Cricket must be played by the rules, not Stokes' moral code

It's weird what offends cricketers.

They work with an opaque internal moral code of conduct. They can legit bully players in the name of sledging after singling out who they feel are "mentally weak", but hell hath no fury like a batter scorned by a run-out backing up, which is well within the laws of the game. They can desperately appeal for wickets when they know the batter is not out but their side is out of reviews. They can bend the laws for every last bit of advantage and then take offence at someone running the clock out or getting treatment on the field. Or someone batting on for a well-earned milestone after having batted the best part of a day to save a Test and keep his team alive in a series.

Ben Stokes is an elite competitor. The game of cricket is immensely richer for him. He leaves everything out on the field even if it means he is absent for his family between Tests. This was his 12th Player-of-the-Match award in Test cricket. Only 12 men have more. Not long ago, he and his team were gracious in victory, checking on a crestfallen Mohammed Siraj practically seconds after taking the last wicket at Lord's.

And here they were, going on and on about India not accepting their offer for a draw at the start of the mandatory overs.

The teams had been at it for hours, days. At that stage, Washington Sundar and Ravindra Jadeja had withstood everything England could throw at them. They were 80 not out and 89 not out, respectively. Washington has previously run out of partners on 85 and 96 in Tests. This would be his maiden Test hundred.

England went into this righteous fit the moment their offer for the draw was not accepted.

There is no specific morally superior way of playing the game. The laws of the game clearly say you can't consider a game over until the overs are bowled or both captains have agreed on ending the game prematurely.

Just like England were right to offer the draw when they didn't see another result possible, Shubman Gill, the India captain, was well within his rights to let his two rescuers go on and have a moment of personal glory on top of a gigantic effort in the absence of their best batter of the last five years, Rishabh Pant.

The same dressing room stands up and applauds Joe Root, a great Test batter, when he gets to a hundred. They get twitchy when Root has to go to stumps unbeaten on 99.

They can't say with a straight face that personal milestones don't matter. If they come at the expense of a team's interests, it is that team's problem. In this case, there was no such possibility. India would have had to live with it if they had lost wickets in pursuit of the milestones and left open a window for a daring England chase, but they were confident that couldn't happen.

The meltdown that ensued can happen in the heat of the moment. When you are at the absolute brink of physical endurance - like England were - the mind can get frayed. However, even after he had had an hour to think about his actions, Stokes still chose to virtue-signal. When asked if he would have pulled the plug on a young batter a few hits away from a maiden Test century after having batted through the day, Stokes said he couldn't see how the extra ten runs made any difference to what Washington and Jadeja had already done.

If this piece was about whataboutism, it would have pointed out the Wellington declaration, made soon after Root's century to set New Zealand a target of 583, or the declaration with a 352-run lead against Ireland in 2023, made soon after Ollie Pope's double-century.

Those extra few runs were not making a difference to England's team goals, but this is not about that at all.

It is about not trying to impose your values on others.

If this was done to gain some kind of competitive advantage, it would have still been fine. This, unfortunately, came across as moral posturing, which is highly avoidable, at all times. It is regrettable that it came on the watch of an otherwise great ambassador for the game.