oppn parties What Were The Indian Players Trying To Prove?

News Snippets

  • Maratha quota bill likely to be tabled in Maharashtra assembly today
  • Arvind Kejriwal skips ED summons for the 6th time, says the case is in court and will follow court's decision
  • PM Modi says UP has gone from 'red tape' to 'red carpet' in 7 years of 'double engine' government
  • Farm unions reject government offers, to resume Delhi march from today
  • Centre says some Aadhar cards in Bengal 'deactivated' due to technical glitz, will be activated back soon
  • Supreme Court stays LS privilege panel summons to Bengal officials over BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar injury case
  • Supreme Court junks Sandeshkhali petition, says it cannot be compared to Manipur, asks petitioner to approach Calcutta HC
  • Supreme Court gets tough on Chandigarh mayoral elections, asks for ballot papers and video footage, does not order re-election
  • Government starts withdrawing old small tax demands, up to Rs 25000 per entry till FY 2009-10 and up to Rs 10000 per entry from FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15 with an overall ceiling of Rs 1 lakh per tax payer
  • Stocks remained positive on Monday: Sensex gained 281 points to 72708 and Nifty 81 points to 22122
  • Jasprit Bumrah likely to be rested for 4th Test while K L Rahul may be back
  • FIH Pro League hockey: India beat Spain 8-7 in shootout
  • SP leader Salim Sherwani, miffed at no Muslim candidate given RS ticket, quits party
  • Army going for big (Rs 57000cr) upgrade in combat vehicles to replace T-72 tanks
  • Mamata Banerjee says the BJP is doing nothing to resolve the Sandeshkhali dispute but instead fanning the fires to escalate it
History created in Supreme Court as Chandigarh mayoral poll ballots counted in court, judges declare AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar winner after taking into account the votes defaced by returning officer Anil Masih
oppn parties
What Were The Indian Players Trying To Prove?

By Linus Garg
First publised on 2022-01-14 05:13:49

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Linus tackles things head-on. He takes sides in his analysis and it fits excellently with our editorial policy. No 'maybe's' and 'allegedly' for him, only things in black and white.

When Dean Elgar got a reprieve through DRS, Team India was not amused. Nor was on-field umpire Marais Erasmus, who had given the original decision. While Erasmus just uttered "looks impossible", the India players let go of their disappointment by making some colourful and disparaging comments. While K L Rahul was caught by the stump mike saying that the whole country was against 11 guys, skipper Kohli asked Supersport (the broadcasters) to find better ways to win. Other players were also caught muttering by the stump microphone. The situation was getting out of hand as the Indian players felt 'cheated' by the decision.

But once the cricketing world, including the BCCI, have accepted the DRS system and the use of technology to review on-field decisions, is it good to show dissent against such decisions and worse, impute motives? If the review showed that the ball was missing the stumps, that is it. It is wrong to suggest that someone could have tampered with technology to doctor the ball's probable trajectory, which is what "find better ways to win" can be construed to mean.

The technology is same for both teams and  the replays would have produced exactly the same result if the review was for an Indian batter. If someone believes otherwise, he should not be playing the game. It was disgusting to watch the way Kohli deliberately went to the stumps and bent down to say what he wanted so that it was properly recorded.

The match referee is going to take a hard look at the 'tantrum' displayed by the Indian team and will definitely fine captain Kohli and some of the players as per the rules. It lowers the dignity of the game if players protest in this manner against accepted norms and umpiring decisions. Disappointment and frustration should be countered by upping one's game and not by throwing tantrums.