It may not be as ugly as what happened down under. But the umpires had every reason to believe that it could have. Delhi posed a few problems and it also questioned logic. What happens when the punishment delivered going against the very spirit of the game that these players are answerable for?
Gautam Gambhir was predictably in the midst of much of the drama that happened on the first day. The only batsman to see out the day, Gambhir’s presence at the crease kept the Australians on their toes and did not allow them to get their foot in the door as they would have liked after two wickets fell early on the first day’s morning. The Australians, with their penchant for sledging, would not have spared Gambhir but they did not expect him to see eye-to-eye.
Gambhir’s reaction then was considered cumulative of the banter on the field. Whether he deliberately or otherwise nudged Watson while going for a run is for the match referee to decide, but what has become apparent once again is that only one team’s players are being repeatedly charged while the other keeps getting away with murder.
The Australians did not dare to needle Sachin Tendulkar too much, knowing his ability to make the opposition for putting their foot where their tongue should be. But Gambhir was a different proposition. Considered the softer, less belligerent of the two Indian openers (Virender Sehwag being the other) and also, relatively inexperienced in comparison with the rest of the Indian line up, the Australians perhaps thought here was an easy hit-me target to vent their frustration.
Instead Gambhir finds himself at the receiving end of the backlash of his encounters on the field. The angst were apparent on the Australian faces. Shane Watson, in particular, was not afraid to speak to the batsmen. Only six matches old, three coming after a gap of three years, did little to keep him in check. Constant banter marked a cagey Australian team in the field.
While Gambhir denies his actions were deliberate, if the match referee Chris Broad is consistent, he could put the prolific opener out of the next Test. After all, even an otherwise neutral Sunil Gavaskar could not hold back the passion behind the decision handed down to Zaheer Khan as he was docked eighty per cent of his match fee for giving Matthew Hayden the send off in the last match after dismissing him. By that standard, what Gambhir did, if the referee deems it deliberate, would not even suffice a full pay cut. Watson gets off with a Level 1 offence for his constant chirping and irritation; Gambhir is where the eyes are on for the charge of Level 2 levelled by the umpires.
What is interesting to note is that the umpires of the current third Test at the Ferozeshah Kotla in Delhi have not found it necessary to report the final incident on the first day. Simon Katich showed an unusually aggressive, vocal self while bowling at the end of the day’s play. Gambhir received much of the part time bowler’s barrage and decided to give some back as well. It is unclear what words were exchanged, but the heated atmosphere could be gauged by the fact that the umpire had to actually follow the two and separate them by one man to avoid them coming to blows.
Why was the discussion even allowed to get that far in the first place? Why was Katich not pulled up as well for doing what the rest of Australia did – pick the ‘soft’ target only to come away feeling more torn?
As far as cricket itself was concerned, the second day went off without incident, an indication perhaps that the Australians decided Gambhir was not one to be nailed or one of acceptance and resignation to the circumstances with a bigger battle on their hands, showing that Gambhir’s actions could not have come unprovoked just the way Harbhajan Singh’s comments came only after being pushed by Andrew Symonds and company. But was anyone listening when Judge Hansen stated that as well?348927