CG Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 In the 40th over of the Sri Lankan innings at the Gabba, R Ashwin spotted the non-striker Lahiru Thirimanne was about three feet outside the crease even as his back foot was about to land. Ashwin didn't go through with his delivery, turned around, ran Thirimanne out, and appealed. For some reason though, the umpire Paul Reiffel didn't rule him out immediately, and went on to consult with the leg umpire, or even perhaps ask the Indian captain if they indeed wanted to appeal. That, despite the rule changes last year, which clearly state the bowler is "permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker." During the time that the umpires consulted, the Indian team appeared to have had a change of heart, much like they did with the case of Ian Bell at Trent Bridge last year, and seemed to withdraw the appeal. It was a classical case of this beast called "spirit of cricket" coming in the way of the laws of cricket. We criticise the ICC for not doing enough to address the lack of balance between bat and ball, but it was defeated by the players themselves in this case. The rule change last year - allowing the bowler to run a batsman out any time before he has released the ball as opposed to previously when he would have to remove the bails before entering his delivery stride - was one aimed at taking away the unfair advantage the batsmen gained by leaving their crease early. In 1947-48, incidentally in the same country of hard but fair play, when Vinoo Mankad similarly ran Bill Brown out, Mankad found support despite moral posturing. This particular ruling falls under Law 42, which deals with fair and unfair play. The laws of the game clearly consider unfair the act of batsmen gaining a few feet before the bowler has even delivered. India, by not continuing with the appeal, only abetted unfair play. The "spirit of cricket" also suggests - although this is not written anywhere - that the bowler should warn the batsman once before going ahead with the run-out, which is probably why India withdrew the appeal. Why such charity, though, for a batsman indulging in unfair play? Cricket as a sport is full of idiosyncrasies that make it a special sport; this is not one of them. This one clearly puts the bowler, trying to prevent a batsman from unfair play, fight some sort of imaginary guilt before appealing for a run-out Cricket as a sport is full of idiosyncrasies that make it a special sport; this is not one of them. This one clearly puts the bowler, trying to prevent a batsman from unfair play, fight some sort of imaginary guilt before appealing for a run-out. The question "do you really want to do it" comes with a weight, with a suggestion there might be consequences beyond the game in question. Not that this incident stopped Thirimanne from gaining similar unfair advantage in the rest of the innings. Which is good on him actually. He took note of the warning, stayed in when Ashwin bowled, but kept leaving his crease when lesser-alert bowlers, like R Vinay Kumar and Irfan Pathan, operated. He was aware of the consequences, and he was taking his chances. There is a school of thought that India actually avoided an incident that could have brought controversy and disrepute to the game. There will be parallels drawn to the Bell run-out that India got reversed during the tea break in Nottingham last year. Opinion was divided back then, but this was clearly more generous from India. You could argue Bell made a genuine, honest mistake back then, but if Thirimanne were to plead innocence here, he would need to come up with a more meaty excuse than the ignorance of Law 42. Bell was dopey, Thirimanne was trying to gain an unfair advantage. India should have known the difference. Then again, it should never have come down to India. Ashwin had appealed, Thirimanne was not inside his crease, the finger should have gone up immediately. Spirit of cricket should not have been allowed to come in the way of fair cricket.
The Dark Horse Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Plain dumb, it was Thirimanne who was against the spirit of cricket
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Should Thirimanne have been sent off? I say yes. It is clear that he was out, according to the laws of cricket. What and why is this "spirit" of cricket which is allowed to come over "laws of cricket". What about the disrespect of the laws of cricket by the non-striker, backing up unfairly. This particular ruling falls under Law 42, which deals with fair and unfair play. The laws of the game clearly consider unfair the act of batsmen gaining a few feet before the bowler has even delivered. India, by not continuing with the appeal, only abetted unfair play. The "spirit of cricket" also suggests - although this is not written anywhere - that the bowler should warn the batsman once before going ahead with the run-out, which is probably why India withdrew the appeal. Why such charity, though, for a batsman indulging in unfair play source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/commonwealth-bank-series-2012/content/current/story/554716.html
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Interesting comment: how about warning a batsman before a bouncer or a doosra. One must know the rules or stop playing cricket. This is not sportsmanship but an abuse to the rules of the game.
