Bell was out, and that should have been that

Tony Becca,  Contributor

Challengers England lead the four-match series against No.1-ranked India 2-0, and with two matches to go in the Test series they seem heading for a convincing 4-0 whitewash.

It could all depend on the weather, or Sachin Tendulkar, or Zaheer Khan, but the way things are, especially with Harbhajan Singh now at home, with India's young batsmen looking suspect to pace, and England playing so well, the whitewash looks pretty certain.

England need to win the series by at least two Tests to be elevated to the No.1 position.

After winning the opening Test at Lord's by 196 runs, England went to Trent Bridge, and after a stumbling start in which they scored 221 after being 88 for six and 124 for eight, after trailing by 67 on first innings, they recovered to post 544 in 120.2 overs at a rate of 4.52 runs an over, 412 coming in one day, to dismiss India for 158 in 47.4 overs, and to record a stunning and amazing victory by 319 runs.

It was a wonderful Test match, it must have been one of the best of all time, and a number of Englishmen contributed to it.

To me, however, the star of the contest was Stuart Broad.

Broad, the son of former England opening batsman and present ICC match referee Chris Broad, almost never made the England team for the first Test match, and on top of that, he was warned on the eve of the match not to bully the opposing batsmen during the match.

Terorised the bowlers

Broad did not bully the Indian batsmen, nor did he bully the Indian bowlers. He simply terrorised them, both the bowlers and the batsmen, and especially in the second Test.

After starting the first Test with a first-ball duck, Broad smashed 74 not out off 90 deliveries in the second innings after going to bat at 107 for seven, and in the second Test he stepped in with the score on 117 for seven and blasted 64 off 66 deliveries, took a hat-trick after India were going well at 267 for four and leading by 46 runs, and then slammed 44 off 32 deliveries as England went on a run spree before reducing India to 55 for six on the way to victory.

In the second innings, he removed the first batsman, Rahul Dravid, and he also took care of the last batsman, Sreesanth, bowled neck and crop.

He was, beyond a doubt, the important performer in the second Test match.

Another important occurrence in the match, however, probably the most important, was everybody's, or almost everybody's, take on what is gamesmanship, what is in the spirit of the game, and what, according to the rules of the game, is out or not out.

Ian Bell, on 137, according to the rules of the game, was run out when Praveen Kumar threw back the ball from near the boundary to wicketkeeper Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who relayed it to Abhinav Mukund, who broke the stumps.

The ball had not reach the boundary, the batsman was out of his crease, the umpire gave the batsman out, and that should have been that.

Bell, who started off jogging and then slowed to a walk when his partner, non-striker Eoin Morgan, held up his arm to stop him, looked at the umpires, continued walking, turned around at the boundary, and protested that the umpire had called "over", that he believed it was tea time, and he was leaving the field.

After the day's play, Bell said in an interview that he did not hear the umpire call "over".

On the field, the umpires had asked Dhoni, the captain of India, if he stood by his appeal, and Dhoni said yes.

The umpires asked Dhoni three times and Dhoni said yes, three times.

During the tea interval, Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower, the captain and coach of England, asked the umpires if, according to the rules, Bell was out, and when they said yes, beyond a doubt, they then entered the Indian dressing room.

There they asked Dhoni to reconsider his decision in the interest of the game, Dhoni conferred with his team, and they all agreed to take back their appeal.

Whatever the reason, political or not, it was said to be done in the spirit of the game, and everyone lauded Dhoni, even after the match, even after England, who at the time of the incident were 254 for three, or rather 254 for four, went on to score 544 and dismissed England for 158.

That was not right.

The umpires were Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus, the match referee was Ranjan Madugalle, and Strauss and Flower had no right to intervene, to enter the Indian dressing room, not even if cricket is still a gentleman's game.

Cricket is cricket, but the spirit of the game is different from the rules of the game. The spirit of the game cannot be more important than the rules of the game.

If it is so, if it can be so, why have rules in the first place?

Where was the match referee when all this was going on, when Strauss and Flower went into India's dressing room as if they, and not the umpires, were in charge of the Test match?

The spirit of the game, if there is such a thing, as distinct from honesty and fair play, involves something like an accident, something like what happened in the one-day international between England and New Zealand at the Oval in 2008, when the batsman, Grant Elliott, ran into the bowler, Ryan Sidebottom, fell on to the pitch, and was run out.

Paul Collingwood, then captain of England, when asked by the umpires about the appeal, said on that occasion that he stood by the appeal.

Elliott was ruled out.

In basking in the praises which followed his action, Dhoni called on all other captains to follow his lead, and "not just for run-outs", and Strauss has echoed that call.

A place for fun

That is good, so good that maybe the time will come when cricket, Test cricket, as a contest, will be an exercise in futility, a tea party, a place for fun and games.

Test cricket may one day be a competition where instead of being a test of one's skill, one's physical condition, one's mental credentials, and one's awareness of what is happening around him, a batsman will be called back by the captains, and the coaches, when he is out, according to the rules, leg before wicket, stumped, caught, and even bowled middle stump.

If the spirit of cricket is so important, why did not someone intervene on Harbhajan's behalf when he was adjudged leg before wicket after hitting the ball into his pads during Broad's hat-trick?

Instead of acting in the spirit of the game they jumped for joy in celebration of an unusual and unforgettable achievement, a feat which should not have taken place, not according to the rules of the game.

And what do you think would happen in a World Cup football match with a forward running after the ball, a defender running alongside him, in the goal area, and suddenly the defender holds on to his leg and pulls up?

Or what about an Olympic 100 metres final and a runner, a favourite, pulls up with cramps 10 metres from the finish?

You can bet your bottom dollar that the football would continue, and so would the race, all because they are international contests, and the rules are the rules.