Punjab v Rajasthan, IPL 2013, Mohali May 9, 2013

Gilchrist issues a stern reprimand

Plays of the day from the IPL match between Kings XI Punjab and Rajasthan Royals

The appeal
During his international career, Adam Gilchrist developed a reputation as a "walker", but when Ajit Chandila made an appeal for his wicket in the third over of the innings, Gilchrist was incensed. Shaun Marsh had hit the ball to mid-on and, on seeing the ball fielded there, Gilchrist was on his way back into his crease at the non-striker's end, when the incoming throw hit him on the glove. As he fended the ball, Gilchrist had taken his bat out of the crease and Chandila collected the ball and broke the stumps, shouting out an appeal. Gilchrist was unimpressed, immediately directing an animated scolding at Chandila, before Rahul Dravid stepped in, withdrew the appeal and placated tempers.

The dipping delivery
Even at 40, it's a rare ball that makes Rahul Dravid seem inept. Yet that's just what Bipul Sharma delivered in his second ball of IPL 2013. Sharma tossed it up, angled into Dravid, and with the batsman having decided to play across the line, the ball began to dip and drift further towards his pads. Dravid ended up missing it by a distance - though he might feel it was not his most erudite shot selection - and the ball zipped through between bat and pad to disturb the stumps.

The Afridi imitation
Shahid Afridi's quicker ball is one of the more freakish acts of modern cricket as he generates, with a legbreak action and a short run up, speeds in excess of 130 kph. Piyush Chawla took a cue from the Pakistan legspinner as Kings XI Punjab sought to break a burgeoning partnership in the 10th over, when out of the blue, he sent down a 117 kph bolt to rattle Shane Watson's stumps. Though Watson spotted the shorter length of the delivery that dismissed him and aimed a pull, he was far too late on stroke and the ball sped past him to deliver a breakthrough for the hosts.

The shot
Ajinkya Rahane hit form in the last two matches, scoring back-to-back fifties, and several splendidly timed strokes against Kings XI made plain just how classy a player he is when in form. The best of his strokes was not the languid six over extra-cover off Chawla, but his imperious punch through cover off Parvinder Awana in the fifth over. Awana pitched on a length, about eight inches outside off stump and Rahane, who had quickly transferred his weight onto the back foot, met the ball with rapid, controlled swing to send it to the fence.

Andrew Fidel Fernando is ESPNcricinfo's Sri Lanka correspondent. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Harmon on May 13, 2013, 19:26 GMT

    @drinks.break: Wow, whats with that sigh?

    #1: What Gilly could or should have done is moot. The point is, something happened and it was Gilly's reaction to it that meant he was out of the crease. He can't blame someone for it (Ok, he didn't) but then the situation became such that a run out appeal made perfect sense. At the least, Gilly had no business lambasting Chandila for the appeal. A fielder can appeal for anything, it for the umpires/Referee to decide if it was frivolous or not.

    #2: Who said that Gilly was targeted? Pretty pointless this point.

    #3: Ha Ha I chuckled. Your definition of "appropriate" is highly subjective and inappropriate. That's what I said too --- fix your stand and stick to it. You concede you can't cite anything and rely on obscure incidents.

    #4: Again --- decide if rules are to be followed or not, else SRT should have been called back in Kolkata & in CB Series. You defend Gilly but say nothing about that.

  • David on May 12, 2013, 11:24 GMT

    @Harmony111, *Sigh* ...

    1. To say that Gilly should have swayed or ducked is ridiculous. If you're in a balanced batting stance, you can move to avoid a ball coming on a predictable path (from the bowler to you); when you're running on the pitch, you can't evade a ball coming on an unpredictable path (at you instead of to a fielder). From mid-on to the bowler's crease is only about 0.5 sec on a strong throw. Gilly made a reflex reaction.

    2. Under the rules a bowler can target the body; but a fielder can't target a batsman who isn't impeding the stumps.

    3. You can list maybe 10 examples where a team took advantage of someone's misfortune. But there are millions of examples (mostly undocumented) of teams declining to do so. I'd rather base my assessment of what's appropriate on the million than the 10.

    4. I (and the vast majority of cricket followers) would rather have Dravid as my captain - even if that means giving an opponent a let-off - than someone who holds a view like yours.

  • Harmon on May 11, 2013, 20:49 GMT

    @drinks.break: @19:26 GMT when I said ---- "No one can be blamed for that."---- I actually meant ----"No one *except Gilly* can be blamed for that".----

  • Harmon on May 11, 2013, 19:26 GMT

    CONTD … However, during the tea break (not ok as per rules), Eng captain went to MSD and asked him to withdraw the appeal invoking the spirit (ignoring the rules). MSD did so. This proves that in some cases the rules and the spirit are mutually exculsive.

