As a Sri Lankan Randiv should have deprived India of a win by bowling very tight and even take Sehwag's wicket ! But he chose to gift India a win by bowling a no ball !! SLC should punish him severely.
i think it is a matter of ethics and good sportsman should take care of ethical and moral values of the game and after so much criticism from around the world including his teammtes and board he felt humiliated and so there should be no punshiment for him,.........i am sure he will take care of the fact in his future.
Here is a very strange irony in cricketing rules. Hope ICC takes note of this. 1. If on 170, Sehwag would have hit a six off a legal ball, the score becomes 176, and not just 171. The other 5 runs are counted even though at the very first run the match is deemed won. 2. In the middle of a match, a six off a no ball is still a six for the batsman. 3. If the batsman is run-out of a no-ball, he is still given out inspite of an extra run on the scoreboard. 4. One famous example I would like to quote during 1987 India-Pak series. Last ball Pak needed 2 runs for a win, they had 1 wkt in hand. According to the rules of those days, even if they had scored 1 run without losing a wicket, the scores would have tied and Pak would have still won the match. But Quadir went for a 2nd run(maybe not knowing), and got run out by Azhar. So bcos of this inspite of a tie, India won the match. Now here why should the attempt for the 2nd run not be considered redundant, since after the 1st run, Pak has won the match ? Now if someone says its bcos 'the ball is in play', then the same thing applies to the Randiv no-ball bcos the ball is still in play. We have seen players getting stumped(i.e run out ) off a no-ball too. So I feel the rule is inconsistent here. 4. One more situation - what if a batsman goes for a pull/hook shot, hits a winning last ball six, but in the process loses balance and falls of the wicket ? So he is hit wkt after the match ended(won), so is he out ?
Re: Strangely incosistent and condtradictory laws..
by naveen dhanerwal on Aug 17, 2010 01:06 PM
if he hits his wicket before the ball reaching to the boundary, he's obvioulsy out! what comes first is considered only.
Re: Re: Strangely incosistent and condtradictory laws..
by Rajesh Shetty on Aug 17, 2010 01:11 PM
i meant..sometimes hook shots tend to fly like a bullet over the ropes, and the batsman might lose his balance and fall just a moment after the six...then will he be given out...?
Re: Re: Re: Strangely incosistent and condtradictory laws..
by naveen dhanerwal on Aug 17, 2010 01:33 PM
nope! how can they when the game is over? like a catch is not considered valid if the catcher is outside the field!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Strangely incosistent and condtradictory laws..
by naveen dhanerwal on Aug 17, 2010 01:40 PM
if the ball is landed across the ropes and then the batsman falls on the stumps, he is not out because the action is completed by then!
Re: Strangely incosistent and condtradictory laws..
by Chandra Paul on Aug 17, 2010 04:43 PM
the batsmen is out. I think it happenend in one of the India-WestIndies test match long ago.
After giving 4 byes , Randiv bowled 2 legal balls which was not scored off by Sehwag while the 3rd ball was no-ball, if this was a delibrate attempt than he could have bowled a no-ball immidately after giving 4 byes ( the byes were also given through off site other wise he could have bowled a leg side wide with 5 runs !! )
Re: This was not done delibrately
by sanjeev on Aug 17, 2010 04:12 PM
open your eyes & ears dear, sanga said something in lankan languaue to randiv just before this ball about 100
This is a non issue. Cricket is a team game and Individual records doesn't matter. Only selfish Indians will cry about this. They gave away some runs, India won - chapter should close there.
I sincerely wish Sehwag doesn't go selfish Sachins way and start thinking that scoring centuries is the only reason for playing crickt.
Re: Nonsense
by A Sharma on Aug 17, 2010 12:43 PM
Sehwag did say winning (with a bonus point) was more important than a century to his name. < You will agree he is correct >. Then he also said that its apparent that Randiv (Lankan) intentionally bowled a No Ball to deny Shewag (Indian) a century and the same as per him was unsporting behaviour < Again he is simply stating a fact, as no genuine sportsman should derive pleasure by intentionally bowling no balls, its close to tanking - i.e. faking a result >
Randiv's act served no greater purpose to Sri Lanka & just showed them as poor sports and bad losers.
Shewag (like Sachin on 96 & Ganguly on 98 - who were denied centuries by bowling wides and no balls then) could have kept quite and this act would have been swept under the carpet, and intentionally losing via wides and no balls would have continued as an accepted act.
Now I hope bowlers remember the world is watching next time they try to lose voa no balls & wides.
Re: Nonsense
by Bhaskar Mahulikar on Aug 17, 2010 04:16 PM
I accept that it is the team's winning that matters. But records are not expected. They just come the way. And pulling a player away from the record that is at his doorstep is against the sportsman spirit. Don't you accept it?
Re: Nonsense
by murugesan kutty on Aug 17, 2010 03:57 PM
if this is case on any team any player on 99, Indian players will definitely help them to score century. Is it not true?
No-ball shud be an optional for batting team... even if no-ball is bowled by bowler,option shud be present for batsman to ACCEPT or not to ACCEPT it. there by deliberate No-Balls can be turned into to the favour of batsman.
When they count this ball as batsman faced and won't count the runs as he scored off this ball? What a sucking rule? MCC open ur eyes and change it or at least don't count the ball in the batsman name
Re: Re: This law Sucks a Lot
by Senthil on Aug 17, 2010 12:24 PM
Sorry, It's MCC to decide not ICC. MCC is the one regulating the rule and recommended to ICC. Google it if you have any doubts
Pontings illegal Graphite Bat is termed Illegal by MCC then only ICC changed it
Re: This law Sucks a Lot
by kaustubh saha on Aug 17, 2010 02:04 PM
A match is over the moment team batting second surpasses the scroe made by team batting first. So when you need just 1 run to win, a six off a no ball is equivalent to running two singles when you need just 1...the match is over the moment the delivery is called a no.
