One might argue that this issue has been blown completely out of proportion and something that happened in the heat of the battle in the middle must be forgotten if not forgiven.  This is generally the case, but I disagree on this one issue.

I say that this issue of denying Sehwag a ton is a big matter for the simple fact that it goes against the very spirit and fundamental values of the game.  Every game has certain rules and regulations, and these can be bent slightly for one's advantage, but by bending and manipulating the rules, the very integrity and honour of the game is lost.  Not only for the game but also for the perpetuator.  Here no rules was bent, but the spirit of the game was definitely damaged, and damaged heavily. 

Centuries are landmarks that are cherished by batsman and if the knock comes in a winning cause the more cherished it becomes.  It is similar to a bowler picking up a five wicket haul.  These are certain landmarks that are cherished by the players and these moments stand to live on long after their time.  And by denying something so prized and memorable by small petty means is nothing but disgrace to the game.  Cricket is called the gentleman's game and has high regard for fair play ethics and sportsmanship, but sadly this seems to be deteriorating day by day.

What Suraj Randiv did, angers me because it was completely out of selfish reasons with no valid reasons.  He surely can't say it's an accident, because the last time I saw a spinner bowling a one foot no ball was almost never.  It was clearly intentional.  This is why I say this is a big issue.  What pleasure is Randiv or the Sri Lankan team gaining from denying Sehwag a well deserved century?  Absolutely none, whatsoever.  Which brings me back to the question, then why do it, and rain on someone's parade?

To put things into perspective, what would have happened if India had denied Muthiah Muralitharan his 800th wicket in the first test at Galle?  Last man out Ohja could have easily lobbed a catch of any other bowler than Murali, or even knocked his own wickets over during another bowler's over, thereby denying Muralitharan his historic landmark.  India couldn't have won the match so they could have easily done the atrocious incident mentioned above.  But fortunately that didn't happen.  Had it happened, there would have been absolute back-lashing of the Indian team for denying the champion bowler a wicket and world wide criticism.  Now just a few weeks after that with Sri Lanka placed in an impossible situation to win, do the unthinkable and deny a celebration.  And surely they are coping the criticism of the world.

Sunil Gavaskar the great Indian opener had never scored an ODI century in his career until his penultimate match against New Zealand.  The New Zealand bowlers respecting the genius and the legend of Gavaskar bowled him a loopy a delivery when he was in the nineties, so that he could reach his maiden ODI century easily.  That was how cricket was played.  A story by Jeffery Archer titled “The Century” in the book “A Quiver full of arrows” stresses on the very fundamental of the game being a gentleman's game being played in the right spirit.  

Cricket is meant to be played hard and competitively, but at the same time, the spirit of the game shouldn't be damaged.  This is where the Australians fell I feel, during their reign.  They sledged on the field which is clearly not in the spirit of the game and got themselves the 'bad Australian' tag.  

Stories are now circulating that it was Sangakara who planned the whole scheme.  Whether this is true or not, I do not know.  But I do hope it is in the negative, else the entire image of the team will be lost.  As a captain, Sanagakara is supposed to set an open example to his players and also the thousands who follow the game.  He has that duty and in accordance with law  1.4 and the preamble of the 'Laws of Cricket' (The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit and traditions of the game as well as within the Laws.) Sangakara should be the last man doing this.  

There is also lot of talk about how the rules are faulted as only the no-ball is counted and not the six that followed it.  Many are blaming the umpires, and the scorers, but I digress with them.  Why blame the system and the laws that has worked so well for the last century and more.  I find this strangely amusing that the law is being questioned when really the thing to be worried about is whether cricket nowadays upholds the spirit of fair play and the long traditions of being a gentleman's game.

Suraj Randiv at least came out in the open and tendered an open apology.  An apology doesn't correct the mistake already done, but hopefully Randiv, and the world have learned a lesson not to be forgotten.