| Sports |
|
Take a walk |
I can remember the feeling that I experienced while watching that award winning film “Slum dog millionaire” when one of the young lads locked his brother (who becomes the hero of the film) in the toilet when their favourite actor visited the area and how the hero jumped into the bucket full of human excreta and wriggled through the awful mess, just to have glimpse of his idol. The same sickly feeling enveloped me just the other day while watching the Lankan skipper Kumar Sangakkara get into a tantrum against his Pakistani counterpart Younis Khan depicting one of the lowest ebbs that Sri Lanka dipped into in its twenty-seven-year Test history.
The incident for those who missed it - A resurgent Pakistani innings in the fifth ODI was progressing smoothly after some initial hic-cups and skipper Younis Khan was unbeaten on a well compiled seventy when he appeared to have played and missed or nicked the Lankan medium pacer Dhammika Prasad. The appeal for caught behind was negated by umpire Gamini Silva, but the Lankan skipper from behind the stumps was not willing to buy that decision. Losing his cool at that time Sangakkara clearly retorted at Kahn asking him why not take the walk back as he had nicked it in spite of the umpire’s decision. To this Khan clearly seemed saying that he was oblivious of any such felony.
Then an annoyed Sangakkara was seen jinxing around the wicket even arguing with the leg umpire Steve Davis who is an ICC employee. Even after the match Sangakkara had defended his action and stated that he felt that if a batsman is out he thinks that the batsman should take the walk in spite of what the umpiring decision is. Fine….he can make his resolutions for himself, but as a mundane man he does not have the authority to impose it on any one else.
Bad precedence, but very mysteriously the incident seemed to have been swept under the carpet. When it occurred I heard someone saying “Oh! God, Sanga is in a load of trouble, clearly this is dissent”. But, nothing happened. In general norms if a player is to be charged it happens within forty eight hours after the incident, but by now the hour hand in the clock would have traveled a few miles round the clock if one takes that fateful minute as a bar.
 |
 |
Make up your mind (left) Sangakkara reacting to Younis Kahn’s negated appeal during the 5th OIDI and Ajmal
enjoying the dismissal of Kumar Sangakkara during the T20 encounter. |
However when asked for their views and reactions on the matter , the Secretary of Sri Lanka Cricket Nishantha Ranatunga said: “The game is not within our purview. Intimation has to come from the match referee. They are the official body in charge of international cricket. Officially we cannot take action regarding that incident, but, we may have an unofficial chat with him once this tight schedule is over”. Later we also learned that there was a meek official response to the effect that no official action was taken because there was no official complaint on the incident.
It is interesting to note that the umpires in attendance Steve Davis and Gamini Silva had failed to report the incident under the ICC regulations and thus pushed match referee Alan Hurst chose to ignore an incident of this magnitude. This was not a simple case of sledging or a batsman’s or a bowler’s displeasure on an umpires’ ruling. This is a case involving a wicket-keeper asking the batsman to take a walk after the umpire clearly ruled the batsman not out. Then what is the message an incident of this nature conveys?
Then hilarious enough the Pakistani off spinner Saeed Ajmal was booked by match referee Hurst for 15 per cent of his match fee after the T20 engagement between the two countries for over-reacting by showing undue satisfaction after he bagged the scalp of the Lankan skipper Kumar Sangakkara.
The question comes how many spoons does the ICC use when it is serving its cricketers?
Not lying low we posed the question to some other knowledgeable sources that are connected to the game, (for obvious reasons they prefer to speak with the veil on). The first -- a former fast bowler was of this view “Yes, Sangakkara’s action is questionable. As a matter of fact beyond the boundary lines as captain he carried the onus of the entire Sri Lankan team and its officials so he must be more vigilant and more restrained prior to embarking on a tantrum of that nature. At the same time knowing match referee Alan Hurst - a no nonsense man keeping quiet on an incident of this nature is unusual. Though we are not aware I am sure that there may have been episodes taking place behind closed doors where he was able to wriggle himself out of trouble”.
Then another former cricketing stalwart lamented “We are aware about the latest Sangakkara developments. It is high time that he realizes that he traveling down the wrong path and make a U-turn before it is too late”.
It is only a few moons since Sangakkara took over the mantle from his predecessor Mahela Jayawardena. Mind you during the latter’s leadership Sri Lanka were twice blessed with ICC’s spirit of the game accolade. But, incidents of this nature will not take Sri Lanka towards that recognition maybe even if there was no official reprimand.
This is not the first instance that Sangakkara has played foul since his ascendancy to the top of the Lankan cricketing line-up. It was only at the beginning of this series we watched aghast Sangakkara taking the field with a plaster pasted over the logo of Sri Lanka’s official clothing sponsor Reebok. Then down the grapevine we also hear about his other pranks that we can not publish without concrete evidence.
As a cricketer we have the highest regard for the Lankan captain. He is articulate and eloquent and comes from very good stock from the hill capital. Taking those qualifications alone we expect more than what is dished out at present.
At the same time he also must remember that being the number one in the ICC slot in the ICC rankings and being a very successful captain from the word ‘go’ he is a role model and the budding young cricketers automatically emulate him. Being a tough leader is acceptable and will always be appreciated, but behaving like a haughty authoritarian who is suffering from a stroke of superiority complex is totally unacceptable at any count. |
|
| |
 |
| |
 E-mail |
| |
views[1] |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
