From Bidwan Baruah, India
Many say cricket needs to be played hard with the bat and ball. Only. But there is a big question here: If two teams are playing hard and trying to outplay each other, won't there be any frustrations creeping inside them which might lead to an explosion of emotions?
Imagine you are competing with your co-worker and you are failing to outclass him, somewhere down the line you will be frustrated and will pass on a comment. 9 out of 10 times he will have something to say in return. It's the same with cricket. There is no way you can curb it and if you are trying to do so, it might result in lowering the intensity of the game.
Now, the other thing people say is "A bit of chit chat is okay until the players cross the line." Where is this line drawn? Let me take the latest on-field incident in the ongoing Delhi Test. Shane Watson tried to block Gambhir's way with his hand when he was taking the single. In return, while going back for the next run, Gambhir shoved his elbow into Watson's midriff. Who crossed the line?
The ICC needs to draw this imaginary line more clearly. There is no doubt that the on-field incidents add to the excitement and spice up the newspaper headlines, but it will surely have a negative impact on the kids taking up the game. Nobody wants to see players shouting at each other, but an occasional exchange of words is very welcome.
Admittedly, it's a difficult line. But it needs to be drawn.
It isn't frustration that leads to "chit-chat". Most of the talk and behaviour that happens on and off field is aimed at mental disintegration of the opponent. Which is why, Watson's words and Gambhir's reaction are excusable but Simon Katich's obstruction is not. Watson was frustrated. Gambhir reacted. But Katich had no provocation.
The real criteria for deciding what is an offense and what isn't, should be the events that led up to the act and the intended effect of the aggression.
Let a Shane Watson express his anger after finally getting rid of Gambhir. But do not let a McGrath get away with questioning Sarwan about Lara's anatomy. The first is aimed at letting off steam. The second kind is a mental game to unsettle the opposition. The first is far more excusable than the second.
Finally, there are some things that are so offensive that no amount of provocation can validate them. Whether it is a word or a gesture, if it offends a person deeply, it has no place in the game.
News just poured in that Gambhir has been handed a one match ban and Watson a meagre 10% of his match fees. In the first place, all this was totally unnecessary because things happened at the spur of the moment and later both the players made up for it by shaking hands. Neither there were any personal remarks involved nor anything was premeditated. I just feel that the verdict has been too harsh for Gambhir compared to the fine imposed on Watson becuase it was not him who initiated whatever happened; of course it is not an excuse for whatever he did. As i said earlier, the ICC is looking to curb the intensity which is not a great news for the fans. After all these all things happen in an evenly contested game not in India - Zimbabwe match!
Gambhir pleaded guilty, Watson did not. Gambhir was punished for this once before, Watson is not a past offender. Gambhir's ban is fair and will hopefully i) put some sense in his head and ii) sharpen this line you can't seem to see... A physical response deserves a ban while verball barrages are also punished when they go too far. Say what you want about Watson, but he pulled his hand out of the way at the last minute, and he was correctly fined for the first time offense for unnecessarily violating the spirit of the game.
RSS Feed
