As the first day of the second Test between India and Australia in Chennai progressed, umpire David Shepherd's face progressively turned deeper shades of mauve -- and the heat in Chennai had nothing to do with it.
The much-respected umpire was struck by a far more uncommon ailment -- chronic honesty on the part of a succession of batsmen. It was as if the two teams had, in the aftermath of the first Test in Bangalore, which contained its share and more of patently ridiculous decisions, entered into a pack. Time and again, here, batsmen kept walking as soon as a nick from their bats was caught by a fielder, even as the umpire emphatically shouted 'NOT OUT'!
It happened not once, but thrice on Thursday. The batsmen who raised their own hands in self-dismissal while the umpire kept his at his side were Adam Gilchrist (for the second time in two Tests), Michael Kasprowicz and Yuvraj Singh, all after umpire Shephard was turning down the appeal of the bowler. Kasprowicz, in particular, gestured to the umpire as if to say, hey, what do you know, I did nick that one, before walking.
Also Read
Kumble routs Australia for 235
Unique record for Kumble
Kaif returns after 31 Tests
Australia's stand-in captain, Gilchrist, had earlier given the umpires officiating in the first Test the benefit of the doubt, and told his batsmen to make their job easier by walking when they felt they were out. And he was the first to translate precept to practise, when he edged a Kumble delivery to Yuvraj at forward short leg, and walked instantly.
They said of the Charge of the Light Brigade -- 'It's magnificient, but it is not war'. Merits the question: this is magnificent, heart-warming, soul-stirring, but is it cricket?
The rule book defines 'dissent' as disagreeing with the decision of the umpire. Looked at through the prism of sheer logic, is it equally dissent to walk when given not out, as it is to hang around when you patently know you are not out, but are dismissed anyway?
Virender Sehwag, in the second innings of the first Test, stood for a long disbelieving moment after being declared LBW off a clearly visible edge onto pad -- and was fined 60 per cent of his match fee. Here, three batsmen clearly disagreed with the decision of the umpire -- and made that disagreement clear by walking away despite not being told to go.
Good sportsmanship, or dissent?
The nostalgic among us, who have yearned for an earlier age when 'the spirit of the game' meant good manners, not aggression, will welcome -- even applaud -- what Gilchrist, Kasprowicz and Yuvraj did.
They have, in fact, been applauding ever since Gilchrist created a flutter when he 'walked' in the 2003 World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka. Lots of people praised the then Australian vice-captain but his generous act was slammed by captain Ricky Ponting. What will Mr.Ponting, stuck in Australia with a sore thumb, do about it now?
Here, the Aussies dumped their win-at-all-costs attitude. And the Indians reciprocated to their call of 'fair play' when Yuvraj Singh, desperately seeking to cement his place in the Test side, walked off to give Shane Warne his 532nd wicket and level Sri Lanka off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan's record for most wickets.
Shepherd was still unsure whether the Indian opener had nicked a delivery from Warne that turned considerably, into the hands of Gilchrist, who collected the ball after a bit of juggling.
To be fair to the umpires, it is difficult for them to hear the fine edges while standing in the cauldron of vociferous Indian crowds, but on Thursday, Shepherd was exposed. It would be interesting whether there will be any reaction from the ICC to these incidents that saw the players openly disagree with the umpire and give their own verdicts on the field of play.
And while you are pondering the nuances, here is something else to think about: a Gilchrist, say, has now an established reputation for honesty, for fair play. If, tomorrow, he does not walk when there is an appeal (and there is no suggestion of dishonesty here -- he could genuinely think he was not out, though evidence indicates otherwise), will umpires tend to automatically give him the benefit, even when none exists?
