It came as no surprise when television channels yesterday showed audiotapes in which Suraj Randiv was reminded by his skipper that Sehwag needed only a run for his century.  Having known Sangakkara's past record of unsporting behaviour and having seen footages of Suraj Randiv nervousness while bowling the no ball it was very clear that the instructions came from Sangakkara.  While Sri Lankan Board apologized to the Indian board and Randiv apologized to Sehweag, the three incidents given below prove that it was not Randivs fault.

1. Randiv is 25 years old and has played in only 2 Test Matches and 16 One Dayers which means he is not a regular in the team and far too inexperienced.  One cannot expect Randiv at this stage of career to take the risk of getting banned by bowling a no ball against the spirit of the game.  Also television footages clearly showed Ranadivs lack of confidence in hurrying through the noball and rehearsing it a little which which only goes on to prove that he was instructed by Sangakkara or by other senior members of the team.

2. The inexperienced Randiv cannot be expected to be intelligent enough to know the rules of the game or to outthink the normally brilliant Sehwag.

3. Kumar Sangakkara is normally a very safe keeper.  4 byes at a crucial stage would have been treated as a human error but the big no ball whcih followed later form a accurate bowler only goes not to prove that he intentionally allowed the ball to pass on for 4 byes to deny Sehwag a possible hundred. Either Sangakkara intentionally missed the ball or asked Randiv to bowl it a little wider.

While the incident is most likely to be forgotten by Indian board to keep Sri Lankan board happy as it is also a Asian country with ICC President SharadPawar being an Indian, it is time to look at some aspects of the game and one of them is the ICC rules and its loopholes and review of punishments:-

ICC rules and its punishments:- While Sangakkara has cleverly exploited loopholes in ICC rules, ICC on its part need to review certain rules.  According to ICC rules the sixer is not counted because India won because of the noball.  Former Indian player Ajit Wadekar too said that the rule is fair as the noball came first a run accrued and with Indian having won the match the ball became dead and therefore the sixer did not count.  However the funny thing is Sehwag could have been run out of the same noball had the ball been fielded by a fielder inside the boundary.  ICC should clearly address this issue how can a batsman be given run out of a noball when he is not allowed a sixer of the same ball.  In the past Robin Singh was run out of a wide and though the run counted for India but so too was the dismissal and that too happened in similar circumstances. The match with Robin Singhs dismissal ended in a tie when there was a possibility of an Indian win if the ball was considered dead.

For example if a batsman runs two and the ball does not reach the boundary he is awarded just two, but if it reaches he is given a four which means runs are awarded when the ball is finally retrieved by the fielder.  The ball becomes dead only after it is retrieved by the fielder and in Sehwags case six should have been counted.

There have been many cases wherein a team has needed only one run to win but the batsman has been stranded on 94.  Even Though the batsman is knows that the single required to win is available within the fence he tries to hit it over the fence deliberately to get to a century.  If it is fair for a batsman to aspire for a sixer when it is not required then ICC should have put a restriction barring a batsman from hitting a six when a single is available with the boundary.

Review of ICC Punishments:- As per ICCs code of conduct, punishments normally do not exceed more than a ban of 5 one day matches.  According to ICC code of conduct, captain is responsible for upholding the spirit of the game and he is usually punished even for incidents beyond his control like slow over rates and on field behaviour.  However in this case Sagakkara deserves a much bigger punishment, because he has directly violated the rules and even brought disrepute to the game by instructing young Randiv to do a unsporting act.  In the first place as a senior player and skipper the onus was on Sangakkara to correct younger players and teach them finer aspects of the game but in this case he has taught young Suraj Randiv just the opposite.

Considering the present case ICC should let off Randiv with a mild warning and ban skipper Sangakkara for atleast 6 months.  These days a 5 match ban is not good enough as many players especially of the likes of Sangakkara who are regulars in the team would welcome such a ban as that would mean a break from the hectic schedule.  A 5 match ban was just right some 25 years back when only 7-8 one day internationals were played in a year.  A 6 match ban for Sangakkara would also put fear in the mind of others that they cannot get away with foul play.  A longer ban also would mean a players career is at risk for there is always the risk of losing form and in some cases may never be able to get back to the team as somebody else would have made the most of their absence and cemented their places in the team.

The ICC should also allow onfied umpires the discretionary powers to alter the rules in special cases after consultation with the erring players and match referees.  Let us also hope that BCCI for a change co operates with ICC and bring Sangakkara to book rather than look at its long term financial interests.