Bell's Dismissal

[Blue-no1]

I would like Sachin or Drvid getting out in the 2nd inning to a questionable decision and India requesting to withdraw the appeal in the spirit of the game. Would be fun to see what England would do then.

[kabira]

Spirit of Game, BULL***** Broad suggested Laxman may have used vaseline on this bat and his remarks about it. Michael Vaughan called Laxman "Cheat" I believe. Where is Spirit of Game here??

[gaurav92]

I agree that England never really played in the "Spirit" and always demanded spirit form others. But it doesn't mean we should follow the same path. We play Cricket honestly and in the right spirit. Its alright if they don't play in the right spirit, we should never let ourselves down with that attitude. "Woh aise hain toh hum bhi waise hi ban jaaye" is not the way to go. I am sure, many of us were pissed of at Dhoni taking that call, but I am happy that he chose to call him back as he did the right thing, and even if I were at his place, I would have done the same thing.

[WC2011INDIA]

I think barbie must've used vaseline in his **** :cantstop:

:omg: he takes it from a girl or another guy!

[pinkfreud]

I am sure' date=' many of us were pissed of at Dhoni taking that call, but I am happy that he chose to call him back as he did the right thing, and even if I were at his place, I would have done the same thing.[/quote'] How on Earth is it the right thing Gaurav? If anything, it's made Dhoni look stupid. Bell himself has admitted to being 'naive' and actually being out, but he made the most of our 'bade dilwale' attitude anyway. It's not about the 'spirit of the game' and all that bunkum, it's about having: 1) a brain, and 2) a pair. It seems like Dhoni was more keen to get in everybody's good books rather than care more about the damn game. However there are reports that he was 'advised' to change his mind by some seniors in the team. I think I know who those 'seniors' are, and I would've very happily showed them a finger when I now look back and realize that England has only trampled on our naivete and our desperation to be liked across the length and breadth of the cricketing world. Deja vu, anybody? Do you think half our guys, after hearing Bell gleefully admit that he really was out and that it was his fault, would be patting themselves on their backs now? That Bell scored just 22 after that decision doesn't matter anyway because England had already gained momentum by then, and the psychological effect of all those shenanigans has hit India hard.

[gaurav92]

How on Earth is it the right thing Gaurav? If anything, it's made Dhoni look stupid. Bell himself has admitted to being 'naive' and actually being out, but he made the most of our 'bade dilwale' attitude anyway. It's not about the 'spirit of the game' and all that bunkum, it's about having: 1) a brain, and 2) a pair. It seems like Dhoni was more keen to get in everybody's good books rather than care more about the damn game. Do you think half our guys, after hearing Bell gleefully admit that we really was out and that it was his fault, would be patting themselves on their backs now? That Bell scored just 22 after that decision doesn't matter anyway because England had already gained momentum by then, and the psychological effect of all those shenanigans has hit India hard.

I agree that he wanted to get in people's good books but do you think Bell would have said the same thing had he not been called back ? I don't think so, he would have definitely taken a pot at Indian "Spirit". Its just that we never wanted the same thing to happen with us, and hence we called him back. Yes it was not the the best interests of the game, but it was a well spirited decision. At least we showed the Englishmen who talk loads about Spirit etc. where they stand and they should be the last person commenting on such issues. Poms are hypocrites and they would have never done the same had it been Sachin or Dravid or for that matter any batsman on 137.

[gaurav92]

Stop going OTT bhailog :icflove: Let us stay on topic.

[pinkfreud]

I agree that he wanted to get in people's good books but do you think Bell would have said the same thing had he not been called back ? I don't think so' date=' he would have definitely taken a pot at Indian "Spirit". Its just that we never wanted the same thing to happen with us, and hence we called him back. Yes it was not the the best interests of the game, [b']but it was a well spirited decision. At least we showed the Englishmen who talk loads about Spirit etc. where they stand and they should be the last person commenting on such issues. Poms are hypocrites and they would have never done the same had it been Sachin or Dravid or for that matter any batsman on 137.

I disagree, because I think it was anything but a well-spirited decision. You can't possibly say Dhoni wanted to get in everyone's good books and yet, insist that the decision was taken in the right spirit. Those two are completely contradictory. It doesn't matter what Bell and the Pansy Inc. team would've 'thought of us' if we wouldn't have recalled Bell back. It doesn't, because he really was out in any case, and them having a go at us or trying to rile us up, along with the crowds and English media desperate to chuck eggs on the Indian team, isn't something our guys would've been seeing for the 1st time anyway. Controversy and bad press are something any team the world over has to put up with and swallow. What really matters is how you deal with it and focus solely on your on-field performance. Yesterday was a classic case of Team India's defensive mindset off the field too! If anything, it proved that Dhoni simply lacked the gumption to stick to what he believed in and instead chose to give credence to what people think of him. How can that constitute a 'well-spirited' decision? If anything, it's abominably selfish. Sorry, but it's been such a frustrating few hours.

