Question:

Aftermath of Sehwag 99: Time to change no-ball rule?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

Aftermath of Sehwag 99: Time to change no-ball rule?
http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Virender-Sehwag-c95429 scored his second 99 of the tour of Sri Lanka, but this time, he was left not-out. India were set to chase 171 for a win, and Sehwag led their charge to help win the game for the Indians, but in the process, remained unbeaten on 99.

However, this became hugely controversial, because of what is believed to be a silly rule in cricket. Recalling the incident that led to this controversy, India needed five runs to win the game and Sehwag was on 99. The bowler was Suraj Randiv and Sehwag was on strike. The first ball of the over kept very low and Sehwag did not have any opportunity to touch it. It scooted through, and almost kissed the ground again after pitching once, thereby disallowing the wicket-keeper Kumar Sangakkara any chance either and the ball went through to the fence.

Sehwag hadn’t touched the ball with his bat and four byes were added to the scorecard, leaving Sehwag not-out on 99. One run was needed for the win, and the batsman still required one for his century. The second ball was cut away, but went straight to the fielder, whereas the third ball of the over was slightly flighted and Sehwag went after it and cleared the fence with consummate ease. This should have meant that he had gone from 99 to 105, but the umpire called it a no-ball as well.

Usually, the rules stipulate that in case of a no-ball, the runs scored by the batsman are added to the batsman’s score, whereas the no-ball is added to the team’s score. In this case, that would have resulted in one run to the team and six to Sehwag, that would have taken him from 99 to 105.

Unfortunately for Sehwag, there is another rule that supersedes this one and that is in case of the team on the verge of a win. It mandates that the game will be declared over exactly at the time the runs required by the team are scored. In this case, since the no-ball was bowled a few seconds before Sehwag smashed the six, the game was declared over immediately after the no-ball and the six that the batsman hit did not count.

The argument for and against this rule is difficult to debate. The rule-makers are right in being technically perfect in setting this rule, which will thus disallow the batsmen from trying to run more runs than required. So, if the side needs one to win and the ball is hit into the gap and the fielding team decides not to chase the ball given that the match is over, it will make no sense whatsoever to allow the side to run 20 runs just because they can.

On the other hand, there are fans who think that it makes no sense to not consider the end-result of a delivery that has been bowled – the ball and the ensuing result of that ball are all a part of a legitimate delivery and both should be recorded. One of the more pertinent points is from the team’s perspective.

Consider the same scenario as above. http://www.senore.com/Cricket/India-c750 is chasing 171 for a win, and are at 170 in 34.3 overs. Now, if the bowler bowls a deliberate no-ball and finishes off the game, the Indians will end on 171 in 34.3 overs, which gives them a run-rate of 4.96. As compared to that, if the bowler does not bowl a no-ball and the batsman smashes it for a six, the side will end on 176 in 34.4 overs. In this case, the run-rate is 5.07 – a good 0.1 more, which is sometimes the difference in the net run-rate at the end of a competition.
So, the question now is, is this the right time to change the rules? Like everything in cricket, opinions on that will vary. But http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Sri-Lanka-c758 captain Kumar Sangakkara expressed something almost anybody could agree on.
"The way Viru (Sehwag) batted, he deserved to get a hundred."

 Tags:

   Report
SIMILAR QUESTIONS
CAN YOU ANSWER?

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 0 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.