Facebook
Twitter
RSS
'Spirit of the game' is on everyone's lips at the moment. Football's second biggest tournament, the Euro Cup, is just about to be decided, while the just concluded England-New Zealand One-day series threw up its share of controversy in the name of this very 'spirit'. And it's not just cricket and football that continue their hand-in-hand relationship with the ghost of the game.
Former and current players and administrators rile up remarks when a game reaches its flashpoint, that momentarily robs the game of its character. Points are argued days on end, fluff generated left, right and centre on what is right and what is a cardinal sin on the field.
And yet, the same ghost comes haunting back.
Little known New Zealander Grant Elliott was left stranded after a collision with opponent Ryan Sidebottom while taking a run during a tense One-dayer. England chose to remove the bails, at which point both sides were in with a chance to win a series-deciding contest. However, New Zealand, despite the incident and having only two wickets in hand, won the game off the last ball. This moments after the farcical turn of events had enraged the Kiwis, who were rendered helpless at the pavilion.
End result, Collingwood comes to the media to publicly apologise for his actions, which he may regret for the rest of his life. Vettori, too, softened up and issued an apology for his team's actions at the faraway balcony.
But did it really tarnish the game's image? And if it did, was it the first time it happened?
Recent memory suggests it's pretty self-explanatory. Go back almost ten years and see a similar collision between Shoaib Akhtar and Sachin Tendulkar at the Eden Gardens. India, two or three down in the second innings, are horsing along with Tendulkar on strike. He flicks the ball to midwicket and sets off with three in his mind. To his and India's misery, Shoaib backtracks on his path and Tendulkar falls inches short to a direct hit from the boundary line. India go on to lose the match, which ends in faricical scenes again, in front of largely emptied stands. Did we stop watching cricket then?
In another instance, New Zealand found themselves in a position similar to England. In a Test series in 2006, Sri Lanka staged a remarkable comeback in one of the Tests through Kumar Sangakkara, who scored a fluent ton. On completing that 100th run, Muthiah Muralitharan, batting at No. 9, inadvertently leaves his crease without informing the umpire to go up to his partner and congratulate him. Brendon McCullum promptly removes the bails.
On the one hand, there are these instances which make people (read cricketers and others related to the game somehow) abuse its character. On the other, you have rules in the law that they are all fair. That a batsman handling the ball is at the mercy of the bowling team's appeal. That fielders will hound an umpire with appeals for a catch they know they have not taken cleanly. That a batsman will stand his ground knowing he has smashed the leather. That even players from square leg appeal for a leg before decision.
Likewise for Andrew Symonds, who declined to walk that day in Sydney. And Michael Clarke who claimed that catch, and Ricky Ponting, who upheld his decision.
Why they do it is also equally simple. We are talking of a game, which transforms into war-like proportions. They talk about the stakes being too high. For they really are. You might expect a Brian Lara or an Adam Gilchrist to walk irrespective of the situation his side is in. But in most cases, these decisions come down to the implications the result could have.
Collingwood regrets it himself, and would have done it otherwise on another day. But would he have called back Elliott if the game were the final of a Test series drawn at 1-1? This is exactly what Collingwood had to resort to. The thought to stand by values not governed by the game is from a school no-one has graduated from.
Why I mentioned football in the first place was for its own set of double standards, not to bring it down (trust me, I am not capable of doing that), but to throw open a debate to put a bit more weight behind my argument. And why football is because it perhaps remains one of the those rare games relatively untouched by technology.
Teams march out, side-by-side, with a set of kids, a symbol of dignity. They pledge 'fairplay', anti-racism, and all that jazz. But once they are on the field, they are vying for the ball, using masterful trickery to bewitch their opponents. And yet, so often, the last gasp has its own little way of having things done. The run follows a fall in the penalty area the moment the man on the ball realises there is no way forward or no-one in sight. Whistle, penalty.
For instance, world champions Italy's surge to the title wasn't free from it. The gangling Fabio Grosso fell down in the penalty area in injury time in the second round against footballing underdogs Australia (hard to believe!) Francesco Totti converts the penalty as it lays down the path for future successes. He is a hero. The Euro is not going on incident-free either, with players feigning foul play to get rid of an opponent, or to win a free-kick.
I frankly don't know what the 'spirit of the game' means. The greatest of cricketers, footballers, tennis stars, several other sports icons alike, have had their trysts with destiny with a twisted path. If Sydney were to be relived with Australia on the receiving end, they will cry foul, while India will bask in glory. Will Anil Kumble, who declared to the world that 'only one team played in the spirit of the game', decline the word of his fielder, who takes an illegitimate catch?
Collingwood will remain the England captain. He will play his cricket the way he always has. To think that Ponting's performance this year has gone down because he has a grudge deep down after Sydney would be ludicrous. The England skipper is no less of a man. Cricket is not devoid of character. The ghost, however, will continue to haunt.