[jaggadaku]

I don't think its cheating if you take advantage of someone else stupidity. What if this was the other way around the same english media would have called the Indian batsman stupid for wandering off the crease

[ali0786]

From what I had read online, Broad actually refused the vaseline part and it was only Michael Vaughan who made the comment. I can't find the article but I will look for it. Also, what would have England done in this situation? their record in these situations is poor. I remember the Collingwood incident against NZ, where it was Bell himself that was keen on getting the run out. Also, incident against Inzi back last when England toured Pak, where it was a similar situation and England did not play in the "spirit of the game" and got him out.

[gaurav92]

I disagree' date=' because I think it was anything [i']but a well-spirited decision. You can't possibly say Dhoni wanted to get in everyone's good books and yet, insist that the decision was taken in the right spirit. Those two are completely contradictory. It doesn't matter what Bell and the Pansy Inc. team would've 'thought of us' if we wouldn't have recalled Bell back. It doesn't, because he really was out in any case, and them having a go at us or trying to rile us up, along with the crowds and English media desperate to chuck eggs on the Indian team, isn't something our guys would've been seeing for the 1st time anyway. Controversy and bad press are something any team the world over has to put up with and swallow. What really matters is how you deal with it and focus solely on your on-field performance. Yesterday was a classic case of Team India's defensive mindset off the field too! If anything, it proved that Dhoni simply lacked the gumption to stick to what he believed in and instead chose to give credence to what people think of him. How can that constitute a 'well-spirited' decision? If anything, it's abominably selfish. Sorry, but it's been such a frustrating few hours.

I agree it was a defensive decision, but its just the mindset. Any way we were not in a healthy position. I am not saying that decision was entirely Dhoni's, it wasn't because he did not overturned it when asked by the umpire before they left for tea. I think it had more to do with the pussies Strauss and Flower coming in and meeting the Indian players inside the dressing room, pleading to change the decision. We did not want same to happen with us, coz we know Poms can reach any level of insanity to win. We were not afraid exactly, but we did not wanted to extend this fight and settle this issue with this decision. Yes you can call it defensive mindset perhaps. Now I am sure we will have good spirit running throughout the series from both the sides.I know Bell and co. said that because they wanted to make a fool of Indian players, but I think it was a fair call from him. We are seeing it from different perspectives, you may call me defensive here (I have always been, never wanted to fight with anyone, anywhere, ready to settle the issue with some compromise) and that is why I did not find the decision gutless or foolish. On the other hand, we gifted them the series with that decision so yes I am not happy now. :(( And about the long post, no need to be sorry mate, we (at least I) love to read long insightful posts and enjoy a healthy debate :icflove:

[pinkfreud]

We are seeing it from different perspectives, you may call me defensive here (I have always been, never wanted to fight with anyone, anywhere, ready to settle the issue with some compromise) and that is why I did not find the decision gutless or foolish. On the other hand, we gifted them the series with that decision so yes I am not happy now. :(( And about the long post, no need to be sorry mate, we (at least I) love to read long insightful posts and enjoy a healthy debate :icflove:

Thanks, it's been a while since I've discussed something rather than waste my time trying to give back to some of the trolls on here :cantstop: Back on topic- yes, I think it boils down to our mindsets and perspectives, but what I don't get is you indicating compromise is favourable, and yet saying that very decision has cost us this series (in all probability). The question here is this: how far would you be willing to go in the name of peace and 'compromise'? Would you go the whole hog even if your initial decision to stick to your guts was, in fact, right? Are you (as in, Dhoni) settling for a compromise simply because you're afraid of what people think of you, and because you want society to pat your back for being a shining beacon of Gandhian virtues in a sport that is highly competitive? I have serious issues with that, because if this is the case, it seems Dhoni's priorities are seriously skewed and are veering towards a public image-centric mindset rather than a sports-centric one. The very fact that he didn't overturn his decision and only did so after a 'friendly little visit' from Strauss and Flower and upon the beckoning of some 'seniors' in the team in itself tells me he wasn't entirely convinced about getting Bell back in. That, and the fact that he has no spine when it comes to dealing with the tripe society showers on you.

[NareshK]

Englishmen are the biggest bunch of whiners and pussies in the world.