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 more questions - How is it even fair (or in the spirit of game) for umpires to request the appealing party to withdraw the appeal? and make one party feel as if they have committed some crime? Is it not umpires' job just to go ahead with the appeal, and give the verdict as per the laws.
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 In the same vein - even batsmen should be allowed couple of warnings before awarding "stump out" to the wicketkeeper/bowler.
saneindian Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 For what the Lankans did to Sehwag when he was on 99* in a ODI in 2010 and post that the comments from Sanga mocking the players, there should be absolutely no sympathy or spirit of cricket for these Lankans. Lest I forget what the cheat Sanga did at the WC final toss. They do not play in the spirit of the game, we shouldn't either.
vamos_rafa Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 For what the Lankans did to Sehwag when he was on 99* in a ODI in 2010 and post that the comments from Sanga mocking the players, there should be absolutely no sympathy or spirit of cricket for these Lankans. Lest I forget what the cheat Sanga did at the WC final toss. They do not play in the spirit of the game, we shouldn't either. This. Lankans have been the biggest cry babies on the field.
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 There were only two culprits - Thiramane - for unfairly backing up multiple times... and umpires, to request the fielding team to reconsider the appeal.
saneindian Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Enough of this gandhigiri. Need some ruthlessness. I was surprised Sehwag reversing the decision vs the Lankans who have been pathetic. The likes of Sanga, Mahela, DIlshan never walk, Sanga appeals for everything, mahela behaves like a cry baby when a wide or no ball is given. Why be nice to these guys?
asterix Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Enough of this gandhigiri. Need some ruthlessness. I was surprised Sehwag reversing the decision vs the Lankans who have been pathetic. The likes of Sanga, Mahela, DIlshan never walk, Sanga appeals for everything, mahela behaves like a cry baby when a wide or no ball is given. Why be nice to these guys? Dil Dariya.. **** Samandar..
Karan114 Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 For what the Lankans did to Sehwag when he was on 99* in a ODI in 2010 and post that the comments from Sanga mocking the players, there should be absolutely no sympathy or spirit of cricket for these Lankans. Lest I forget what the cheat Sanga did at the WC final toss. They do not play in the spirit of the game, we shouldn't either. Spot on. What is up with appeasing these cheating slimeball Sri Lankans? Shame on the Indian team for letting them get away yet again.
Zelch Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Doesnt matter what the issue is, Indians as a collective chicken out of confrontation. Its a cultural thing. About this Thirummane, they did OK.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Enough of this fair cricket bull-shyte. Simply follow the rules of the game. IMO Bell shouldn't have been called back last year and Thirimanne had even less reasons than Bell to be called back.
Tendulkar_Bhai Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 HE WAS OUT PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Being out of the crease when your running either side is out so why not before the ball is released?? He is playing against the spirit by gaining an unfair advantage i.e. advancing down the pitch before a shot has been played thus making it impossible to be run out. Yet again we show no backbone, Ganguly would not be doing stuff like this.
bajrang Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 yep deserved it. never forget the sehwag century.their board dont pay them wages they make money from IPL and then rob our players of their achievement. ungrateful and unsportsmanlike.
Mandrake Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 What is that saying,"fool me once...",we never learn
ganeshran Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 The first time we were right in withdrawing the appeal. the second time he did it in the second over, we should have run him out
yoda Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 I say yes. It is clear that he was out, according to the laws of cricket. What and why is this "spirit" of cricket which is allowed to come over "laws of cricket". What about the disrespect of the laws of cricket by the non-striker, backing up unfairly. source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/commonwealth-bank-series-2012/content/current/story/554716.html Ashwin is full dramey baaz.. this is not first time he has tried that.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now