Bitter SL deny veeru ton with on purpose no ball

[Jersey #10]

Didn't hoggard bowl a wide to deny Gilchrist fastest test century ? How is this any different ? The law is to be blamed for this farce and no matter how much we hate the cheap tactics by lankans they've played within the laws of the game.

abhi sehwag lanka ke samne fastest century marega :giggle:

[zen]

I remember an instance like this happening some time back in an ODI in India: Tendulkar was on 96, Karthik was on strike and looking to get a single, Malinga fired one on Karthik's legs which went for 4 LB To me that appeared to be delibrate too

[Jersey #10]

^same here

[Karan114]

I remember an instance like this happening some time back in an ODI in India: Tendulkar was on 96, Karthik was on strike and looking to get a single, Malinga fired one on Karthik's legs which went for 4 LB To me that appeared to be delibrate too

Yeah I remember that. Was in December last year

[Brainfade]

The law also seems messed up to me. 1. When Sehwag had deliberately pushed the ball over the boundary in the Calcutta test, he was fined. How is bowling a no ball deliberately different? 2. The ball was counted in the tally of deliveries faced by Sehwag. How messed up is the law if the ball is going to be counted as one the batsman faced but there is no opportunity for him to score off it?

1. You just cannot prove that the NB was intentional. It looks intentional, smells intentional, tastes intentional, but you could always say it was a genuine and unintentional. The kicked 4 OTOH was intended to be intentional - he changed the direction and destination of the traveling ball and thus it was deemed unsportsmanlike. 2. This is a special circumstance - the match itself ended when the NB was bowled. The ball was bowled and the batsman did face it. But the match ended as soon as the ball left the bowler's hand with his foot outside - thus, scoring opportunities are irrelevant. How ridiculous do I sound?:winky:

[Sachinism]

The law also seems messed up to me. 1. When Sehwag had deliberately pushed the ball over the boundary in the Calcutta test, he was fined. How is bowling a no ball deliberately different? 2. The ball was counted in the tally of deliveries faced by Sehwag. How messed up is the law if the ball is going to be counted as one the batsman faced but there is no opportunity for him to score off it?

Yeh I found that quite surprising. Stupid law

[Texy]

extremely unsportsmanship like conduct...... Suraj Randiv better not get an IPL contract Over a foot over the line proves this was absolute deliberate. He's not a medium pacer where it's possible to go over the line by such a big margin I don't think Murali would have done this

[Sachinism]

Didn't hoggard bowl a wide to deny Gilchrist fastest test century ? How is this any different ? The law is to be blamed for this farce and no matter how much we hate the cheap tactics by lankans they've played within the laws of the game.

Forget the law. What the F happened to the spirit of cricket?

[Sachinism]

Randiv no-ball was deliberate - Sehwag India's comfortable victory over Sri Lanka has been soured by a controversy over Suraj Randiv's massive no-ball, which proved to be the winning run and left Virender Sehwag stranded on 99, though the batsman slammed it over long-off for a six. Sehwag celebrated what would have been century No. 13, only to be told later the six didn't count. After the match, he said Randiv had bowled the no-ball deliberately, and that the move "has no place in good cricket". "Yes, it was done deliberately," Sehwag said, shedding the blase attitude with which he had reacted to the incident immediately after the match. "Because [of the size of the no-ball] ... that much from the crease. Till now in Test matches he hasn't bowled a no-ball [Randiv bowled two at the P Sara Oval], he hasn't bowled no-balls in one-day cricket, on 99 only why did he bowl a no-ball? And not a small no-ball, not a small margin, from one foot ahead." Sehwag had blasted 29 of India's 33 runs in four overs leading up to the 34th to move to 99, and the team was five short of the target. He has reached several of his famous hundreds with sixes, including the maiden triple-century by an Indian in Tests, and there was an air of anticipation in Dambulla as Randiv started the 34th over. The first ball slipped past the batsman outside off and beat Sangakkara as well for four byes to bring the scores level. The next two deliveries were carved straight to the point fielder, before Randiv overstepped by about a foot to end the match; Sehwag's six off the no ball was futile. "They [sri Lanka] have done it because no team wants anybody to score hundreds against them," Sehwag said, "but they did that, they are happy and we are happy, we won the game, we got the bonus point." When asked whether he felt Randiv had instructions from senior team members to bowl the no-ball, Sehwag said this was the second time Sri Lanka had ended a match by giving away extras to deny an Indian batsman a century. Sachin Tendulkar had finished unbeaten on 96 in a one-dayer against Sri Lanka in Cuttack last year after the match ended with Lasith Malinga bowling a wide down the leg side which went to the fine-leg boundary. "I'm not the captain of the opposing team, so I can't say, but something must have been said by either the captain or the senior team members," Sehwag said. "It has happened before, when Sachin Tendulkar was left on 99 not out [actually 96] in Cuttack, they bowled four wides down the leg side This is not the first time Sri Lanka has done this, they may have done it with other teams but with India it is the second time." Kumar Sangakkara denied playing any role in the incident. "I hope it was not deliberate," he said. "That's not the way I would like to play cricket. If that was intentional, and I have to find out about that, it has got no place on the field of cricket. I will also have to see if there was any talk about it on the field prior to that delivery." Sangakkara also defended Randiv, saying the offspinner was not the sort of person to bowl a deliberate no-ball. "Knowing Suraj, he is a really nice guy. I have no doubt that it was not intentional. Maybe he was trying to bowl the doosra, and maybe get some bounce off it. But if there has been some talk about it on the field before the start of that delivery by other players, or maybe a bit of coaxing, I will have to address that very, very strongly in the dressing room." Sehwag said he was not aware of the rule that stipulated the match was over once the no-ball was bowled, though it counts as a delivery faced. Sangakkara also appeared bemused by the rule, saying it had robbed Sehwag of a century. "I think if a batsman scores the runs, he scores the runs, whether it is a no-ball or not. I think if he scores runs off it, it should count for the batsman. The way Viru batted, he deserved to get a hundred." http://www.cricinfo.com/sl-tri2010/content/current/story/472752.html

