How reformers bowl out ‘Spirit of the Game’3 min read . Updated: 04 Mar 2010, 09:05 PM IST
How reformers bowl out ‘Spirit of the Game’
How reformers bowl out ‘Spirit of the Game’
Also Read Rahul Bhattacharya’s earlier columns
Some weeks ago, when Shahid Afridi got graphic with five-and-a-half ounces of leather, the legislative urge sparked once again among commentators. Make ball tampering legal, the call went. The crux of the argument was: It happens anyway, and if bowlers are allowed to maintain the ball, why not allow them to deteriorate it?
Part of the reason one feels sympathy for bowlers, of course, is to do with silly legislation. Batsmen have benefited from changes to the bouncer rule, the no-ball rule, the lbw rule, the free-hit, the fielding restrictions, and other administrative actions not in the laws, such as standardized balls and smaller boundaries. The ground at Gwalior, illuminated by Sachin Tendulkar the other day, was born tiny, but others aspire to its condition. Tampering in the face of this feels like a just form of union action.
Later that afternoon, Sunil Gavaskar on commentary spotted Akram applying sunscreen to the ball. If that was the effect of sunscreen, I thought, it ought to be made compulsory.
But legalizing ball tampering would be a folly. The proposal doesn’t take into account two important points.
“Making a ball", to use the colloquial, is not an exact science, and swing itself is a somewhat mysterious process. Bowling teams look to change the ball when it fails to assist them in the hope that the replacement will. If vandalism is permitted, they are effectively empowered to claim a replacement whenever they like by damaging the ball till the umpire deems it unfit for play. That is why there is inherent sense in permitting shining but not scratching. Shiva is way cooler than Vishnu, but preservation has its uses.
The second point is that the consequence of permission is a whole new set of silly legislation. Should external objects be allowed? If it is legal to scar the ball, does it matter if it is with a fingernail or a rampuri? What acts are to be permitted? Seam-biting is less hygienic than seam-picking, but should it fall foul of the law for that reason? What kinds of creams are to be sanctioned? Minutiae of this kind will be impossible to monitor and will make cricket a more anal game.
Umpiring has gone down this road already. Some years ago we saw the advent of a referral system where the role of technology was radically increased. Far from improving certainty, it emerged that more and more decisions were taken with incomplete knowledge, and this has been only marginally rectified in the new review system. An inordinate amount of energy is wasted in determining whether a ball has been struck on the pads 1mm outside off stump or not, and then speculating if it would go on to hit the stumps or not. Technology is asked to do things it isn’t ready for. For a few years, barely a single low catch was given out because the television images, two-dimensional, always cast a doubt.
In trying to fix problems for which there are still no solutions, fresh problems are created. This is typical of cricket administration. If one-day cricket gets boring, the response, rather than play less frequently and on better pitches, is to form a committee that installs bowling powerplays, batting powerplays and supersubs, making the game harder to follow and no better to watch. Routinely, it misses the wood for the trees. Nothing wastes as much time as establishing from replays the points of contact between the ball, the rope and the fielder (or his apparel), at the boundary, yet cricket perseveres with this anal practice rather than going by the plain sight of the ball crossing the line or not.
“Just keep it simple," someone needs to counsel overenthusiastic reformers. Cricket is bigger than the laws. That is not a weakness.
The idea of a law is not to make the game perfect but manageable. Neither prohibition nor permission will fix the issue of ball tampering. But prohibition makes it easier to manage, so long as officials do not prosecute without evidence as Darrell Hair did in 2006. What fiddlers everywhere have to thank Afridi for, though, is de-stigmatizing the act by reducing it to pure comedy.
Rahul Bhattacharya is the author of the cricket tour book, Pundits from Pakistan. He writes a monthly cricket column for Lounge.
Write to Rahul at email@example.com