06.02.06 Peshawar
Sachin Tendulkar 100*
India 305/4 in 45 overs
The legend has carved yet another history at the timeless walls of time. A milestone has been achieved yet again, 39th time for record's sake. Those who understand the language of numbers have been assured of a well-established truth - the God is NOT dead. The heretics who blasphemously talked about 'the beginning of an end' are once again convinced of their all-rounded ignorance without a word spoken. Leaving the non-believers wallow in the embarrassment of their ignominy, the God gracefully stretches his formidable frame before his awe-struck devotees whose eyes, glued on TV sets, are virtually on a pilgrimage. Oh how would words describe the gigantic tides leaping in the bubbling sea of people surrounding the scene! The incessant noise of screeching trumpets and the relentless cheer of clamoring crowd! The flags and faces painted with the colours of cricket. The drumming hearts, the gawking eyes, the heavy sighs and the unfaithful breaths. The air laden with passion and apprehension. Life in one part of the world has come to a standstill. Art has once again defied time.
The world prepares itself for his post-century innings, though quite differently across the Redcliff line. He stoops to reverse-sweep a tentative delivery from a frustrated hand. The tired ball keeps low, hits the gloves and dies after touching the pad. An appeal, surely better than the bowling, accompanied with a blind cry from the world around. The umpire raises his finger indicating an anti-climactic end of a great and potentially greater inning. The cricket droops its head in utter disappointment. The umpire defeats the spirit of game once again. Sachin, with a grace only he can afford to have, returns to the pavilion.
Later on, the commentary and the repeated replays revealed that he was declared out when he was not. The ball was a no ball. But the decision was irrevocable.
Result: India 328/10 in 49.2 overs and finally loses the match by 7 runs.
What is the meaning of this result? If you conduct the game with arbitrary decisions then how does the result count anyway?
- Come on pal, take it easy. After all it's just a game.
- May be for you. But for many it's not just a game. And you know very-well that you are talking nonsense.
- Ok. What do you want then?
- It hardly matters what I want. What matters is the choice between the genuineness of cricket and the powers of umpire. They can't coexist in the age when sophisticated technology soon shows the replay and exposes the ineptitude of umpire. A human, no matter how much skillful he is, is liable to misjudge and it is therefore absolutely unnecessary to encumber the umpire with this huge and controversial responsibility of ruling a batsman out in the age of ultra-accurate camera.
It's not a once-in-a-lifetime incident. If happens frequently and it used to happen frequently too, but then it was not detected. Now it is detected and condemned. Now when we are in a position to bring about more transparency and more justice to the nature of the game then not doing it seems to me nothing but an absurd nostalgia to an erroneous past and an infatuation of a useless convention. And it seems quite incomprehensible to me how can cricket tolerates someone in the arena who is an obstruction in the enforcement of the rules that define and shape the game. How can law itself entertain the existence of a judge who is a living wall across the road to justice!
The course, if not result, of this match would have been different had the umpire counseled his sense rather than eyes and consulted the third umpire, the only umpire who should have the right to pronounce the 'life' sentence.
Sachin Tendulkar 100*
India 305/4 in 45 overs
The legend has carved yet another history at the timeless walls of time. A milestone has been achieved yet again, 39th time for record's sake. Those who understand the language of numbers have been assured of a well-established truth - the God is NOT dead. The heretics who blasphemously talked about 'the beginning of an end' are once again convinced of their all-rounded ignorance without a word spoken. Leaving the non-believers wallow in the embarrassment of their ignominy, the God gracefully stretches his formidable frame before his awe-struck devotees whose eyes, glued on TV sets, are virtually on a pilgrimage. Oh how would words describe the gigantic tides leaping in the bubbling sea of people surrounding the scene! The incessant noise of screeching trumpets and the relentless cheer of clamoring crowd! The flags and faces painted with the colours of cricket. The drumming hearts, the gawking eyes, the heavy sighs and the unfaithful breaths. The air laden with passion and apprehension. Life in one part of the world has come to a standstill. Art has once again defied time.
The world prepares itself for his post-century innings, though quite differently across the Redcliff line. He stoops to reverse-sweep a tentative delivery from a frustrated hand. The tired ball keeps low, hits the gloves and dies after touching the pad. An appeal, surely better than the bowling, accompanied with a blind cry from the world around. The umpire raises his finger indicating an anti-climactic end of a great and potentially greater inning. The cricket droops its head in utter disappointment. The umpire defeats the spirit of game once again. Sachin, with a grace only he can afford to have, returns to the pavilion.
Later on, the commentary and the repeated replays revealed that he was declared out when he was not. The ball was a no ball. But the decision was irrevocable.
Result: India 328/10 in 49.2 overs and finally loses the match by 7 runs.
What is the meaning of this result? If you conduct the game with arbitrary decisions then how does the result count anyway?
- Come on pal, take it easy. After all it's just a game.
- May be for you. But for many it's not just a game. And you know very-well that you are talking nonsense.
- Ok. What do you want then?
- It hardly matters what I want. What matters is the choice between the genuineness of cricket and the powers of umpire. They can't coexist in the age when sophisticated technology soon shows the replay and exposes the ineptitude of umpire. A human, no matter how much skillful he is, is liable to misjudge and it is therefore absolutely unnecessary to encumber the umpire with this huge and controversial responsibility of ruling a batsman out in the age of ultra-accurate camera.
It's not a once-in-a-lifetime incident. If happens frequently and it used to happen frequently too, but then it was not detected. Now it is detected and condemned. Now when we are in a position to bring about more transparency and more justice to the nature of the game then not doing it seems to me nothing but an absurd nostalgia to an erroneous past and an infatuation of a useless convention. And it seems quite incomprehensible to me how can cricket tolerates someone in the arena who is an obstruction in the enforcement of the rules that define and shape the game. How can law itself entertain the existence of a judge who is a living wall across the road to justice!
The course, if not result, of this match would have been different had the umpire counseled his sense rather than eyes and consulted the third umpire, the only umpire who should have the right to pronounce the 'life' sentence.
2 comments:
May I officially claim that you have graduated with this post. Dress in a black gown and give yourself a pat on your back, but not without realising the responsibility to take the baton further ahead...
More power to you!
-- Akshaya
Akshaya
Perhaps you wouldnt know what this comment means to me. Getting such a kind feedback from one who had inspired you to write blogs is indeed an achievement. It's hard for a narcissist to respect himself more but I'll try :)
I am going to pat myself and celebrate the occassion, you very well know how ;)
Post a Comment