Cheating to Win

February 1981 was a dark month for the Australian Cricket Team.

On February 1st, in a one-day match (as opposed to a five-day test) between Australia and New Zealand, the game came down to the final ball of the day with the Kiwis needing a six just to tie the Australian's score of 235 runs. A tied game is just that; there is no overtime, the game is declared a tie. As it is impossible to score seven runs off a single delivery the Kiwis really had little chance of victory. Their only real chance lay in the final ball being declared a No Ball or a Wide, in which case the Kiwis would score a single run, and the bowler would be required to bowl another "final ball". The Kiwi batsman would then need to hit this new "final ball" ball almost 100 metres over the boundary fence, on the full. The Cricket equivalent of a Home Run.

In Cricket the Tail End batters are usually the team's bowlers, and are notoriously poor hitters, and the chances of a tail ender hitting a six are fairly slim. There are exceptions. The West Indies team has on occasion fielded a team where almost everyone could be considered a decent batsman. The Aussies themselves have had some big hitting Tail Enders, like Rod Marsh and Shane Warne, who rarely scored big but could usually be counted on to hit a couple of boundaries and maybe a six or two, before going out.

So the chances of the Kiwi batter hitting a six and even tying up the match were very slim.

The Aussie Captain, Ian Chappell, then made what could be considered the greatest mistake of his career. He ordered the Australian bowler, who just happened to be his younger brother, Trevor, to bowl his final ball underarm, which Trevor agreed to do. While slower than a regular over-the-shoulder delivery, the low height of the underarm delivery essentially denied the Kiwi batter any chance at all of hitting a six. Both Australians and New Zealanders were disgusted at the Aussie Cricket Team's actions and the rules of Cricket were shortly rewritten to prevent the underarm delivery from being used unless both Captains agreed beforehand.

The underarm ball was in the rules because it was de rigueur when cricket was first created. Today's over-the-shoulder method, in fact any method where the delivery arm was raised higher than the waist, was severely frowned upon.

It was in the rules. It was considered an acceptable method of bowling. The umpires were aware of Ian's orders to his brother and even informed the Kiwi batsman that the delivery would be underarm. Regardless, it just wasn't cricket. It was unsportsmanlike, and the rules were changed to prevent such low tactics being used in the future.

There was an article in a recent Sports Illustrated about a Little League Championship Match between two teams of nine & ten-year old boys. It's the bottom of the ninth. The batting team is down by one with two outs, but they have a runner on third and their biggest hitter is at the plate. The coach of the fielding team then gave his pitcher orders to walk the big hitter, because waiting behind him was their opponent's weakest hitter. The big hitter got walked, the weak hitter struck out, parents screamed, and the coaching staff almost came to blows. It was a strategic move and one commonly used in the Major Leagues, but these weren't professional adult players, these were little leaguers. Nine and ten year old boys. Learning the hard way how the game is played.

The author of the article stated that walking a batter, even a big hitter, has no place in a Little League game. I would argue that walking a batter has no place in any game, period. I hate seeing a big hitter get walked (unless it's Barry Bonds, they can walk that steroid abusing cheater until he retires and I'll cheer the whole time), I hate seeing a QB kneel down and run the clock out, I hate seeing basketball players deliberately foul a poor free throw shooter when the game is down to the wire (even if it's Shaq).

All of these actions are within the rules, just like bowling underarm, and just like Trevor Chappell's infamous delivery they're all unsportsmanlike. Using the rules to deprive your opponent of even the smallest chance of victory is cheating in my books. One day I'll need to talk to my son about my feelings on this.