Encounters (contd)

In an interview with Outlook India (Magazine May 14, 2007) KPS Gill has pronounced that encounters should happen, if required but that they should not be staged. KPS Gill was the former Punjab Chief of Police.

His comments come in the wake of worrying reports of police corruption, the nexus between the guardians of the law and the underworld, and the involvement of dirty harry’s within the police force using fake encounters to settle private disputes. Encounters are no less than extra-judicial killings.

One cannot disagree with his view that the “criminal justice system has to be strong, quick and effective to deal with the people arrested” but his attempt to explain encounters as a symptom of disenchantment within the force resulting from the failure of the criminal justice system misses the point. The police are an important part of the criminal justice system and police corruption undermines that system and the responsibility for its failure cannot be laid solely at the feet of the judges.

His proposition that “the primary function of the judicial system is to protect society, not so much to punish criminals” should equally apply to the police. The police force exists to safeguard society.

Gill concedes that the view police should be taken to task if fake encounters were to occur but in his view mistaken identity encounters are an entirely different matter and should be a matter for the police chief to determine whether an encounter is a fake. The police cannot be entrusted to investigate such matters. One has to be naïve to expect police officers not to close ranks and a fair enquiry would be impossible to achieve especially where corruption runs deep.

Extra-judicial killings are anathema to a civilised society. There can be situations in which the police would be required to act in self defence but it would be unwise to allow senior police officers to determine questions about good faith.

Bombay's Bent Cops

An alarming tale about Bombay's guardian angels
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Sunday_Specials/Special_Report/Blood_on_their_hands_money_in_their_pockets/articleshow/2008255.cms

Crowe has nothing to crow about

Jeff Crowe was the blundering match referee at the heart of the farcical World Cup final . He once captained NZ.

Jeff has put up his hand admitting responsibility for the embarrassing cock-up in the final minutes of the game when the Aussies began jumping about like kangaroos thinking they had won the match and the umpires told them “its too early mates to celebrate”; which made Ricky Ponting tell umpire Aleem Dar “'Look mate, we've played the 20 overs, we've finished the game.'"

Crowe said: “In hindsight, I should have known the rules and said the game had been called off." All the same, he tried to shift the blame on the third umpire Rudi Koertzen as the one who “may have initiated the process leading to chaotic scenes at the climax of the game.”

How could Jeff have got it wrong, especially when he had elder brother Martin to turn to on matters relating to? Martin is the one who delivered the 2006 Colin Cowdrey lecture. In his lecture brother Martin spoke his mind against the use of technology to assist umpiring, except to determine such matters as line calls for run outs. He also slipped in some comments about his zero tolerance to chucking.

He said:
“I don’t care about talk of 15 degrees here or 10 degrees there… if with the naked eye a bowler is clearly chucking – even by 1 degree – he should be chucked out. Having it tested in a laboratory and not in match conditions is plain ignorance. To straighten your arm from any bent position is a massive advantage over other bowlers who bowl properly.”

Having been pinned in the head by ‘chuckers’ over 15 years, having been dubiously bowled first ball in a test by a certain Sri Lankan bowler, having tried to bowl a decent ball myself with a straight arm, I’ve had more than enough of this aspect of the game.”

It is time to show the same zero tolerance to referees who are ignorant of the rules. Jeff Crowe’s knowledge of the rules – or lack it- has been tested in match conditions and he has been found wanting. He must be chucked out.

World Cup Farce

The World Cup final was a farce. The various reports of the match would make you believe that the match turned into a farce because of the umpires’ decision to delay the Aussie celebration by insisting that the last three overs be completed.

It was a farce because of the fact that the Sri Lankans were made to bat “in pitch black conditions” (see the Independent); and it was a farce because the game was allowed to be played at all on Saturday. There was rain before the match began and nearly three hours of play was lost as a result. There were further interruptions that spoilt the game.

The pitch dark conditions did not descend upon the Oval at the end of the 33rd over; it was considerably dark even before that. The Guardian’s ball by ball description of the game confirms that by the 17th over it started raining. By the 24th over it was “honking down” and the light was poor. Nobody has asked the question as to why play was allowed to continue in those conditions. One is left to wonder as what might have happened if the Aussies had to bat second.

Both teams should have been allowed a fair shot at the Cup but this did not happen. The wicket was so flat and virtually tailor made for the Aussies; Michael Taylor confirmed this before the match began and when the Aussies won the toss the game was as good as over.

