Vaseline, white-man’s burden, Tea and run-outs

V Pattabhi Ram
English cricketer Vaughan suggested that VVS Laxman had possibly applied Vaseline on his bat to stop hotspot from catching his snicks. A few doubts cross my mind.

Like, how does Vaughan know that applying Vaseline would help beat hotspot? Is he talking out of personal experience? Like, how does he know VVS did it? Has his bat been taken for testing? Like, Vaughan himself says seasoning the bat with Vaseline isn’t illegal. Well, if it wasn’t illegal what was the point in calling VVS a cheat? And how could they just take the bat from VVS to show it to the umpire? Is it because the stylish Indian cricketer is a gentleman? Could they have tried that one on Miandad? And why did the match referee or the umpire not pull them up for that? Or for that matter pull up Broad for sitting in the middle of the pitch, on his haunches, with his two hands on his head as though, as Gavaskar said, his house was on fire?

Is this the age old story of the white-man’s burden? The Englishmen know a thing or two about Vaseline. Ask Peter Lever and Tony Greig.

This was followed by the run-out crisis. I like sports to be played within the letter and spirit of the rules of the game. I watched the Bell run-out. I could be wrong; but I got the distinct feeling that after having slowed down and then watched the ball come back bang to the keeper, the slowing down was even quicker. Yes, you understood what I am suggesting. Now, to take the stand that the players thought it was a four, that they thought it was tea time, blah..blah..blah doesn’t wash; neither by the letter or the spirit of the law. So when a bowler bowls from close to the crease, can a batsman assume it was a no-ball, then go bang-bang with the bat, fail and claim injured innocence?

Bell was out and had no reason to come back. There was no cheating from India’s side. They were playing fair and square. Boy, this is international cricket as the chairman of selectors Kris Srikkanth learnt in his maiden test when he was run out while gardening the pitch. Like, Tendulkar learnt in the infamous Calcutta Test when Akthar ran into him and Sachin was declared run-out. By that token do you ask a batsman to bat again because he got out for 99?

Now, I don’t want to get into whether India was right in allowing Bell to return to bat. Remember, this is not the same as calling back a player who has been wrongly adjudged out. Looks like Strauss and Flowers checked with Dhoni whether India would withdraw the appeal. You could call it the Indian team’s magnanimity or naiveté (depending on which side your bread is buttered) in letting Bell back. You need to check whether they received a call from India instructing them on how to go about with it.

Maybe India did not want another diplomatic row. While the Indians, like true gentlemen, conceded space it would have been outstanding if Bell had returned the compliment by refusing and saying “Mate, I was out; my mistake”. May be that’s too much to ask for from the Englishmen who want to be world’s number one Test team. By all means be number one but don't ask for another batting opportunity as though this were some street cricket.