The third T20 International between India and Afghanistan at Bengaluru showed us how narrow the gap is between the various sides at international level in this format of the game. India had clinched the 3 match series by winning the first two games, played at Mohali and Indore respectively, by comfortable margins.
Hence, one could be forgiven for thinking that the result of the third one would also follow on similar lines. But, there were many surprises in store at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium, where a cracker of a contest took place, with the game going into the second round of Super Overs, after each side scored 212 runs in their allotted 20 overs. That India managed to edge out the visitors in a nail-biting finish does not, in any way, belittle the valiant efforts put in by the latter, who came very close to registering a shock win.
For the record, India had won the first two matches by identical margin of six wickets, with the victory in the second game being more comfortable as the target was reached when 27 balls remained. In the last match, India appeared well on track for an easy win when they made 212/4 in their allotted 20 overs, with skipper Rohit Sharma leading the way with an unbeaten 121 that came off a mere 69 balls.
The highlight of Indian innings was the 190-run partnership between Rohit and Rinku Singh off 100 balls, giving an astounding strike rate of 190. Rohit, who was dismissed for golden ducks in the first two matches, appeared keen to make amends and struck 11 boundaries and eight sixes in his blazing knock.
In reply, Afghanistan too made the same total score, though they lost six wickets while doing so. After Rahmanullah Gurbaz and skipper Ibrahim Zadran gave them a blistering start, putting 93 runs on board in 66 balls, Gulbadin Naib held the together innings with superb unbeaten 55 off just 23 balls. The Afghans needed 19 off the final over bowled by Mukesh Kumar 16 were scored off the first five balls.
However, Mukesh managed to slip in a wide yorker, which ensured that only two runs came off the last ball, thus ensuring a tie, which took the game into the Super Over.
Afghanistan batted first in the Super Over and cored 16 runs but lost the wicket of Naib when he was run out. Rohit struck two sixes to take India to 15 off the first five balls. At this juncture, when Yashasvi Jaiswal was on strike, Rohit retired, thus allowing Rinku Singh to reach the non-striker's end. Jaiswal could only get one run off the last ball, this ending the first Super Over in a tie.
In the second Super Over, Rohit came out to bat with Rinku and hammered a six and a boundary, but both batsmen lost wickets to leave Afghanistan a target of 12. But Ravi Bishnoi, the leg-spinner who was asked by Rohit to bowl for India, held his nerve and bowled splendidly, to dismiss both Gurbaz and Mohammad Nabi to seal a win for his side.
It can be seen that Afghanistan was hampered by the dismissal of Naib in the first Super Over, which prevented him from batting in the second one. The rules governing the conduct of Super Over allows a side for listing only three batsmen. If a batsman who is so listed in the first Super Over does not bat or remains not out or retires after getting hurt, he will be allowed to be listed for second one as well. However, if he is dismissed or retires on account of getting hurt or falling ill, he cannot get listed again. Similarly, a bowler who delivers an over will not be allowed to bowl again in the Super Over phase.
Here, a controversy erupted regarding Rohit retiring after five balls were bowled in the first over and him returning to bat in the second Super Over. Let us first examine what the Laws of Cricket say in this regard.
Law 25.4 of Laws of Cricket deals with the issue of batsmen retiring when their innings is in progress. Law 25.4.2 states that if a batsman retires due to illness or injury or any other unavoidable cause, he may resume his innings at any time; if he does not resume his innings, it will be recorded as “Retired - not out”. Law 25.4.3 postulates that if a batsman retires for any reason other than illness or injury, he may resume his innings only with permission of captain of opposing side; if he does not bat again, it will be recorded as “Retired - out”.
As stated earlier, Rohit retired after he moved to the non striker’s end when one ball was remaining. The scoreboard at the end of India’s first Super Over read “16/1”, which gave the impression that Rohit was shown as “Retired - out”. Coach Rahul Dravid termed this as an instance of “Ashwin level thinking”, referring to an occasion when Ravichandran Ashwin had retired strategically in an IPL game. This would indicate that Rohit was not hurt or ill but had retired only to allow Rinku, a faster runner between the wickets, access to the middle. If this was indeed so and he was not leaving the crease due to illness or injury, then Rohit should have been shown as “Retired - out”, in which case he could not have batted in the second Super Over.
The instances where batsmen and bowlers are prevented from batting to bowling in Super Overs are listed clearly in the rules without giving rise to any ambiguity. Hence there were no disputes regarding Naib not allowed to be listed for batting in the second Super Over, since he was dismissed in the first. Afghanistan wanted Azmatullah Omarzai, who had bowled the first Super Over, to bowl the second one as well but were informed by the match officials that he could not so. Jonathan Trott, the coach for Afghanistan, mentioned in his press conference about this and hinted that there was some communication gap due to which his side was not aware about the rules involved for second Super Over.
However, Trott was non committal when asked if his side was informed about Rohit’s exit and whether it was an instance of “Retired - not out” or “Retired - out”. This seems to indicate that the match officials themselves were not clear as to how the stoppage of his innings was to be recorded. Since Rohit would have informed the umpires on the field about leaving the crease and the reasons for doing so, they were the only persons who could decide how the manner of his exit was to be shown in the score sheet.
Ideally, umpires should have informed the scorers about this when the Super Over ended and brought clarity to this matter. The scoreboard flashing India’s total as “16/1” can be taken as an indication that umpires informed scorers that Rohit’s innings was to be recorded as “Retired- out”. However, no clarification has been issued by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) or match officials in this regard.
Now let us for a moment give Rohit the the benefit of doubt and imagine that he had informed the umpires that he was retiring on account of being unwell. In that case, his exit required to be recorded as “Retired - not out” and there would be no loss of wickets. If that was so, why did scoreboard show that India’s total score was “16/1”? Further, if he was so indisposed as to leave the field, how did Rohit come back to the crease a very short span of time later and clobber the bowlers around the park? Moreover, what is one to make of the statement of Dravid that Rohit’s retirement was “Ashwin level thinking”? The decision to retire when one ball remained in the Super Over to allow a faster runner between the wickets in the middle was not incorrect and may even be termed as a masterstroke by a shrewd skipper.But this should have been recorded accurately in the scoresheet as “Retired - out” and Rohit should not have come out to bat again.
One can understand an element of confusion in the minds of players and match officials about the rules applicable when a second Super Over is played since this was the first time such an instance has happened in international cricket. Trott was magnanimous enough to appreciate this and downplay the incident.
His statement “We keep setting the rules and we keep testing the guidelines,” summed up the confusion that reigned in the minds of the team management of both sides.
However, in the final analysis, the impression remains that though India won a closely fought match, the practices adopted by Rohit fell under the category of what could be termed as “sharp and not completely fair”. Looking back, this was something that India, and skipper Rohit, could have done well to avoid.
(The author is a former international cricket umpire and a senior bureaucrat)