[NareshK]

If it was all about "Spirit of the game", why did they appeal for LBW when they knew Bhajji hit the ball in the first innings ? Dhoni made the biggest mistake in his career so far calling Bell back. I dont blame him because England captain Strauss and Flower begged him to take back his decision and English media are a bunch of crooks and hypocrites and will write drivel against him and the spectators are behaving like a bunch of hooligans and booing them. But I would have more respect for him if he stayed with the decision.

[pinkfreud]

For a country that insists on maintaining gentlemanly conduct and sportsmanship on the field, I have to say its followers and media are the most rowdy, hypocritical, and self-serving lunatics I've ever had the displeasure of coming across. Seems like the players are going the same way too.

[gaurav92]

Thanks, it's been a while since I've discussed something rather than waste my time trying to give back to some of the trolls on here :cantstop: Back on topic- yes, I think it boils down to our mindsets and perspectives, but what I don't get is you indicating compromise is favourable, and yet saying that very decision has cost us this series (in all probability). The question here is this: how far would you be willing to go in the name of peace and 'compromise'? Would you go the whole hog even if your initial decision to stick to your guts was, in fact, right? Are you (as in, Dhoni) settling for a compromise simply because you're afraid of what people think of you, and because you want society to pat your back for being a shining beacon of Gandhian virtues in a sport that is highly competitive? I have serious issues with that, because if this is the case, it seems Dhoni's priorities are seriously skewed and are veering towards a public image-centric mindset rather than a sports-centric one. The very fact that he didn't overturn his decision and only did so after a 'friendly little visit' from Strauss and Flower and upon the beckoning of some 'seniors' in the team in itself tells me he wasn't entirely convinced about getting Bell back in. That, and the fact that he has no spine when it comes to dealing with the tripe society showers on you.

Yes, to an extent you are correct. If he was convinced by Andy and Strauss visiting the dressing room and the loud booing of the Nottingham crowd, then he has some issues with maintain good public relations. Yes he doesn't want to spoil his name in people's books. may be it is not just his priority but the priority of the entire management. I am sure he had asked various seniors, coach and the management before calling Bell back. And only when there was a consensus, he had called Bell back. It just showed the defensive mindset that they had. I am sure Aussies would have never done that, because they are mentally ruthless and on the other hand, we bring in the emotions in our decisions. I have to agree with you that this is not the right way to go. We should have not let him off the hook as he was technically out. The reason I said that he did the right thing was because I am defensive in my approach as well, when it comes to fights. You asked me a question as to how much will I compromise for the sake of peace, and if once I cross the barrier, people would want me and only me to compromise since they know I am not the kind of person who will fight. This in a way, shows my weakness and others can misuse it. Same is the case here as you pointed out, the priority should be the game first and then the gamesmanship. We can't look good to Englishmen and tagged Fools by the Indian Cricket Fans, isn't it. So yes I am glad that you have convinced me that the decision wasn't as good as I first thought of it. You know what, I like debating with you, you have convinced me thrice with your posts if I am not wrong, and I haven't been able to do it even once :(( Anyways thanks :icflove:

[TheWall]

f*** vaughan & England..

[Chandan]

