Was Bailey right to not allow Alex Ross to be saved from obstructing the field?

Source: The Indian Express

                                   

This week, in the Big Bash League, there were multiple matches that caught our attention. Probably the most exhilarating match this week was Hobart Hurricanes vs Brisbane Heat, where a century from D'Arcy Short proved to be just enough, as Hobart won by just 3 runs. But another point of debate in that match was the controversial obstructing the field dismissal, where Alex Ross was given out from obstructing the field with the Heat needing 49 off 14. He was on 27 off of 19 balls, and Bailey was definitely keen on getting him out in any way out. But should Bailey have upheld the value of sportsmanship and pardoned Ross? Or was he right in focusing on his team's victory? 

                                       Firstly, let's look at the incident and analyze each and every detail of the whole incident. It started with Tymal Mills bowling a short outside off ball at 136 kph, his normal speed, and Alex Ross calmly pulled it to deep midwicket. The fielder there threw the ball so outstandingly bad that as Ross was diving, it hit his leg, causing him some pain. Immediately George Bailey appealed for obstructing the field. There was no tangible evidence of him deliberately blocking the throw, as he was trying to get away. But the umpire thought otherwise; he gave him out after thoughtful consideration. After the incident, McCullum showed visible displeasure and criticized George Bailey for not being sportive and rebuking the dismissal. George Bailey responded by saying that he thought he did what was right for the team. So was Bailey right? Or was McCullum right?

                                     Now let's look at Bailey's supporters. If you look at it, cricket is not the game it was millions of years ago. It has huge money at stake and just the sheer volume of the game has increased by folds. If the franchise's owners do not see victory, then they will not even try to invest in a team that is failing. In this huge tussle, victory is a necessity. Bailey knew that this one reprieve of Alex Ross would cost him the game. At that point, he was at a fixing spot. But he chose with not going with the reprieve because victory is the whole aim of the game. Bailey's logic behind this was that: with victory in his hands, Hobart's owner would fume at Bailey for letting it go in the name of sportsmanship, which doesn't earn any money for them. At that point, to do what was best for his team, he rebuked the reprieve. To an extent, I support this as well. It is like when a batsman tries to play a cut and the ball unintentionally takes the edge. The batsmen cannot say, I did not mean for the ball to hit my edge, it just somehow hit it. That is still an out!! So when that can be considered as an out, why would this not be?? To summarize the pro argument, it is: Bailey did what was best for his team and brought in a victory that helped them.

                                      But now, we also have to look at McCullum's supporters. What Bailey did was not fair, and even supporters of Bailey know that is true. Alex Ross, by no means, purposefully obstructed the ball. The role of fairness is slowly disintegrating in cricket, and this is an example of it. The value of sportsmanship should be always considered, and cricket is also known as a gentleman's game. It is the job of the players to uphold a fair respect at all times an do what is best for the game as a whole. That's where the debate differs. You see, many supporters of McCullum argue that while Bailey did what was best for his team, he didn't do what was best for the league as a whole. Because of this one incident, many critics are slamming the BBL for their lack of ethics when it comes to the field. This is not the only time that the BBL has been accused of straying away from ethics on the field(the infamous Gayle-reporter incident), so some people have come lashing out at the BBL. Not only that, Hobart's reputation has taken somewhat of a hit. So, to summarize the con argument: Bailey, by acting selfishly, strayed away from ethics and dented the BBL's reputation to some extent.

                                     At the end of the day, we can't change time. What Bailey did was in some ways right and in some ways wrong. Obstructing the field is a very weak area to go into, and the outcomes may be shocking. Both sides have their pros and cons, but in my opinion, Bailey shouldn't have done that. However, the BBL still has a lot to offer. Hopefully, in the upcoming BBL games, we can avoid all these controversies, see some good ethics and hard work on the screen, and enjoy thre game as it is.