    As for Gilly's evasive action, he could have crouched, he could have moved sideways. It was his decision (a poor one) that the ball hit him. No one can be blamed for that.

    You yourself concede that you are not arguing from the side of rules but rather from the side of amorphous conventions that ppl go for or against as per the situation. That's precisely my point too. Either the conventions must be respected always or never.

    If the batsman is hit by a vicious bouncer, loses his sense of balance and falls on the stumps, do you support the fielding side appealing for hit wicket? Going by your own extreme example, they should not. But does that happen? Since 1877, numerous batsmen have been dismissed like this. Ergo QED.

  • Harmon on May 11, 2013, 19:22 GMT

    @drinks.break: Your hypothetical scenario has in fact been a sort of reality for a few years now. I can recall two such incidents which are not identical but similar. In the Kolkata 99 Test, Sachin was taking a run, had reached his crease safely (one better than Gilly in this case), had an unfortunate collision with Shoaib where no one was at particular fault and as a result fell out of the crease. In the meanwhile the throw from the deep came in and hit the stumps. Going strictly by rules SRT was out. Invoking spirit, he could have been called back but wasn't. In a CB Series match vs Oz, SRT was taking a quick run when Brett Lee suddenly stopped RIGHT in front of him while trying to field the ball.

    In both these cases it was said that it is the job of the batsman to be alert and to ensure he makes his ground. It was all STRICT RULES there.

    In 2011, Ian Bell was run out after being a bit careless, AS PER RULES.

    CONTD ...

  • David on May 11, 2013, 12:44 GMT


    And as for your insistence that Gilly never made his ground, the cricketing question is, did his need to take evasive action interfere with his attempt to make his ground? The obvious answer is, yes it did.

    Therefore, whether he had actually made his ground or not is irrelevant to the moral question. The fact is, the fielder (unintentionally?) threw the ball at him, and by endangering him, unfairly prevented him from making his ground, which Chandila then took advantage of.

    If you really want to play only according to the strictest interpretation of the rule book, then you have to accept the following hypothetical scenario as well: the ball hits Gilly on the back of the head and knocks him out before he can make his ground, so the fielding team runs him out, because there's nothing against it in the rules.

    The difference between that extreme example and what actually happened is only a matter of degree.

  • David on May 11, 2013, 12:34 GMT

    @Harmony111, sorry, it doesn't suffice!

    I'm not mixing two things. In both examples, someone benefits from an accidental deflection off the batsman (and in Gilly's case, the fielder wasn't even throwing it to the bowler's end). It is accepted across the whole world of cricket (and Australians observe this custom as much as any country) that it is poor form for a batsman to profit from an unintentional deflection; it is equally poor form for a fielder to benefit from the same thing.

    And as for playing by the rules OR by the spirit, they're not mutually exclusive choices. Cricket has always been a mix of the two, and this particular example is one where cricketers have been very consistent for over a century.

    Was Gilly wrong to react so angrily? Perhaps. Was Chandila wrong to take advantage of the accidental deflection? Absolutely! According to what rule? According to universally accepted convention. We don't need written rules for everything. Sometimes common sense is enough. Cont'd

  • Harmon on May 11, 2013, 11:21 GMT

    @drinks.break: Firstly, you are mixing two separate things here. What you ask has no connection to what has happened. The point in focus is that if a batsman is attempting to take a run and during that if some fielder manages to hit the stumps with the ball then is he out or not. Whether it was a direct hit or a relayed throw or a deflection should not matter in my opinion. Does any batsman ever refuse runs if he was trying to hit the ball to the cover but got an edge and the ball went to fine leg? Similarly, the fielder was trying to throw the ball to the keeper and in between something where Gilly was found to be out of his crease (he was never in actually) when the ball hit the stumps. How can this not be out beats me, Only a softie captain would withdraw such an appeal.

    Secondly, we got to decide if we play by rules or by spirit. We can't invoke one or the other as per our suitability. The Aussies are notorious to have shifting stances regarding this.

    Hope this suffices.

  • am on May 11, 2013, 5:56 GMT

    Once again this incident shows how Dravid is not just a brilliant player but also a man who can bring peace on the field with his presence. Clearly Cricket needs individuals like R.Dravid and Dhoni.. these are people who are like diamonds.. At the same time we need people like Kohli ..who can bring spice and youth..both are necessary ..aggression is required in the way they play the game and shouldnt be in the way they talk...that is wrong. Dravid is truly a legend.. my respect for him grows every time I read something about him.

  • David on May 10, 2013, 22:19 GMT

    @Harmony111, answer me this one question: if the ball had deflected off Gilly away from the fielders instead of straight to them, should he have taken a run?

  • No featured comments at the moment.