In one of the most peculiar dismissals in the Ranji Trophy match on Thursday, Bengal captain Abhimanyu Easwaran was run out while idly leaving his crease for refreshments. Due to an uncommon moment of inattention, Easwaran’s innings came to an end at 81.
The event happened at the Kalyani Stadium during Bengal’s sixth-round Ranji Trophy match versus Services. With Easwaran and Sudip Chatterjee at the crease, Bengal was well-positioned. Easwaran, who was aiming for his 28th first-class century, appeared to be in charge until a remarkable incident occurred right before the drinks break.
Chatterjee pulled back a full-length ball that was delivered by Services bowler Aditya Kumar on the last ball of the 41st over. Abhimanyu Easwaran instinctively left his crease and started to move forward to get a drink of water, thinking the over was over and the ball was dead.
The ball grazed Aditya Kumar’s fingers as he tried to gather the return, deflecting onto the stumps at the non-striker’s end. Already, Abhimanyu Easwaran had moved far beyond his crease. Even the bowler didn’t know what had happened until the stumps were broken. The on-field umpires referred the verdict upstairs after Services Tea filed an appeal. Abhimanyu Easwaran was declared run out by the third umpire in accordance with the rules of the game.
I was solely at blame: Abhimanyu Easwaran
Abhimanyu Easwaran accepted full responsibility for the incident following the play of the day. He made it clear that he was solely to blame, dismissing any discussion about the spirit of cricket.
“The innings was going really well, but even I was taken aback by my error. There was no doubt that the opposition could have called me back in the spirit of the match, despite what some people might think. I was solely to blame. He was cited by ESPN as saying, “I thought the bowler had collected the ball and instinctively moved forward.”
Laxmi Ratan Shukla, the coach of Bengal, expressed similar ideas and dismissed analogies to the well-known Ian Bell run-out incident during the 2011 Trent Bridge Test. According to Shukla, the situation was distinct and Services had every right to file an appeal.
“Despite their similar appearances, one cannot directly compare the two. It was a different time and a different situation. This was merely an error on the side of the batter. He is an experienced player, so that doesn’t mean he lacks knowledge, but cricket may be erratic. There is nothing wrong with the opposition’s decision to not call him back, even though they could have. Everything took place in accordance with the rules of the game, according to Shukla.
Home