It is no way to end the tournament. The nabobs at the ICC were evidently keen to finish the match on Saturday come what may.

Batting with squash ball inside glove

Australia's Adam Gilchrist has disclosed that he had a squash ball stuffed inside his glove when he batted in the match against Sri Lanka.

See http://www.supercricket.co.za/

Aussies Win the World Cup

Australia beat Sri Lanka by 53 runs in a match that was reduced to a farce of 36 overs.

Play started nearly three hours late because of rain and the Lankan innings was marred by persistent rain and they had to play many of their overs in virtual darkness.

The Aussies, having won the toss, batted first under clear skies and the flat wicket, lacking in swing and bounce, offered no assistance to the Lankan bowlers. Even then Malinga bowled superbly and in the context of the match his two wickets for 49 are remarkable.

Despite pre-match indications that Maharoof would play the selectors kept faith with Dilhara whose 8 overs cost 74 runs for the sole wicket of Gilchrist. Sri Lanka could have done with Maharoof’s batting when chasing the target but Gilchrist’s innings of 149 runs off 104 effectively sealed the match in favour of the Aussies.

A spirited partnership between Jayasuriya and Sangakkara gave the Lankans reason to smile and at one stage the target appeared well within their reach but persistent drizzles and interruptions did not help and slowed down the tempo just when they were going along nicely. With dark clouds looming above the Kensington Oval, the Lankans were compelled to take risks to keep ahead of the Duckworth-Lewis run rate. Jayasuriya did just that and was bowled trying to take a mighty swipe at Clarke.

Shortly after his dismissal play was interrupted at the end of 24 overs. Soon after it resumed Jayawardene was out leg before to a poor umpiring decision and with him went Lanka’s hopes of reaching the target. TV replays showed the ball would have missed the leg stump.

With three overs remaining the umpires offered light to the batsman which they accepted but the match officials did not declare a result and to bring the proceedings to an end both sides were forced to go through the motions for the remaining overs.

One of the moments of the match was Sangakkara declining a catch when he dived low to his left and appeared to have held on to a catch from behind, something that would have normally got the commentators applaud it as an example of sportsmanship but we did not hear any mention of it. The Aussies returned the compliment by sledging Jayasuriya for not walking when he was not given out to a leg before appeal.

Last laugh for the Lankans?

Would the Aussies get a hatrick or would they get mugged by the Lankans?

The World Cup final between the two teams on Saturday may just be the clash we have been waiting for to light up the tournament. The match might be regarded by many as a clash between the arrogant Aussies and self effacing Lankans, a clash between two cricketing cultures.

The panache with which the Lankans play has endeared them to many neutrals and brought grudging recognition from critics some of whom even preferred either the South Africans or the New Zealanders to get to the final. Their aging stars Jayasuriya, Vaas and Murali have rolled back the years and have led from the front.

The Aussies are a team with a reputation of being aggressive, exuding a confidence bordering on the arrogance. The cock-a-hoop and the swagger that they evince on the field give one the impression that they regard the trophy as theirs by right. To their credit they have played thus far with a machine like precision, steamrolling their way to the final.

Based on their performance so far, the Aussies, who won the trophy twice before, will undoubtedly start the final as the favourites. They won their matches comfortably wihtout being put under pressure or pushed to their limits.

However, the Lankans might be the ones to find a chink in the Aussie armour. Ricky Ponting has admitted that his team can be beaten if they don’t do things well. Could this be a sign of the self doubt that is lurking beneath the façade of invincibility that the Aussies have carefully constructed for themselves?

When both teams met last at the Super 8 stage the Aussies won comfortably but the Lankans went into that match without three of their key bowlers. Apart from Mahela and Chamara their batsmen flopped but not without posting a respectable score of 226. Evidently the Lankans used that match as an occasion to spar with the Aussies and to have a good look at their bowlers.

The Lankans can outplay the Aussies if they bat sensibly and not gift their wickets away as the South Africans did. For this to happen, the mercurial Jayasuriya might have to curb his smash and grab approach during the initial overs and play the sort of innings he put together against the West Indies.

Very few had expected the Sri Lankans to enter the final in 1996, let alone win the Cup, but the Sri Lankans stunned the Aussies and walked away with the trophy. The Aussies dropped five catches that day, including one off Aravinda de Silva who went on to make a century. Jayasuriya was run out in the second over. It might be history but history has a tendency to repeat itself; and the Aussies probably know it.