’t want others to score centuries.

 

It is called gamesmanship as well and this is not "sledging" but a case of twisting the laws to suit a team that cannot stomach defeat decently and denies a batsman a moment of deserving glory. In the case of the Chappell MCG episode in 1981, it was denying a team a chance to tie the game. In this instance, it can be seen as a vindictive act by people who should know better.

 

Sri Lanka captain Kumar Sangakkara was offering the excuse how Randiv was probably trying to bowl the "doosra." Really? Is this a tongue-in-cheek comment or is he trying to play the media for fools?

 

Sangakkara also suggested that the International Cricket Council needed to investigate the law. Well now, as the copyright holders are the Marylebone Cricket Club, St John’s Wood, Lord’s and not the ICC, in some glorified tower in Dubai, he should know there is a major difference. What usually happens in such cases is consultation between the two. In this case, law 21, Note 6 9(a) is explicit enough.

 

What the Tennekoon probe will reveal is most likely a story of "miscommunication" between the captain and the bowler. It is the easy cop out of a tricky situation, especially as the apologies have been made and abject regret at the incident expressed.