Jump to content

Smart thinking or against the infamous 'spirit of the game'?


Sid

Recommended Posts

Posted

If you can't see the difference between a pause in delivery and a deliberate attempt to feign the act of pulling out of a delivery then I can not help you. Probably the difference between tickling someone with a feather and smashing them with a sledgehammer (you can clearly see the difference in the batsman's and umpire's reactions). A batsman can be given out 10 ways. One mistake and their innings is completed this is why attempting to distract the batsman has its own clause in the cricket laws. Switch hitting and reverse sweeps are no different to charging, standing out of your crease, stepping outside off to play legside, backing towards leg, and a number of tactics designed to alter the bowlers line and length. They are different again....

Posted

Just a tactical call, no malice: Jayawardene http://www.wisdenindia.com/cricket-news/tactical-call-malice-jayawardene/29136

'' I haven’t been approached by anyone,'' he said when asked if authorities had sought him out for an explanation. ''The management and I felt that we need to do something to handle certain situations. Different people will have different opinions, but there was no malice on our part,'' said Jayawardene. ''I spoke to Stuart Broad (the England captain) as well before the match and he was fine with that. I can’t stop people thinking whether it was in the right spirit or stuff. I haven’t done anything wrong to any team, player or individual. We just made a tactical move, like we would have done at a match. ''Like a bowling change or a batting change, we just changed our captain. Kumar is a reputed player as well. :laugh: He has captained us previously as well and we have a couple of other captains in the side. We can use whoever we want. He is part of our squad, we didn’t bring anyone from outside to lead our side. We just made a tactical move under the circumstances. The fact is that if we fall another one over short, I will miss a match.''
Posted
Great idea. All eleven players can get the chance of captain the side one by one with this way and no player will have any malice.
Sangakkara (of great reputation) and Jayawardene will be quick to decide the "spirit of the game" for other teams. Here's an incident which comes to my mind. 6zgvjC9WUCs http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvsl/content/story/271912.html
The dismissal stunned the Sri Lankans, who considered it was not in keeping with the true spirit of the competition. "The whole team is disappointed," Mahela Jayawardene said. "Legally it was run out, the ball was alive but we play in an age where we talk about the spirit of the game. Hopefully it won't happen again. It's not the way to play cricket." But Fleming argued it was within the law. "It was pretty disappointing that it takes the gloss off what I thought was a fantastic 100 by Sangakkara, but the ball was still alive and the game doesn't stop when a player gets 100," Fleming said. "You can't just wander off when the ball's in mid-air and if we'd had an overthrow I'm sure they would have taken that.
So, if it goes in your favor - it is tactical but if it goes against you - it is the spirit of the game. Utter BS!
Posted

If ICC were active, SL team should have been disqualified by now. Because this way a captain can never be banned for overrates and this rule will have no importance.

Posted
If ICC were active' date=' SL team should have been disqualified by now. Because this way a captain can never be banned for overrates and this rule will have no importance.[/quote'] they'll change the rule I think
Posted

I really don't see any issue with that recent SL incident. Imo, in cricket nowadays, every team has 4-5 captains instead of a single captain in a match. Multiple captains is the truth and the captaincy issue itself is just redundant

Posted
I really don't see any issue with that recent SL incident. Imo' date=' in cricket nowadays, every team has 4-5 captains instead of a single captain in a match. Multiple captains is the truth and the captaincy issue itself is just redundant[/quote'] they did it to avoid Mahela being banned,thats the issue
Posted
they did it to avoid Mahela being banned' date='thats the issue[/quote'] Yep. That should not be any issue. Captaincy itself does not mean much today. They don't need any special treatment/status.
Posted
Yep. That should not be any issue. Captaincy itself does not mean much today. They don't need any special treatment/status.
n wat would u do with captains abusing slow over rate rule with this?
Posted

I think it's time to do away with the spirit of cricket. Unless it's specifically spelt out in the rule-book, it should be on no matter what "spirit of cricket" says. Spirit of cricket was fine in the old victorian days but in the days of professional, and occasionally mercenary, players its time is done. In other sports such as baseball or American Football such plays are referred to as "trickeration" and are in fact coaches are applauded for the same than being panned for not following "spirit of the game". Everyone plays by the same rule-book and if you can win following the same, you should be fine.

Posted

I have no problem in doing away with "Spirit of the Game' as long as it is consistent. I would also like a fine on captain's/players saying that the other team did not play in the 'Spirit of the Game'. On one hand, we have Jayawardene who calls it a "tactic" when it favors him and then is quick to call Flemming or McCullum as not keeping the game in the spirit when it doesn't. That is hypocrisy AFAIK.

Posted

I get the impression it will continue to be used whenever convenient by many people. What about when Ashwin mankaded one of the SL batsmen. I am fairly sure Jayawardene was bleating about it the spirit then.

Posted
Yep. That should not be any issue. Captaincy itself does not mean much today. They don't need any special treatment/status.
They did it because Mahela would have missed the SF if he had another over rate warning that was the issue, they clearly made the mockery of the law made by ICC.
Posted

It's perfectly legal and legitimate. If you have a problem with this.. then you should have problem with a batsmen reverse sweeping. That can also be called as against the spirit of the game. (which it is not).

Posted
I have no problem in doing away with "Spirit of the Game' as long as it is consistent. I would also like a fine on captain's/players saying that the other team did not play in the 'Spirit of the Game'. On one hand' date=' we have Jayawardene who calls it a "tactic" when it favors him and then is quick to call Flemming or McCullum as not keeping the game in the spirit when it doesn't. That is hypocrisy AFAIK.[/quote'] heck he even said it wen Ashwin let Thirimanne off in CB series
Posted
Sticking with the popular opinion, Jayawardene said that it was "nice and clean" to not run a batsman out who is technically indulging in unfair play. "I wouldn't have got the bails off in the first place, to be honest," he said
It is "nice and clean" as long as it suits him but it is "tactic" if he does it. Chewtiya saala!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...