View-Counter View: The untimely break with two runs to get

An interesting situation arose at the SuperSport Park in Centurion on Sunday (February 4) when umpire Aleem Dar knocked off the bails and called for the lunch break with India two runs away from winning the game. South Africa had earlier been bowled out for 118 in 32.2 overs, allowing for only a 10-minute between-innings break. With nine wickets and 31 overs to go at the point of the break, the result, for all practical purposes, had been a foregone conclusion. Players from both teams were bemused by the decision and social media went on overdrive condemning the decision to extend play by over 40 minutes when it was minutes away from finishing.

Were the officials, including on-field umpires Dar and Adrian Holdstock and referee Ian Gould, right in following the rules down to a T?

Here's what Fanie de Villiers had to say:

"The reality is you don't know what is happening behind the scenes. If the bylaw says that you get only four overs extra, then it's the law. If common sense is not allowed in the ICC in the perceptions of umpires, then they're probably getting bullied to make sure the rules are applied. And if that's the case then you've got to go with it.

"I firmly believe common sense is an important factor in any system, and you can only enforce common sense in a system if it's allowed. It might not be allowed. The system might be so strict that people are scared of losing their jobs, losing points, whatever it may be. I would like to find out what the umpires' opinion was, when deciding that at the end. We don't know what their opinion was.

"Let's have a look at the weights that force decisions down. Firstly, you've got the cricket players who want to finish the game. Secondly you've got the umpires who are sitting with the rules. Thirdly, you've got the public that want to see cricket. Fourthly you've got the vendors, who want to make a few bob extra at lunch-time, because they pay money to be there. So which one carries the biggest weight? Unless you analyse the role played by different weights in a decision, you can't change anything. There might be two-three others that we haven't even mentioned now, who knows.

"So did we accommodate the vendors around lunch-time yesterday? Yes we did. Did we accommodate the people in all the boxes who had to be served lunch? Yes we did. So how negative was it? Just because one player wants to finish the game? That's why you have management systems creating rules and regulations because they look at things in depth. What about television rights, and the people who pay for those logos on screen. How much more coverage did they get after lunch? Important factors to bear in mind."

As with any debate, there are two sides to it.

VIEW - 'Common sense should have prevailed'

Cricket, as it is, finds it very difficult to capture global attention and such situations make the game more complicated to comprehend for new followers. The sport cannot begin to take for granted the time of the spectators and the very people participating in the sport. Given the incredulous looks on some of the South African faces, they would have clearly not minded hanging back for another over - the umpires had already extended play by 15 minutes - to finish the game. Instead everyone had to wait for 40 minutes to come back and see India hit the inevitable two runs for victory. Former players weren't pleased too. "They (ICC) want to make the game attractive but this was a ridiculous decision," Michael Holding was quoted as saying on air by TOI. Virender Sehwag ridiculed the decision with