The World Cup Final involved two issues where there is doubt as to whether the correct decisions were taken – the first, relatively minor issue being about Adam Gilchrist using a squash ball inside his batting gloves. The legality of this has been questioned. The second and more consequential issue pertains to the decision of the Umpires to require 3 overs to be bowled in very poor light after the light had been already offered to the batsmen. Typically here, the purpose of the press has been to find a scapegoat (the question they ask is “Who was at fault?”. In my view, what they ought to be asking is “What actually happened?”). As it happens, they have found a scapegoat – Jeff Crowe. In this post i will try and describe what happened and hopefully be able to invoke all the relevant laws to explain why the so called “fracas” occured.
The Playing Conditions for the 2007 World Cup includes the following Clause (21.6.2) pertaining to Law 21 in the Laws:
21.6.2 “If the innings of the side batting second is suspended (with at least 20 overs bowled) and it is not possible for the match to be resumed, the match will be decided by comparison with the D/L ‘Par Score’ determined at the instant of the suspension by the Duckworth/Lewis method (refer Appendix 2). If the score is equal to the par score, the match is a Tie. Otherwise the result is a victory, or defeat, by the margin of runs by which the score exceeds, or falls short of, the Par Score.”
Further, the reserve day rule is clarified in clause 12.1.2 and 12.1.3:
12.1.2 “All matches shall have one reserve day allocated on which an incomplete match shall be continued from the scheduled day.”
12.1.3 “Every effort will be made to complete the match on the scheduled day with any necessary reduction in overs taking place and only if the minimum number of overs necessary to constitute a match cannot be bowled on the scheduled day will the match be completed on the reserve day.”
The light at the time was clearly poor and was clearly getting worse. These three clauses read together, suggest the following:
1. There was no necessity of returning the next day to complete the game.
2. The match could have been awarded to the Australians by the referee and the umpires once they judged that the light was not good enough for them to continue.
It is clear that the Umpires decision to request the players to return to the field and complete 3 further overs and complete the match was not the telling mistake. The mistake was that they did not exercise their authority to say that
“We have completed the minimum requirement for a completed match today, and since we deem that the light will not improve, and no further play will be possible today, the match is awarded to Australia as they are ahead as per the Duckworth-Lewis chart at this stage”
By asking the players to return, and having the Sri Lankans face slow bowling for 3 overs, the umpires in fact ruled that the light was good enough for play to continue with three overs to play. Ponting agreed to bowl three overs. What might have happened had Ponting refused to bowl three overs of spin and handed the ball to Shaun Tait? The Umpires might have offered the light to the Sri Lankans yet again, and the Sri Lankans might have accepted it again. Here is the catch though. We might have reached a stalemate, unless one of the captains had refused to take the field. Had Ponting refused to take the field or if Sri Lanka refused to take the field, the Umpires and the Match Referee would have been forced to award to match to one of the teams in accordance with Law 21.3(a) and Law 21.3(b) as modified in the World Cup 2007 playing conditions.
The Umpires and the Referee, the Australian and Sri Lankan team, the broadcasters and the Press were the agencies involved in decision making and communicating this event to the general public. Lets have a look at how each acquitted themselves:
1. The Umpires and Referee were faced with a tricky situation, and made a mistake, even though technically they were right – because they decided that play would continue until the overs were completed, and both teams agreed to play (there by agreeing that the light was good enough to play – no complaint about the light was made by Sri Lanka or Australia in those three overs). They should have deemed the light bad enough to end play for the day, and hence award the match to Australia based on D/L, but they didn’t. They chose a second, more convoluted route instead.
2. The Australian celebration was premature and began the minute Sri Lankan batsmen accepted the light. At that point, there was no decision by the Umpires that no further play would be possible on the day. The Australians made this assumption (and possibly so did the Sri Lankans). Technically, this was a mistake. But given the occasion it is understandable.
3. The Sri Lankans accepted the offer of the light, and in the end were the only party to emerge out of the confusion without any blame. The Australians should not have celebrated before they had been awarded the match, and their celebration probably contributed to the confusion. It was left to Jayawardene and Ponting to agree to play out the remaining three overs.
4. The broadcasters smelt an opportunity to abuse the ICC and did so with gusto. There was no calm explanation of events. (All the information in this post was available in that commentary box – the playing conditions as well as the laws.). The attitude was not “Lets try and find out and explain what happened” (communication with the umpires and/or referee would not have been necessary to explain the position as per the law and the playing conditions), it was ” Lets try and milk this, because fueling controversy and blaming the ICC for destroying cricket is far more compelling than something that can be simply explained on account of the laws. The point should have been to explain what was happening, before laying the blame.
5. The press called it a farce. In so far as the fact that the umpires chose not to conclude that no further play would be possible that day, they were right. However again, it was too good an opportunity to practice throwing tomatoes and ridding the fridge of old useless eggs.
The casualty as always, is the game. The “real” world does not do it any favors. It was in the end a simple case of the Umpires making a mistake and choosing a tedious course of action, when the law in fact allowed them greater control over proceedings. The delicious technicality that the subsequent completion of the three overs ironically vindicated the umpires stand that play had merely been “suspended” and that the days play had not been deemed over, was missed by observers.
As always, it all boils down to how you look at the game. If you look at it as a fundamentally positive thing, where unless there is cheating, there is no cause for complaint, and any technically/legally complicated situations reveal nuances and a balance of authority which is fascinating (the Oval controversy was one such – sadly, it rarely went beyond name calling and “inside scoops” in the mainstream press), then you can’t lose watching cricket. If instead you get your kicks out of calling the very people who entertain you names at the first available opportunity, then the press and the broadcasters will never disappoint you…..
Its a choice – was it a case of a debatable bad light decision, or was it an incompetent farce by the “ICC”? The commentators invariably choose the generalization by blaming the ICC – because they would look like fools if they complained against Bucknor or Dar or Koertzen… three fine umpires who do a very difficult job with far greater integrity and skill than most people off the field of play can even imagine is possible.
The Referee’s is a difficult position – he does not have the authority and the respect traditionally accorded to the umpires. The Referee is an imposition on the game by the ICC – and the constituent nations agree that the position is necessary.
I believe that there is a severe need for a counterpoint to the mainstream broadcasters and the press. I aim to provide it whenever i can. For the most part though, the idea is to describe the cricket that takes place. And until the press regulates itself and is willing write about coverage of events rather than merely writing about events, the use of the generalization “the press” is valid in my view.
The press and the commentators were technically right. Purely “technically” however, the umpires were not “wrong”.
