Cricket Rules vs. Moral Code in Test Match Drama - Ben Stokes' Controversy - Best11.in

This is not a job befitting the spirit of sportsmanship, what our England captain Ben Stokes did. There is no doubt that he is an excellent cricketer, a well-rounded all-rounder. There are very, very few all-rounders as good as him in cricket today. That must be acknowledged, and even if it isn’t acknowledged now, hasn’t he already proven it? But what he did, no matter how you try to justify it, cannot be justified. It’s all well and good to ask why he didn’t go and shake hands to call it even, but that’s fine, it’s okay.

He can ask, but when our players said it’s not possible, then going on to sledge in the manner of Ducket and Brook, saying things like, “Do you want a century? If you wanted a century, you should have scored earlier,” what kind of behavior is that? That’s all done, and then when facing the media, he tries to justify it again. What Jadeja, Washington, and Sundar did was an excellent performance. I don’t think adding a few more runs would increase the glory of it. 

What he’s saying is that they should have been stopped without a century. Based on all this, the best analysis we saw today on this issue is the one written by Siddharth Monga on ESPN Cricinfo. The title is, “Cricket Must Be Played by the Rules, Not Stokes’ Moral Code.” Cricket should not be played according to Stokes’ moral code; it should be played according to the rules. If we look at things in detail, this moral code of conduct in cricket often has a significant impact. Many times, players engage in sledging and bullying to mentally bring down players who seem weak, especially in Test cricket. When a team has no reviews left, you see them desperately appealing. You’ve seen bowling teams do this when the batting team’s reviews are exhausted. That’s part of it, it happens. 

But here, to keep the series alive, two batsmen put up a stellar performance, especially when one of their key batsmen, Rishabh Pant, might not have been able to bat. That’s when Washington Sundar and Ravindra Jadeja stepped up to save the team. When they were approaching a century, there was no need to think about anything else. When they’re nearing a century, the game should be stopped—that’s what needed to be done. Stokes is an elite competitor, no doubt. His cricket is of such high quality.

But there’s something we need to look at here: cricket must be played according to its rules. The rules of cricket are very clear. Either both team captains agree to end the game prematurely as a draw, or the full quota of overs must be bowled for the game to conclude. That’s how a Test match can be stopped. There are only two options. The law of the game clearly states this. You can consider a game over until the overs are bowled or a result is achieved. 

What we need to note here is that the England captain went and suggested stopping the game. Naturally, his team was exhausted from bowling, and they just wanted to end it. But the Indian batsmen didn’t agree. India’s captain, watching this from the dressing room, didn’t call them back or say it’s enough. That’s his right. Just as Stokes has the right to ask, the Indian players have the right to decide whether to accept or not. One player is on 89, another on 80, close to a century. Naturally, the Indian dressing room wanted them to reach their centuries, and the game should have continued as it did. There was no need for Stokes and Crawley to resort to insults and sledging. The game should proceed according to the rules.

Now, look at this: when Joe Root was on 99 and stumps were called, it was England who were unsettled. That same team is now saying personal milestones aren’t that important. After the game, Ben Stokes said that if they had added a few more runs, it wouldn’t have added to the brilliance of their performance. They already played well, and it will always be remembered. There was no need to score a few more runs for a century; it’s not particularly significant, he said. 

But there are questions to ask in return. This is where England’s double standards become clear. Remember the Wellington Test declaration against New Zealand? They declared right after Root scored his century. Why did they wait for Root’s century to go to 583 instead of 553? The team’s goal was set, and it was achievable. Did Root need to score a century, or could they have declared at 95 or 98? No, they waited for the century. Similarly, in 2023 against Ireland, they declared after reaching a 352-run lead, right after Ollie Pope scored a double century. Why did they wait for Pope’s double century? Couldn’t they have declared earlier? Ireland wasn’t going to chase 300 runs back then. 

So, when it’s us, adding a few more runs is fine, but when the opposition adds runs, it’s a problem. The question is: does an extra few runs make a difference to the goal? That’s what Siddharth Monga explains in detail. The issue is trying to impose your values on someone else. That’s the problem. You say the game should stop, but you can’t stop it. The opposition captain also has to agree. Only then can the game stop. If they don’t stop as you said, there’s no point in resorting to insults and finding other justifications. This was definitely unfortunate. 

Even looking at everything else, Ben Stokes is a great ambassador for the game. That this comes from Stokes himself is certainly a bit regrettable. Regardless, we must note that Stokes has no regrets about what happened. We’ve seen things like Crawley doing stuff to save an over. There were emotions and incidents on both sides back then too.

There’s another side to this as well. This same Ben Stokes and his team, when Siraj’s wicket fell at Lord’s and they won, went to console Siraj. So, when you’re winning, everything is fine. When things go in your favor, you show all the sportsmanship spirit. But when things don’t go as you want, you try to impose your values on others. One good thing about this Test is that it exposed the true colors of many.