Was Wanindu’s action an act of heroism or nastiness?

In the aftermath of a contentious umpiring decision by Lyndon Hannibal during the third and final T20 international between Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, the reaction of Sri Lanka skipper Wanindu Hasaranga has drawn significant attention.

Hasaranga’s on-field altercation with the umpire at the end of the match and his subsequent remarks at the press conference have raised concerns about his sportsmanship and respect for the game.

“This cannot happen in an international match. If it had been a little bit higher, it could have endangered the batsman. I believe the umpire is unfit for international cricket. He would be better suited to another role,” an angry Hasaranga said, at the post-series press conference in Dambulla.

“It was undoubtedly a no-ball. There’s no ambiguity about it. If a mistake was made, one must be humble enough to accept it. I question his suitability for the game.”

The incident in question unfolded during a critical juncture in the match where Sri Lanka required 11 runs off the last three deliveries to chase down a target of 210 for a clean series sweep. However, Afghanistan bowler Wafadar Momand delivered a ball that passed batsman Kamindu Mendis at almost shoulder height without touching the ground.

Despite appeals from the batter to declare it a no-ball--as the ICC’s playing conditions states that a ball passing a batsman above waist height without pitching should be considered as such--both the square leg umpire, Lyndon Hannibal, and head umpire, Ravindra Wimalasiri, deemed the high full toss a legal delivery. Had it been called a no-ball, the outcome of the match might have been different, as Sri Lanka lost by a mere three runs.

Hasaranga, expressing his frustration and discontent with the decision, garnered attention with his direct criticism of the umpire, displaying a lack of respect for sportsmanship. Hannibal later admitted to the mistake, explaining that he had lost sight of the ball in the crowd, and clarified that there were no provisions to consult with the third umpire unless it pertained to a dismissal.

“An umpire can only check the foot no-ball of a bowler. We have no authority under the laws to review other decisions. We must adhere to the rules, and we are bound by them. In franchise cricket, such decisions can be reviewed with the third umpire. This can confuse. In ICC cricket, however, we have not yet adopted such a practice,” he was quoted as saying.

This incident is not the first time such decisions have gone against teams, nor will it be the last. The 2007 World Cup final between Australia and Sri Lanka ended controversially with Australia winning in the dark, in a match affected by weather and the Duckworth/Lewis method. Match officials had misinterpreted the laws, and match referee Jeff Crowe later said was embarrassed about the conduct of the match. In 2019, umpire Kumar Dharmasena erroneously awarded England six runs instead of five during the World Cup final against New Zealand. Hasaranga can learn to lot from Mahela Jayawardena and Kane Williamson who were at the receiving end in the two World Cup finals.

While some may justify Hasaranga’s reaction by drawing parallels with Arjuna Ranatunga, who defended Muttiah Muralidaran against biased umpiring decisions by certain Australian officials, it’s essential to recognise that this was a human error.

Hasaranga’s response highlights a lack of humility and underscores the dangers of succumbing to emotions in the heat of the moment. His comments not only reflect poorly on his sportsmanship but also risk tarnishing the reputation of the game and its officials. By publicly criticising the umpire and questioning his suitability for international cricket, Hasaranga undermines the authority of the official and sets a negative example for aspiring cricketers and fans.

Also, Hasaranga’s refusal to recognise the possibility of human error in umpiring decisions reveals a lack of understanding of the challenges faced by umpires. In cricket, as in any sport, split-second judgments are made under immense pressure, and occasional mistakes are inevitable.

By failing to recognise this reality and resorting to harsh criticism, Hasaranga missed an opportunity to demonstrate resilience and grace in the face of adversity.

While emotions may run high in competitive environments, players need to uphold the values of respect, humility and fair play. As cricket continues to captivate audiences worldwide, maintaining the highest standards of sportsmanship and integrity is paramount. By embracing these values, players can leave a lasting legacy that transcends individual achievements on the field.