Sent to the naughty corner

Clever Surrey.

At least it looks like they’ve been a bit clever. I could have it spectacularly wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time), but it seems to me that with a little bit of cunning – and a blind eye from the ECB – obstructiongate has been neatly sidestepped. Put it this way, whilst I was delighted to see Mr R down on the list to play in his first CB40 game of the season it did strike me as a little bit odd. There wasn’t so much of a mention of it on the Surrey website other than the list of players for the next day’s game against Northants. If someone’s making their debut that year in a competition, and especially if that someone’s their star player, it’s a bit weird that there wasn’t so much as a passing comment. It had me scratching my head.

I assumed it was because Surrey knew that Ramps was in for a one or two day championship ban and wished to make the most of him whilst they could. And so, when the headline came up the next day that Ramps had received a ban for his understandable strop it was with much puzzlement that I read it was to be that evening’s CB40 game! After a few seconds of running over the facts in my brain I came to the same conclusion as most: Surrey had added Ramps’ name to the squad for the CB40 match so he could receive his ban in that contest rather than lose him for a championship match. It made even more sense when I realised it wasn’t the ECB who’d thrown the book at him, save for the obligatory 3 point penalty on his record, but Surrey – presumably to stave off any serious disciplinary action from the ECB.

I’m sure if this is the case and I haven’t misread the situation, then the ECB must have realised what Surrey were about. Pretty much tantamount to looking the other way in an unfortunate situation that blew up further than it should. Ramps himself expressed his disappointment at the ban, even although he probably knew he wasn’t going to play, possibly still smarting at the idea of receiving a punishment that was the result of a decision which, in his opinion and that of many others, should never have been given. Still, at the end of the day whether the laws are an ass or not they have to be adhered to.

And this particular law is braying like a good’un at the moment! In the last few days alone there have been several incidents where conceivably the batsman could have been given out for obstruction and haven’t. It was commented on in the CB40 game between Gloucestershire and Lancashire yesterday. Where is the consistency, I wonder? Are the umpires now too scared to apply this law since Ramps got given out in this manner? Actually, I had expected that it would open the floodgates to similar dismissals. Whatever, this rule is going to have to be tightened up and looked at in microscopic detail so that umpires know precisely when to apply it.

So, whilst he sat in the naughty corner for the game that wasn’t (which Surrey won by virtue of some very fine fielding and a bucket load of resolve), the newspapers decided to mention how angry Surrey’s favourite son was at the punishment given to him by the club. The Mirror quoted him as saying he was disappointed, yet ran the headlines that he was ‘furious’, as did one or two other papers who tend to big up small stories with an eye-catching hook. Just as well the News of the Word is no more. They probably would have upgraded it to ‘Ramprakash slays Twenty’...

Anyhow, time to move on. Despite my suspicions that Surrey have been more than a bit devious (thankfully!) I would like to hope this means they may consider adding Ramps to their CB40 squad should they qualify for the latter stages. I do think they are a batsman light, and although so far everything they have done in this competition has worked out well it would be nice to see that top order shored up a bit. Because we are certainly going to need it against the bigger teams in this competition!