The Condition of Sri Lankan Balls

Yesterday, the Sri Lankan team under the captaincy of Dinesh Chandimal and the stewardship of Chandika Hathurusinghe and Asanka Gurusingha, the coach and manager respectively, refused to take the field for the third day of the second Test match against the visitors at St. Lucia. Sri Lanka were fighting to stay in the series after losing the first test against an unheralded West Indian outfit by more than 200 runs.

This defeat was almost entirely fashioned by the West Indian lower order putting on 187 runs shepherded by Shane Dowrich in the first innings. Sri Lanka’s bowlers found it impossible to get the West Indian bowlers out. However, in this Test match it’s worth mentioning that the same lower order added less than 50 runs between them against a revamped, pace heavy Sri Lankan attack that featured only Akila Dhananjaya as a spinner, with both Dilruwan Perera and Rangana Herath not in the team. The West indies sank from 241/5 to 300 all out immediately after the new ball was taken, with newbie Lahiru Kumara and debutant Kasun Rajitha accounting for the latter wickets.

As it transpired, the umpires reviewed the footage and deemed that a gum/toffee chewing Sri Lankan player had altered the condition of the ball. There is no debate about the offence. It is clear as day in Rule 2.2.9 of the ICC Code of Conduct. Faf du Plessis was recently ‘convicted’ of the same offence and Sri Lanka will be hard pressed to plead persecution in this case. Quite simply, if any player had chewed anything and applied saliva to the ball, then they fall foul of this playing condition. There is no debate about it.

Which is why Sri Lanka’s reaction to the umpire’s decision to award five penalty runs to the West Indies and charge Dinesh Chandimal with the offence, is childish and unbecoming. Aleem Dar is an experienced umpire and is unlikely to lay a charge without having solid backing for it. In any event, with tv cameras being what they are, any charge would be fairly simple to prove, as Cameron Bancroft found out to his detriment. Similarly, a charge would also be fairly simple to defend. “Where can you see that I did what you say I did?” is sufficient. If the umpires are unable to show the offending footage, then the charge fails.

That’s what due process is.

It comes as no surprise however, that given where they come from, the Sri Lankan team and its management are oblivious to the workings of due process. The team, backed by SLC have vowed to defend all ‘unwarranted allegations’ against the team. And so they must, as this is their job. However, there’s really no reason to release a statement saying ‘we will be doing our jobs’. As is the normal procedure, the Match Referee will hold a hearing where both sides will be heard and guilt or innocence decided after the evidence is reviewed.

Sri Lanka’s behaviour, well before this process is even initiated, is blatantly defensive, and ipso facto screams ‘guilty’. If Dinesh Chandimal, or any of his players have nothing to worry about, then they have…nothing to worry about. The chest-beating and bleats of innocence seem entirely unnecessary. SLC claiming that they will ” take all necessary steps to defend any player, in the event any unwarranted allegation is brought against a member of the team”, is a complete redundancy. They are expected to do that and should be equipped to do exactly that. That’s what managers do, they manage situations.

Therefore, Sri Lanka’s two-hour hartal is entirely unacceptable and should be severely punished by the ICC and SLC for bringing the game into disrepute, if nothing else. It’s not the first time it’s happened with Arjuna Ranatunga famously threatening to lead his team off the field in 1995, for what was most certainly premeditated persecution of one of his players. Sunil Gavaskar tried to stop a game because of an lbw decision he received, and Inzamam Ul-Haq was predecessor to Chandimal in throwing a strop and refusing to take the field on an allegation of ball tampering in England. Where due process exists, – as it does, in the modern game, much more so than in the days of Gavaskar and Ranatunga – there is absolutely no place for this kind of trade union anarchy. The umpire’s word is law, and if you disagree with it, there is a process by which it can be reviewed. This is dissent. Pure and simple. It’s not dissimilar to refusing to walk when given out caught behind. The umpire’s here, have reviewed footage and deemed that Sri Lanka were guilty of ‘altering the condition of the ball’. Sri Lanka have an opportunity to defend the claim and should do so without any further song and dance. If not for their ill-judged antics this may completely have escaped the attention of the world, and certainly would have escaped the attention of a large majority of Sri Lankans who are unable to meet the time zone requirements to watch the tests with any real attention, are distracted by the World Cup, or just disgusted by the sheer blaze approach of their team to playing long innings. By throwing their toys out of the pram they have courted the very attention they didn’t need, and added more than a smidgen of hypocrisy to their sanctimonious condemnation of the Bancroft, Warner and Smith.

Everyone does it, if you can’t get away with it, cop it on the chin and carry on. Just try not to carry sandpaper in your Velona jock-straps.

What is most concerning is not the tampering – it’s a minor offence, and I’d be worried about a team that wasn’t doing something to gain an advantage. What is most concerning is the team’s reaction to the charge, and the complete lack of respect for actually playing the game of cricket. Refusing to come onto the field because you’ve been subject to some sort of disciplinary process is unacceptable behaviour. Strike action is deplorable in this context. SLC should have insisted their team takes the pitch if the coach and manager were unable to do so at the venue. Comply and complain, that’s the mantra. Get out there and play, and let the officials manage the legalities off the pitch. The unprofessionalism and petty drama in this case is embarrassing. However, it is completely understandable.

The natural reaction in Sri Lanka whenever a wrongdoing is found out, is to scream innocence from the rooftops and attempt to scupper the process. Counter allegations, attacks to the credibility of the adjudicators and brinksmanship are all traits that have become normalised in Sri Lanka’s political and social culture. It’s no surprise that Chandimal – a product of that environment – and the rest of his team, are resorting to such un-cricket like behaviour. Sanctioned by the administrators, no less. At least in Australia’s national embarrassment, Cricket Australia punished their players in a much harsher fashion than the world governing body required. It would be very surprising if SLC so much as lifted a finger to discipline Chandimal on his return.

Slowly, but surely, the comedic descent of our society, into one that does not respect laws, convention, or due process is becoming exposed to the world. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If you are comfortable in your innocence, then reactionary, emotional actions completely outside the bounds of rational behaviour are unnecessary. Perhaps the facts the speak for themselves.