R Ashwin's Buttler-Mankad act was not instanteous, it was pre-planned and that is how it should be

Bastab K Parida

ByBastab K Parida,SportsCafe Editor

31
no photo

Opinions are divided and anger has been thrown at Ravichandran Ashwin for adopting a “controversial” way to dismiss Jos Buttler last night. While asking to take the moral high ground has been the major order so far, from the past incidents, it was clear that Ashwin would have done that anyway.

In the ultra-modern competitive age of sport, it is sometimes hard to notice that the line between the ethics and practising it regularly has blurred a lot with the discussion of the spirit of the cricket becoming more of a social media exercise than anything else. In Ashwin’s case, it was no different either as people were fighting with each other by citing laws, showing footage, assembling the instances of such things in the past, and most importantly, bringing up the fact that how it would impact the “kids” coming into the sport.

All said and done, let’s get one thing out of the way first. Ashwin didn’t make any mistake according to the rules as the revised Law 41.16 states that the non-striker must stay within the crease till the time “the bowler is expected to deliver the ball”. The section of the debate that is about the fact that Ashwin had loaded his action before pulling it back to affect the “run out” doesn’t hold any water because it is always relative to a bowler’s one delivery to another and never an absolute one.

If someone takes a hell lot of time to load his action, as the off-spinner suggested that he was doing, then he was probably right on his part. Because cricket rules don’t specify anything pointedly. At the same time, trying to back up is actually not in the rule books of the game as it gives him a chance to make it to the other end a bit too early. Doesn’t it? Spirit of debate can’t hold one thing hostage while giving leeway to others.

Not only this, there have been enough instances to show that this particular debate is nothing but an inane hyperbole for fans to debate. There have been many among the particular set of fans, who were chastising Ashwin for the way he dismissed the Englishman, were the ones who supported Cheteshwar Pujara for not walking off despite clearly nicking the ball twice in the game. 

Those who know Ashwin would also know that he doesn’t regret doing such stuff. In 2012, Ashwin had Mankaded Lahiru Thirimanne after giving him a warning, but stand-in skipper Virender Sehwag decided to withdraw the appeal in anticipation of being told that they played against "the Spirit". Even in 2016, in a Twitter exchange, Ashwin had revealed that he always thought of effecting a Mankad when a batsman was backing up even a little and the thought process stemmed from the idea that the game is moving in batsman’s direction. In a Twitter banter in February 2016 with cricket journalist Karthik Lakshmanan, and troll page “Srini Mama”, Ashwin had said that every single day he thought of not giving any batsmen gain any yards like that. 

When Lakshmanan asked if he ever considered using Mankad as a strategy, Ashwin didn’t mince any words to make his stance clear, and it is not so hard to understand that what had happened last night was the product of a thought process that was in motion for a long time now. His point that if a batsman doesn’t tell him before changing his stance to hit a switch-hit, why would you sympathise with him if he has a chance to settle some scores. 

This tells us something about the changing times. We live in a world of insane extremes where polarisation matters more than anything and the shades of grey mean nothing but the symbol of the confused 21st-century mindset. The truth of it is up for debate, but the game right now is at a position where the need of embracing rules is more important than ever. Going extreme to call something against the “spirit of cricket” and never asking for the rule to go out of the MCC library is a selective outrage and that needs to stop.

Will Ashwin regret this in the future? Well, he might, although the chances of the same are extremely low. But more importantly, this outrage and blame-game need to stop, somewhere, especially for doing something which was well within the rule book of the game. 

laught0
astonishment0
sadness0
heart0
like0
dislike0

Comments

Sign up or log in to your account to leave comments and reactions

0 Comments