[satishg]

This man is really something. His blunt in-your-face attitude is astonishing to say the least! Randiv is surely up for some rough treatment next game from Viru. That was absolutely disgraceful and i hope he gets to bowl to Viru the next match.

[asterix]

IPL Franchisees should take note and not try to include bad sportsmen in their teams...

[King Tendulkar]

Sangakara also kept impecaabaly. Then all of a sudden he lets a routine take go past in last over for 4 byes, then Randiv bowls the biggest no ball ever. What a disgrace

[Serani]

extremely unsportsmanship like conduct...... Suraj Randiv better not get an IPL contract Over a foot over the line proves this was absolute deliberate. He's not a medium pacer where it's possible to go over the line by such a big margin I don't think Murali would have done this

Murali could go against instructions from Sanga though, a new comer to the team like Randiv on the other hand will do everything his skipper says to ensure he is in the team for some time.

[Karan114]

Kumar Sangakkara denied playing any role in the incident. "I hope it was not deliberate," he said. "That's not the way I would like to play cricket. If that was intentional, and I have to find out about that, it has got no place on the field of cricket. I will also have to see if there was any talk about it on the field prior to that delivery."

Yeah we believe you Sanga, I'm sure you had no clue at all about what was going on

[Manny_Pacquiao]

what annoys me more is this ashol nanga-kkara saying that he definitely felt it was unintentional. ""Knowing Suraj, he is a really nice guy. I have no doubt that it was not intentional. Maybe he was trying to bowl the doosra, and maybe get some bounce off it. " **** these guys. just admit u didnt want sehwag to get a hundred, whats the big deal in sayign that. i wonder how they would have reacted if ojha ran himself out when their chuckerlitharan was on 799?

[Ram]

There’s no way to conclusively prove that the no-ball was deliberate, but if it was (and seems like it is), that is extremely unsportsmanlike conduct. Did our tailenders deny Murali the opportunity to get 800 test wickets by deliberately getting out to other bowlers? Sri Lanka, and specifically their captain, just lost a whole lot of respect.

[SachDan]

It was a deliberate no-ball and violating the "spirit of cricket" clause which warrants a fine of 20% of his match fee :)

[Ram]

The law also seems messed up to me. 1. When Sehwag had deliberately pushed the ball over the boundary in the Calcutta test, he was fined. How is bowling a no ball deliberately different?

It is different because you cannot prove conclusively that the no-ball was deliberate, while there was absolutely no doubts over the ‘pushing the ball’ over the boundary case. How can you reprimand someone for an act that you cannot prove against them?

2. The ball was counted in the tally of deliveries faced by Sehwag. How messed up is the law if the ball is going to be counted as one the batsman faced but there is no opportunity for him to score off it?

Yes, that doesn’t make sense. If it is counted as one of the deliveries he faced, how could he not be credited for the runs he has scored off it?

[Ram]

Kumar Sangakkara denied playing any role in the incident. "I hope it was not deliberate," he said. "That's not the way I would like to play cricket. If that was intentional, and I have to find out about that, it has got no place on the field of cricket. I will also have to see if there was any talk about it on the field prior to that delivery."

Yea, we all believe that, don’t we? Of course Randiv got orders from higher up the hierarchy do so. It may not have directly from Sangakkara, but maybe from someone else. There’s no way a junior cricketer in Randiv was unilaterally going to decide to deny Sehwag the 100. What do we expect Sanga to say? That ‘Yes, it was deliberate, I gave him the instructions to over-step..’? He’s obviously going to deny it

[Clarke]

This is such a non-issue, why bother ?