The Morality Issue

So much has been said and written about the Sydney test match so far, that it becomes futile to write too much about umpiring decisions atleast. For long I have been a supporter of higher technology use, and have also highlighted the usefulness of Hawk Eye in some of my previous posts. So I guess this test match will be a landmark episode in the transitioning of cricket from using umpires to using umpires aided heavily by technology. The argument against it is that Technology so far is not fool-proof, but then we have already seen if umpires are more fool-proof than it. So why not aid the umpire with it, just to make the combination far more strong if not fool-proof.

 

There is not too much to write about the Harbhajan episode as well, since this for me does not even qualify as a case against him. For 3 reasons. Firstly, I trust him more than Michael Clarke, and I believe he did not say it. Secondly, assuming he said it, there is not evidence other than Clarke and Hayden’s statement. Now, in which court of the world has the defendant ever been asked to prove that he is innocent? Normally it is the onus of the prosecution to prove it beyond doubt that the crime was committed. Unless it is proven, the defendant is innocent. Why Mike Proctor’s court is any different is something I do not understand. And Thirdly, it does not seem quite right if Aussies complain of someone allegedly making racist remarks against them. They have never been the cleanest of cricketers, with uncountable number of sledging episodes. Now the key difference here can be claimed to be sledging versus racist remarks. But did the Aussie team always ask before sledging the other team if the word being used to sledge has racial connotations or not. I do not think so. Chances are that they would have used that, and the other team was less of a crying baby than the Aussies, so they did not report it. Personally I feel Andrew Symonds needs to go back to school, to understand that everytime someone taunts you with something, it does not necessarily mean you go and cry in front of mama. And I am thoroughly disappointed that he claims to be part of a team that claims to play tough cricket.

 

The third and the most contentious issue here is of morality. Ricky Ponting may want all of us to believe that his integrity cannot be questioned, but his deeds on the cricket field seem to suggest otherwise. The guy plainly claims a catch that has been grassed, and asks us to believe him that he was 100% sure that the catch has been taken. He also claimed that he was 95% sure that he caught Dravid in the first innings, but given his magnanimous and upright nature, he said he was not sure. Well done sir. Three issues here. Firstly, morality is absolute, and that is precisely why it is one of the most difficult traits to practice. You cannot be moral once and immoral at other times. So if you are morally responsible, and you want people to believe so, you need o practice morality at all times, whether you are fielding or batting. So if Mr. Ponting had walked when he nicked the ball, and not stayed there after the umpire ruled him not out (incorrectly), we would still have believed him. Secondly, what is this 95% funda. How did he calculate this? Does he have some statistical models running inside his brain which calculated the probability that Dravid’ edge carried to him in the first innings? In that case, he should have been a professor of statistics, and not a cricketer. Would have served the game better on that day. Thirdly, how can you claim that your teammate (Michael Clarke in this case) is as upright as you, and that he will also be honest when he claims Ganguly’s catch? This is the same Michael Clarke who refused to leave the crease after being caught in the first slip via a waist high catch, saying that he did not walk because he never does so. Hello!!! Please explain him what does walking mean. Walking is a concept when a player returns to the pavilion after getting out, without waiting for the umpire’s decision. Most of the times, this happens when the player is caught behind, since the edge may not be clear. It does not mean that you get out caught in 4^th slip and do not walk. What more is left Mr. Clarke? No walking when you get bowled. Saying that you have never been a walker. And these two guys claimed Ganguly’s catch. How on earth do they expect anyone to believe them?

 

This team of Australia has tarnished their image as champions. I used to really respect their game, but this ugly face has really made me feel sad. For once I felt Sreesanth should have been in Australia. Win or lose, he would have gotten under their skin. For once I thought Harbhajan should have actually abused Symonds, and I hoped he is not punished. Unfortunately for all us cricket fans, the series which promised to be a cracker, is already gone. What is left is just pride of Indian cricket team, and I really hope that is restored in the days to come.