Rauf justice

At the risk of being assailed from all sides for finally becoming a fully-qualified Whingeing Pom, and while emphasising that I yield to no woman (or man, for that matter) in my admiration for Muttiah Muralitharan’s oh-so fittingly magnificent closing spell, Ryan Sidebottom’s alleged “dismissal” in Kandy today infuriated as much as it dismayed.

How shall we remember this Test? Let us count the ways. Slowly, appreciatively. The gripping to-and-fro struggle for the upper hand between well-matched sides that kept us guessing until the last, confirming the five-day form as the most edifying and satisfying spectacle thrown up by the competitive arts. The sight of a spinner deciding matters with the new ball. The almost equally estimable bowling of Chaminda Vaas and Matthew Hoggard. Further proof that Kumar Sangakkara is not only the best willow-wielder currently residing on this particular planet but author of the most statistically-impressive sustained streak of form since Braddles. The batting of Ian Bell, Matty Prior and, in the aptest of farewells, Sanath Jayasuriya (thanks awfully for doing so much to preserve this plaything of ours, old boy). The awesome wicketkeeping of the lesser-known Jayawardene. The way Sidebottom’s curls make him look like Rupert Everett playing Charles II. Oh, and Murali beating Warney.

Yet a bitter taste lingers.

If the professionals are to be believed, there were only about 15 minutes of playable light left when Lasith Malinga’s impeccable yorker did for Hoggard. Throw in Sidebottom’s first-innings resistance and it is not that great a stretch to conclude that, had the correct decision been made, England might have escaped with a draw, however much that might have offended one’s notions of justice. And yes, while I am, legally speaking, a Pom, albeit sometimes an abashed one, and England CC are the only sporting team that rouses my emotional prejudices and vestiges of near-shameless patriotism, it would have offended my own notions of justice.

The injustice of Sidebottom’s exit was plain, if not necessarily from the outset. Admittedly, in real time, it was far from obvious, to this couch potato at least, that anything was amiss. That he got an inside edge to the ball that thudded fatally into his pads, however, was beyond doubt from the very first replay transmitted by Sky.

Surely the third umpire, the grandly-monikered Tyron Hirantha Wijewardene, should have been in a position to pick up his walkie-talkie and gently alert Asad Rauf to the bat’s involvement before he made a fool of himself. “Proactivity” may be one of those horrid buzzwords coined by management consultants as a posh-sounding alternative to the traditionally curt-but-reasonably-effective “bloody well get on with it, already”, but this is one case where I heartily applaud its invention. It sounds so...so…ACTIVE.

No blame should be attached to Rauf. It had been a long day, such a draining, concentration-sapping match, and visibility was deteriorating. But this episode served to reinforce the argument a small but avowedly and incredibly sensible cadre of cricket-lovers have been voicing for some time. Namely, that the days of the strictly reactive third official should be terminated with extreme, even excessive, prejudice. One-way relationships seldom work.