Unfair To Call Pujara "Cheater"

(Similar to my article published in Tabla Singapore Jan 31, 2019)

On Feb 20, 1985, India and Pakistan started their campaign in the third match of the Benson & Hedges World Championship of cricket at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

India had stunned the whole world by winning the Prudential World Cup in England, less than two years ago, their fans were hopeful of an encore.

They had then managed to not only stop the West Indian juggernaut from making it three world cups in a row but had given a glimpse into their limited overs prowess by beating the Caribbean side  twice in that world cup. 

They also beat Australia once, Zimbabwe twice and the hosts England in the semi-final.

But their form thereafter been quite indifferent to say the least and nobody gave them even an outside chance of doing well at the Benson & Hedges World Championship of Cricket. 

Pakistan was bundled out for 183, a paltry total one would think, but then no total is small when you have the Imran Khan in full flight. Soon enough he had India reeling at 27/3.

Indian stalwart Sunil Gavaskar had decided to bat at No. 5 in this tournament with the objective of lending the middle order some stability and he joined M. Azharuddin who carried on the sublime form of his debut against England less than 3 months ago.

Early in his innings, Gavaskar edged a ball from Rashid Khan to wicket keeper Anil Dalpat. Up went the bowler, keeper and almost every Pakistani at the ground.

But the umpire did not hear it. He probably was the only one on that day who didn’t. More importantly he was the only one whose opinion mattered.

Gavaskar, a batsman with a reputation for walking, stood his ground. He went on to score 54, putting on 132 runs with Azharuddin for the fourth wicket and taking India safely towards a win. 

He later admitted there were two teams he never walked against, Pakistan and (Mumbai Club Side) Mafatlal, his biggest rivals.

The debate of whether to walk or not is probably as old as the game itself. Stories of the great W G Grace and his absolute hatred for walking make for very interesting reading.

Sure a lot more batsmen walked in past, when the game was not as “professional” or the primary livelihood of players. Today, there is a lot on the line. Success is worth a lot more than the reputation garnered for being honest.

It was disappointing to see the crowds at the Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru on Jan 27 booing Cheteshwar Pujara with chants of “cheater…cheater” during the Ranji Trophy semi final. 

India's most prolific batsman during the recent test series against Australia was clearly out, edging a catch to wicket-keeper Srinivas Sarath off the bowling of R Vinay Kumar. But umpire Saiyed Khalid ruled not out and Pujara did not walk. In the first innings too, apparently, he was out caught behind and he had not walked. 

I have debated these incidents with numerous friends across multiple social media platforms. Needless to say, most of them were from Bengaluru or supported the Karnataka side and felt Pujara should have walked, both times!

My stand on the issue of walking is simple. It is entirely up to the batsman. 

The umpires job is to determine if the batsman is out or not out. I have no recollection of any opponent ever calling me back when i was given out wrongly.

It was good to see commentator Harsha Bhogle make a very similar point when decoded the Pujara episode on Cricbuzz. He asked if Karnataka captain Manish Pandey would have recalled a batsmen who was unfairly given out caught behind. 

In fact one has to go back to the one off Jubilee Test between India and England at Mumbai's Wankhede Stadium in February 1980 to witness such magnanimity from a captain. 

England were 58/5 in response to India’s first innings total of 242 and umpire Hanumantha Rao, gave Bob Talyor out caught behind off the bowling of Kapil Dev.

But India's captain GR Vishwanath indicated Taylor was not out and recalled the batsman

Taylor went on to score 43 of 180 balls and featured in a partnership of 171 runs with man of the match Ian Botham who scored 114. England got a lead of 54 in the first innings and went on to win the test by 10 wickets.

For all their displeasure at the poo umpiring, Karnataka benefited just as much in their Elite Group A match against Vidarbha last November.

As many as 5 “dubious” decisions went their way, prompting Vidarbha to raise the issue of poor umpiring with the Indian cricket board. 

Karnataka scraped through that game with a draw, but their luck ran out in the semi-final. Vidarbha are now preparing to play Saurashtra in the final. 

The game is the greatest leveler and it is bigger than any individual or team.

Noted West Indian umpire Steve Bucknor retired with an appeal of his own. “Leave the decision making in the hands of the on field officials”. 

He wasn't suggesting that technology should not be involved. Such was his understanding of the pressures of umpiring that he felt the umpires should be allowed to check with a third umpire as long as it helped them arrive at the right decision.

“I have nothing against experiment’s and we know when decisions are tight. Umpires can make mistakes, and these decisions can be costly” he said.

To take walking any indication of a cricketer’s integrity is an unfair proposition. A sportsman acquire's his  reputation by the way he plays the game over an entire career and not what he does on one afternoon. 

The most consistent of “walkers” have been involved in the most horrible of appeals, when fielding.

Australian Adam Gilchrist appealed with his team mates when the ball came off Sachin’s shoulder during a DLF cup match with India in Kuala Lumpur in 2006. 

English umpire Mark Benson realized his mistake and recalled the batsman, much to the angst of Australian captain Ricky Ponting. 

Australia not only went on to win the match but the tournament, which tells you how good a team they were.

The advent of technology has made the game as fair as possible.

The challenge now for the authorities is to get the technology in as deep into the system as possible - to ensure players have fair outcomes across all levels.

It's time for the spectators to stop judging sportsmen or writing them off as cheats and instead focus on admiring their skills. 

After all, times change and so do our opinions.