I was reading this article about cricket laws that need changing - http://bit.ly/aRrSNR.
Ban overthrows for direct hits
Ban overthrows for direct hits
A pet peeve of Sunil Gavaskar's. Why should a fielder pay for a direct hit, a show of excellence?
Also, rewrite the laws so a batsman can't take an overthrow when the ball ricochets off his bat while he is trying to slide it into the crease. Why appeal to his spirit of sportsmanship and hope he doesn't take the run? As of today, some do, some don't, and it sometimes leads to conflicts among players. Would the batsman who refuses to take the extra run in most situations do the same if he requires that run off the last ball to win a World Cup final?
I saw Tendulkar not walk off by himself when he nicked one to the keeper during the IPL - I know he usually does walk off. For a moment I felt betrayed but I was able to realize that he has to compensate for some of the harsh umpiring decisions that have gone against him too. Either follow your conscience or follow the law - if you follow both, you're overly giving yourself a tough time. Saraswat Brahmins started eating fish after a severe famine hit their region. If they didn't do that, probably there might not be any Saraswat living today. If Saraswats were not wrong, I don't think Tendulkar was wrong either.
I think it's just a reason of survival, and survival is not necessarily about just life and death - there are so many spells between life and death and we need to survive each one of those. Even otherwise I don't think we've any right to talk about someone else when it comes to subjective decision making. On a number of occasions we ourselves don't stand for what we should stand for. We go against our principles to make either ourselves happy or someone else happy. Interestingly, most of the times we successfully manage to convince ourselves that we in fact did the right thing. Many of those could be trivial, but I don't think that's a valid excuse.
If we think someone's bad, maybe we'll find no worse person than ourself? If we think someone's a hypocrite, maybe we'll not find a sorrier hypocrite than ourself? If we think someone's selfish, maybe we'll tag ourself the most selfish? I would think so, because each one of us needs to survive - and no one else knows our own survival instincts more than we do. I think all it requires is just some introspection and some honesty.
I typed till the line above and went back to read it all over again - I think I should just stop here and let each of us continue with our own ways of legitimate survival. I'm sure the legal systems of our consciences are much stricter than any other legal system documented.
I think it's just a reason of survival, and survival is not necessarily about just life and death - there are so many spells between life and death and we need to survive each one of those. Even otherwise I don't think we've any right to talk about someone else when it comes to subjective decision making. On a number of occasions we ourselves don't stand for what we should stand for. We go against our principles to make either ourselves happy or someone else happy. Interestingly, most of the times we successfully manage to convince ourselves that we in fact did the right thing. Many of those could be trivial, but I don't think that's a valid excuse.
If we think someone's bad, maybe we'll find no worse person than ourself? If we think someone's a hypocrite, maybe we'll not find a sorrier hypocrite than ourself? If we think someone's selfish, maybe we'll tag ourself the most selfish? I would think so, because each one of us needs to survive - and no one else knows our own survival instincts more than we do. I think all it requires is just some introspection and some honesty.I typed till the line above and went back to read it all over again - I think I should just stop here and let each of us continue with our own ways of legitimate survival. I'm sure the legal systems of our consciences are much stricter than any other legal system documented.
well said.....
ReplyDelete