‘Ask not what you can do for the game. Ask instead… what is for lunch?’

No one in the International Cricket Council probably said that but one wouldn’t be surprised if anyone had. There really could not have been a greater insult to the spectators when, with India needing just two runs to win the match, the umpires (Aleem Dar and Adrian Holdstock) decided to take an innings break.

The umpires, at this point, had already extended play by 15 minutes in the hope of getting a result. And then, when they were two runs away from the intended result of that extension, they decided they needed to break bread.

The umpires can decide to play 15 minutes (a minimum of four overs) extra time at the scheduled interval if requested by either captain if, in the umpires’ opinion, it would bring about a definite result in that session. If the umpires do not believe a result can be achieved no extra time shall be allowed.

But, of course, with just two runs to go, they then decided to take an innings break. Go figure!

Going by the rules

ICC rules stipulate that for an ODI, there will be two sessions of three-and-a-half hours each separated by a 45-minute break.

“The innings of the team batting second shall not commence before the scheduled time for the commencement of the second session unless the team batting first has completed its innings at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled interval, in which case a ten-minute break will occur and the team batting second will commence its innings and the interval will occur as scheduled.”

The point to be noted is that it will occur as scheduled even if one of the teams needs just two runs to win the match and allow all the spectators to go home at the end of a pretty one-sided game anyway.

But the rules are rules – even when they don’t make sense to anyone watching. The broadcasters, the commentators, the teams and the spectators were all left pretty flabbergasted by the decision.

The ICC went by the rules and as such, didn’t do anything wrong. But not further extending play, it also showed how it is tying itself in knots over the rules. There was no threat of rain, India had nine wickets in hand and South Africa had no chance of fighting their way back into the match. In other words, the result was already decided.

If the on-field umpires were unable to take a decision, it was an ideal occasion for the match referee Andy Pycroft to step in. They could have spoken to both the captains and arrived at a decision that would have been good for the crowd and the game.

Common sense, not so common

It needn’t have been a precedent. It could have been an exception – a decision taken in mind with all those watching the game, in the stadium and otherwise. It just needed a little common sense and understanding on the ICC’s part. But that may have been too much to expect from them.

We have seen lethargy from the ICC in various forms in the last few months. Just last month, during the controversial Wanderers Test, the umpires waited until Dean Elgar got hit on the head off a short ball to bring play to a halt.

The decision to halt play was taken because of the blow to the head, which was more a result of bad technique, as the ball was a short pitched delivery and had not really misbehaved. But they had allowed the Indian batsmen to play on the challenging wicket for a whole innings just before that. They had waited and waited and then moved in at the wrong moment.

Then again, one cannot forget how they dealt with the pollution-hit Test in Delhi. The pollution levels were severe and it should have been unwise to allow the teams to continue playing at the risk of health. But the ICC, once again, only took note of the situation presumably because they didn’t have a rule for this.

Common sense might have dictated another course of action but as we have seen on many occasions that isn’t how the ICC rolls. If it isn’t in the rulebook, it doesn’t matter. And if it is in the rule book, then… lunch must be had.