It was the final over of the match. Mumbai Indians had done exceedingly well to reduce their required equation from 83 off 30 balls to just 16 off the last six, thanks to some lusty blows from the burly Kieron Pollard. The Trinidadian was unbeaten on 42, which he had accumulated off just 18 deliveries. At the non-striker’s end was No 8 Harbhajan Singh, who is capable of clearing the ropes on his day, but was largely hit-and-miss on Thursday. Pollard knew it was all up to him.
Mohit Sharma bowled a length delivery on off-stump line to start the final over, which Pollard thwacked towards long-on. The Mumbai batsmen managed to scamper for two runs, aided by an aimless throw from the deep by Kings XI Punjab skipper Glenn Maxwell. However, umpire Abhijit Deshmukh called one of the runs short.
Replays showed Pollard was the culprit. He landed his bat at least 20 inches short of the crease at the non-striker’s end before running back for a second. The commentators burst out laughing when they saw the replay. Former West Indian cricketer Daren Ganga, on air, said, “That’s Kieron Pollard for you. I know the man. He’s being cheeky.”
Umpire Deshmukh awarded Mumbai Indians one run out of two, but Pollard was back on strike, with 15 needed off five now. He struck a six off the next ball, but could only get one run off the next four, as Mumbai fell short by seven runs in their chase of 231. If they had succeeded, it would have been the highest successful run-chase in IPL history. More importantly, it would have knocked Punjab out of contention for the playoffs.
Pollard’s antics raised a debate on social media, although not as big as the one that would have ensued had he got Mumbai across the line and knocked Punjab out. Had he done it deliberately so that he gets back on strike? There was an overwhelming consensus that he had. But had he cheated by doing so, or was it just smart, or as Ganga put it, “cheeky” cricket?
To figure out whether Pollard cheated or not, let’s go back to the laws of the game. According to the laws, “although a short run shortens the succeeding one, the latter if completed shall not be regarded as short”. This means that the umpire was right in awarding Mumbai one run out of two. However, that is only if the umpire thinks the short run was unintentional. If the umpire thinks that it was intentional, this is what the laws state:
“The bowler’s end umpire shall then
(i) warn both batsmen that the practice is unfair and indicate that this is a first and final warning. This warning shall apply throughout the innings. The umpire shall so inform each incoming batsman.
(ii) whether a batsman is dismissed or not, disallow all runs to the batting side from that delivery other than any runs awarded for penalties.
(iii) return the batsmen to their original ends.”
So, since Mumbai were allowed to keep one run, it can only be assumed that umpire Deshmukh thought Pollard’s short run was not intentional. Either that, or Pollard is such a good actor that he made the umpire believe his short run was unintentional. It’s also quite possible that Pollard did not know the law and just thought he’d take a chance with the umpire.
It’s impossible to read the mind of the batsman and tell whether the action was intentional or not, but Pollard did not miss the crease by a few centimetres. It was a good 20 inches or so. The umpire should have caught it and given the batting team a warning, and not awarded any runs. Pollard took a gamble, and it paid off. No one is going to accuse him of being brainless anytime soon.
Bottom line: Even if he did do it intentionally, Pollard exploited a weak law, which makes an unnecessary distinction between an intentional and unintentional action. If the law was such that no runs would be awarded to the batting team in such scenarios, whether intentional or not, batsmen would make sure they completed the run and not take a risk.
You can also argue all you want whether Pollard’s actions were unethical or “against the spirit of the game”, but a weak law allowed him to do it, whether intentionally or not. What he did was within the laws of the game, just like Mankading is. So if the International Cricket Council or the Marylebone Cricket Club feels what he did was wrong, they should amend the law immediately. Until then, any debates on whether this is cheating or not are quite pointless.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!