There are two sides to a story. And so to Kings XI Punjab captain Ravichandran Ashwin ‘mankading’ Jos Buttler of Rajasthan Royals on Tuesday. The opinions are divided. Some saw it as a matter of rule of law and others have invoked morality and the spirit of the game. Both camps have convincing arguments.
Some Indian veterans defended Ashwin as the law backs him. Some overseas stars lambasted the off-spinner for violating the spirit of the game. Shane Warne, the brand ambassador of the Royals, was livid and differed vehemently with those who ignored the spirit part. Ashwin had no regrets. He said his act was instinctive and not planned. He also threw the rule book at his critics, and wondered where the spirit of the game comes in. He wanted the rule to be revisited if there’s any problem with it.
Former IPL chairman Rajeev Shukla seems to have gone along with Warne, recalling a decision the match referees and captains including MS Dhoni and Virat Kohli took against using this method to dismiss the non-striker.
ALSO READ | Don't see need for using 'mankad': Trent Boult on Ashwin
Though there is no official BCCI reaction, an unnamed worthy is quoted as saying that cricketing skills should be used to dismiss a batsman, sending out the right message to those watching and playing. For good measure the official blamed the match officials for handling the issue inappropriately. He read the law differently from Ashwin and said Buttler ought to have been ruled not out, going by the law, giving Ashwin a lesson on the use of laws and the spirit of their interpretation. The official said that Ashwin should have maintained ‘decorum’ and not used ‘cricketing skills’ instead of ‘shady skills’.
Then comes the often argued question whether the rules are only for bowlers and not for batsmen. In other words, the whole game is batsman-oriented and bowlers are always at the receiving end. Does the spirit of the game apply only to bowlers, asked one critic who also questioned the demonizing of ‘mankading’.
The ICC’s poll on its website voted overwhelmingly against Ashwin. The custodians of the laws of the game, the Marylebone Cricket Club, also seemed swayed by the social media after defending Ashwin and had a different take the next day. “Having extensively reviewed the incident again and after further reflection we don’t think it was within the spirit of the game,” MCC’s manager of the Laws, Fraser Stewart said.
Warne went a step further to say that Ashwin had no intention of delivering the ball, so it should have been called a dead ball. He, like Stewart, was one of those who believe that Ashwin’s pause was too long between the time he reached the crease and the moment it was reasonable to expect the ball would be delivered.
A former New Zealand all-rounder, now an IPL commentator, also thought the ball was dead but he holds the third umpire responsible for the mess. The pause came into discussion when some argued that is it fair to steal inches before the ball left the bowler’s hand and in case of cheating where does the spirit come in.
Just as Ben Stoke said he wouldn’t have ‘mankaded’ Virat Kohli, would Warne have been so critical of Ashwin if the incident had not happened in the match against Rajasthan? The media dug out Warne’s own misdeeds on and off the field as if to say that he should be the last person to point a finger at others.
One lingering thought, did the umpires try to ask Ashwin if he was pressing the appeal? Since he said his act was instinctive, who knows he might have relented. The rule-makers must revisit the law and once for all make it unambiguous.
(The writer is a veteran commentator and views expressed are personal. He can be reached at sveturi@gmail.com)