By Tony Becca - From The Boundary 
THE FOURTH one-day international between the West Indies and India takes place tonight (local time) with the West Indies leading 2-1 and hunting victory No. 3 in the seven-match contest.
It should, however, have been 2-0 or 3-0l with the West Indies hunting a victory that would either improve their chances of winning the series or one that would hand them the series with three matches to go.
The reason why the count is 2-1 is because the third match in Rajkot was abandoned due to crowd violence. Match referee Mike Proctor ruled that the result be decided by the Duckworth/Lewis system and that system was in favour of India who were on 200 for one off 27.1 overs replying to the West Indies' 300 for five off the allotted 50 overs.
The match, however, should have been ruled either a no-result or awarded to the visitors.
According to Proctor, he went for a result because, in his opinion, "India was miles ahead of the West Indies with lots of overs and fewer runs required", because "it wasn't the Indian players fault why the match was abandoned", and because "the Indian team should not be penalised".
The result of the match, however, should not have been left to Proctor's opinion. The result of no match should be left to a match referee's opinion and, remembering it was the home crowd that destroyed the match, even if he believed, with some justification, that India should not have been penalised - that the match should not have been awarded to the West Indies, in the circumstances it should at least have been ruled abandoned and a no-result.
As far as the game was concerned when it was abandoned, Proctor was right. India were so much in command that the odds were stacked heavily in their favour and chances are they would have won it easily.
Cricket is a game of surprises, however, the history of the game is filled with dramatic collapses and although India needed only 100 runs to win with nine wickets in hand, it is possible that they could have lost.
Many teams, like England versus Australia in the first Test of the Ashes series a couple days before the Rajkot incident, have been dismissed for fewer than 100.
Is it possible that Proctor went for a decision because the West Indies refused to take the field after the security had said that it was OK to resume?
It is possible.
That, however, should not have influenced his decision - not when it is remembered that there was a similar incident in the first match and another in the second when play was abandoned and then re-started.
Not when it is remembered that the West Indies said after the second incident that they would leave the field if it happened again and, most importantly, not when it is remembered that when the West Indies decided not to go back out after the incident, he said that he agreed with them.
The decision by Proctor in Rajkot was as strange as those at Bourda in 1993 and 1999.
In 1993, the West Indies, according to the rules of that time, needed two to level the score and win the match off the last delivery against Pakistan.
Ian Bishop stroked the ball towards mid-on, unless the fielder missed the ball going slowly to him, it would have been one run at best and the crowd invaded the field. Instead of awarding the match to Pakistan, or ruling it abandoned, the match referee ruled it a tie.
In 1999, Australia, according to the rules of that time, needed three runs to tie or four to win off the last ball, Steve Waugh hit Keith Arthurton into the outfield, he and Shane Warne ran two, the crowd invaded the field, the ball came back to Arthurton. The batsmen, with nothing to lose and something to gain, went for the third run that would have tied the match and when Arthurton, with the ball in his hand, moved to run out Warne who was taking off from his end, there were no stumps. Spectators had already gone with them.
Instead of ruling the match abandoned, or awarding it to the West Indies, the match referee called it a tie.