OK guys, appreciating Dhoni's decision to recall Bell, please reply to some of the question raised here: Disgraceful England Deserve Censure But The ICC Thanks Them BY ACHETTUP Ian Bell is a good batsman. Thats all he is. He is not an umpire. He is not a match referee. He is not the sole authority on the cricket field. At some point yesterday he decided he was all of these things. He assumed that the ball was dead. Him and him alone. His batting partner, Eoin Morgan didn't. The bowler didn't. The fielder who had thrown the ball in didn't. And the umpires didn't. Yet in a supreme display of arrogance, Bell trotted over to his batting partner, who looked most uncomfortable about the whole affair since he had just put his bat in the crease after attempting to warn Bell, and knew something unfortunate was about to occur. Make no mistake, the error was Bell's and Bell's alone, nothing but sheer stupidity. But it gets worse from here. Ignore the indignation from the English, who almost drowned twitter out with calls for Dhoni's head for, well, doing the correct thing. As the umpires asked Dhoni if he wanted to uphold the appeal, they also turned to the English batsmen and asked them to wait on the field until a decision had been made. Bell's arrogance took to the fore again and he marched off, seemingly as oblivious to their request as he seemed to the entire run out fiasco. Note that even at that point the umpires had still not called Tea, it was Bell who took it upon himself to declare the session over. Bell was actually stopped just before he left the ground to his obvious disgust by the fourth umpire, who politely reminded him that the session had not in fact officially ended. For such blatant disregard to an umpire's authority, a player has already been penalized in this test, too bad he isn't English though, because they are praised for this sort of behavior. Already in this test we've seen Graeme Swann kick the stumps in disgust at his own performance, and despite being his second offence in under three months, escape with a reprimand. "Look here you jolly old fellow, we love your witty banter on twitter, but you can't go around kicking the stumps when you feel like it. Just quickly apologize for it and we'll sweep it under the carpet." The most petulant and a serial offender in the English side, much like his father before him, and rewarded with T20 captaincy - this is the same bowler who is the only international cricketer to have conceded 6 sixes in an over in a T20 match - Stuart Broad, took it upon himself to step into his father's shoes and check if VVS Laxman had applied Vaseline to his bat. The English seem to think this sort of behavior is amusing, its a bit like throwing jelly beans on the pitch, its all in good fun when you're not at the receiving end. Insinuate that an Englishman might be a cheat and you'll get the response the Pakistani team received after their counter accusations during the spot fixing brouhaha. Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower chose to approach Dhoni during the Tea interval and ask him to reconsider his appeal. This has been described as "most unorthodox" but the more simple way of describing it is that it was way out of line. You cannot go to the opposition and ask them to play in a manner that suits your players after your very players are solely responsible for an incident because of their stupidity, and especially not after the mob you're leading onto the field has already acted so disgracefully. The trouble is, nobody seems to be telling England that they're behaving terribly. Oh no, quite the opposite. Here's how Haroon Lorgat, CEO of the ICC, described the incident and the conduct of the players. "Absolute credit must go to Team India, the England team and the match officials - Ranjan Madugalle, Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus as well as the off-field umpires Billy Bowden and Tim Robinson - for the superb way that they all handled a tricky situation. While the initial appeal and umpire decision may have been acceptable to the letter of the law, the decision by India captain M S Dhoni and his team -as well as the Team India coaching staff - to withdraw the appeal shows great maturity. To see players and officials uphold the Great Spirit of cricket, which has underpinned the game for more than a century, is very special. I am indeed grateful for the way that the teams and match officials handled what was clearly a difficult situation and their behaviour reflects well on everyone." I'm not sure what Lorgat is smoking, but he did get a few things right, so it might not be the best stuff out there on the market. The umpires and the Indian Team deserve praise. Don't discount the role of the umpires here, they could have chosen to act as heavy handed as Daryl Hair did at the Oval during Inzimam's protest and taken the incident to a whole different level. Madugalle's lenient reprimand to Swann and his overlooking Broad's distasteful accusation, doesn't deserve credit. And England's conduct definitely does not either. The "Great Spirit of Cricket" shouldn't win any accolades today, it was in fact insulted because it asks players to play fair, within the rules and to respect umpires. But more so because it promotes equality and equal treatment to players, and by all indications from the ICC's statement, equality seems to be used rather judiciously, and certainly selectively.

[CG]

Dhoni has a history of trying to be kiss opp ass, 1-Recently in south africa SAINT graeme smith and southafricans alleged sreesanth has been sledging them and using bad words ,While steyn ,lonwabo tsotsobe use flowers to sledge and south africa team is a bunch of angels ,Dhoni in a press conference blasts his own team mate.Never in CRICKET HISTORY such thing has happened. 2-Capetown test 4th day-india trying to deperately get kallis wicket after bhajjis great spel lto win the match sreesanth has 2 good appeals turned down against kallis and dhoni gives hima dressing down on pitch as he has been over appealing.we draw the match 3-Dhoni calls back bell -we have them at 184-4 at tea but dhoni wanting to keep his god boy image calls bell back after SAINT flower and strauss say that bell has learned playing cricket through a playstation and did not know the basic rules of the game as it was not mentioned in the maual .They add 70 runs and kill indias slim chances. Dhoni will one day be reffered as SIR M.S DHONI well done MSD and play

[vamos_rafa]

Don't know whether MSD did the right thing or not. It can't be his own decision. He would have consulted the others as well. And mind you,he isn't this stupid who would have taken this decision at the spur of the moment. He would have been totally aware of the rage that would burn up in the people. It is evident on this forum and other one's as well. Don't know if it was foolish or not, but it was one gutsy one for sure. And as chote has said, if someone else doesn't play in the spirit of the game,it does'n mean that we don't do so. To cite an example, John McEnroe recently said that he does'n enjoy the roger-rafa rivalry as they don't argue in the public or make the matches look like there's some rivalry. But when Rafa was asked the same question, he said that it's his opinion but both he and Roger feel that they have a responisbility towards the youngsters who would tke Tennis up. Just coz McEnroe behaved like a fool on court,does it mean that everyone on this earth should? I still am not trying to say that MSD did the right thing. The jury is out there and it would always be but it was a gutsy and a commendable decision. BTW, did anyone notice that VVS had his bat checked up by the umpire after the appeal from hot spot was turned down? Read somewhere that it was done on Broad's discretion and it was to check whether it had Vaseline applied to it or not.