*Official* Sri Lanka Tri-Series

[akilana]

I don't know if it was deliberate or not but if he wanted to deny Sehwag a century, why would he bowl the two previous balls the way he did? The two previous balls were fine.

 

[shankar]

The four byes wouldn't have been deliberate. But after that with only one run required the thought of denying the century would have occurred.

 

[Jono]

Haha, look I dislike what Sanga did, but it wasn't worse than what Sehwag did vs South Africa.

Cheating to win isn't less bad than not-cheating, but doing something to be a prick.

Sehwag deliberately broke a rule. Sanga just did something dickish.

Both wrong.

Funnily though, I'd probably more likely do what Sehwag did than Sanga. But that would be knowing that one actually served a purpose for my team.

 

[Cruxdude]

Sehwag has spoken out in the press conference. Must have been pissed after seeing the replay of how much Randiv overstepped.

 

[Jono]

haha really? what'd he say?

 

[Jono]

Just seen the article on Cricinfo.

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."

That's enough for me. I don't think Sanga will blatantly lie twice.

I'm a Sanga man again

 

[BeeGee]

Both Sehwag and India needed just the 1 run. Giving him an easy one to hit would make sense if he needed a boundary to get the ton.

Exactly. If they wanted to give him his hundred they would have positioned the field to allow him an easy single.

 

[Flem274*]

But that just doesn't happen anymore. They still had every right to try and get him out before the end of the game.

EDIT: Read the article, and Sehwag looks a lot worse than Sanga. His frustration is understandable, but you can't definitively say it was deliberate.

 

[G.I.Joe]

How was a deliberate no ball going to achieve that, short of a run out?

 

[Flem274*]

If it was deliberate.

How big was this overstep? One metre, two? Or something like an inch?

 

[G.I.Joe]

If it was deliberate.

How big was this overstep? One metre, two? Or something like an inch?

One foot, I'd guess.

 

[Jarquis]

Which is huge for an offspinner.

 

[Flem274*]

Ah, so right on the sweet spot for suspicion but not enough for confirmation...

Bowlers have the howler overstep all the time, and I understand he bowled four legitimate dot balls previous to Sehwag?

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt. It's dodge, but not enough for me.

 

[Top_Cat]

Exactly. Of course it was deliberate! I mean, one can never know for sure but geez....

 

[Jarquis]

But yeah. 4 dot balls when he was on 99* I think, of which 2 or 3 the scores were level for.

 

[Cruxdude]

Ah, so right on the sweet spot for suspicion but not enough for confirmation...

Bowlers have the howler overstep all the time, and I understand he bowled four legitimate dot balls previous to Sehwag?

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt. It's dodge, but not enough for me.

His back foot was close to overstepping the line. That is good enough for me.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wouldn't put it past just about any cricketer I know to ping in an extra to deny a bloke, especially if the batter is trying to get the ton with a glory shot.

 

[BeeGee]

But yeah. 4 dot balls when he was on 99* I think, of which 2 or 3 the scores were level for.

The commentary from cricinfo for the last four balls:

Randiv to Sehwag. Not for the first time, with the same batsman on 99! Field is up. What will Sehwag do? Six, anybody?
34.1
Randiv to Sehwag, 4 byes, and what? four byes. Stays low, and goes through the batsman and the keeper. Drama. Sehwag is smiling
will there be a no-ball or a wide? Pulls out of the delivery. Dead ball
34.2
Randiv to Sehwag, no run, Viru looking to do it with a single, pushed to point and sent back
34.3
Randiv to Sehwag, no run, and again he pushes to point and is sent back
34.4
Randiv to Sehwag, 1 no ball, match is over, but Sehwag has been denied the century. And this is a big no-ball, must I point out? His back foot was close to over-steeping, forget about the front foot. Anyway Sehwag smashed it for six over long-off, but they don't count because the game finishes at no-ball. He raises his arms, but then realises the century is not completed. Doesn't matter to him. He says: "It often happens. When a batsman is on 99 and the scores are level, bowlers try to bowl no-balls and wides. It happens in cricket. Fair enough." What a man

 

[Jarquis]

So 3 dot balls, 2 of which when the scores were level.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Wouldn't put it past just about any cricketer I know to ping in an extra to deny a bloke, especially if the batter is trying to get the ton with a glory shot.

Yes well I'd expect that sort of thing from Aussie cricketers. By and large they have no class when it comes to things like this.

I wouldn't expect from Sri Lanka and Sangakkara though as previously mentioned.