express bowling Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 If a particular rule is against the spirit of cricket then that rule should be changed. If a rule is there it should be assumed that it is in the spirit of the game and should be followed. If an international cricketer does not know that he can be given out if he leaves the crease early then he should not play at all. It is he who is playing against the spirit of the game by stealing a run that he normally cannot take.
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 SriLankans are least worthy of being provided any kind of generousness under cover of "spirit of cricket". Their captain Sangakara openly asked Randiv to do a no-ball to deny him a century and nobody from SriLankan board did anything to punish Sangakara, not even mild reprimand. Sangakara again cheated during world cup toss. They should have been last team to withdraw that appeal against. They were dealt in just manner when McCullum had run Murali out while he was coming to congratulate Sangakkara on his century. Gandhigiri against Bell was a key turning point in the England series, and in today's match also. No one will ever remember ( esp the stat gurus) the # of spirit of game awards - just the wins/wickets/runs etc. count in the longer run. Besides, it (not going for charity way) is easy to defend also. Something Indian Gandhis should learn from OZs.. they would have said something like - "we play our cricket hard way, we are professionals, its within the laws"
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 If a particular rule is against the spirit of cricket then that rule should be changed. If a rule is there it should be assumed that it is in the spirit of the game and should be followed. If an international cricketer does not know that he can be given out if he leaves the crease early then he should not play at all. It is he who is playing against the spirit of the game by stealing a run that he normally cannot take. THIS. ++100000000000000000000000000000000000...... POTW.
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 @express_bowling allow me to copy this comment on that cricinfo article...and anywhere else I come across such discussion.
express bowling Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 @express_bowling allow me to copy this comment on that cricinfo article...and anywhere else I come across such discussion. ok
Old guy Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 tbh i respect australia for the way they play. this is just ridiculous what spirit of game was in this ? u warned the guy and he again did it..it was perfectly out seen batsmen get out in much more unfair ways ..all sides do fake slides all the time (i think even that is banned now i dont know lol) also seen mr sangakara trying to be clever.. even anil kumble ran some one out by hiding the ball u dont go there to look good u go out htere to win this team does not cares about that,the attitude u either win or loss..yep true but good team win much more often then bad ones.. i ve realised now that we are going down for good this time around.. this sehwag hasnt played proper knock in whole tour and he was made captain ? he still behaves like his spot is fixed no one can touch it...wake up this whole rotation policy was for benefit of seniors so that u dont say they are dropped for game! we see ricky ponting getting dropped from odis now after gr8 test series wht have tendulkar and sehwag done ? and batting resources wise we have better bench then australia. guess i went little off tipic but needed to vent this out.. feck .. i watched every match :mad:
akshayxyz Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 "Spirit of Cricket" should come into picture when there is significant element of chance involved or genuine state of confusion. How many times have Umpires recalled a non-striker getting run out to a stroke brushing the fingers/feet, or even fabric of bowler - going on to strike the stumps... and many of the times those 'brushes' are by mere chance, completely unintentional. What about intentional 'short runs' that can made to look un-intentional.
Old guy Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 "Spirit of Cricket" should come into picture when there is significant element of chance involved or genuine state of confusion. How many times have Umpires recalled a non-striker getting run out to a stroke brushing the fingers/feet, or even fabric of bowler - going on to strike the stumps... and many of the times those 'brushes' are by mere chance, completely unintentional. What about intentional 'short runs' that can made to look un-intentional. true .. this is just a another example // but no one stops batsmen then :dontknow: i mean how is it nay diffrent then what happened today ? today he actually even got a warning
Brainfade Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 If a particular rule is against the spirit of cricket then that rule should be changed. If a rule is there it should be assumed that it is in the spirit of the game and should be followed. If an international cricketer does not know that he can be given out if he leaves the crease early then he should not play at all. It is he who is playing against the spirit of the game by stealing a run that he normally cannot take. Exactly. If he's out, he's out. On the flip-side though, if you proposed this idea to the ICC, they'll create a silly rule where the batsman is allowed to back up 15 inches at no more than a 15 deg angle wrt the popping crease, and we'll need a whole new camera for the 3rd umpire just to make that protracted measurement :-). Fun. All this brings up another question - does Greg Chappell warrant criticism for the Trevor Chappell underarm ball?
Raghav_12 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Exactly. If he's out, he's out. On the flip-side though, if you proposed this idea to the ICC, they'll create a silly rule where the batsman is allowed to back up 15 inches at no more than a 15 deg angle wrt the popping crease, and we'll need a whole new camera for the 3rd umpire just to make that protracted measurement :-). Fun. All this brings up another question - does Greg Chappell warrant criticism for the Trevor Chappell underarm ball? There are differences I think. In this case this is rather frequently happening thing with clear rules in place. Secondly, in his case you are not being unfair to opposition by taking opportunities away from them. Here basically, batsmen are being punished for being out of crease, a bit similar to what happens in case of Stumping. Greg Chappell's underarm incident was one of most disgraceful thing to happen on cricket field. NZers were denied an opportunity to have a go at the target set for them for no mistake from their side. Their Greg Chappell took advantage of lack of rules - unlike this case where there are clearly written rules after enough deliberations.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Exactly. If he's out, he's out. On the flip-side though, if you proposed this idea to the ICC, they'll create a silly rule where the batsman is allowed to back up 15 inches at no more than a 15 deg angle wrt the popping crease, and we'll need a whole new camera for the 3rd umpire just to make that protracted measurement :-). Fun. All this brings up another question - does Greg Chappell warrant criticism for the Trevor Chappell underarm ball? In my book not quite. He followed the rules of the game. It was ICC (MCC back then) who should have looked at the rules and the loopholes. Chappell's incident was similar to Jardine's bodyline tactic - something frowned upon but definitely within the rules of the game. I think they were great tacticians, and Jardine was in fact a pioneer for what he did in the Bodyline series.
ganeshran Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 In my book not quite. He followed the rules of the game. It was ICC (MCC back then) who should have looked at the rules and the loopholes. Chappell's incident was similar to Jardine's bodyline tactic - something frowned upon but definitely within the rules of the game. I think they were great tacticians, and Jardine was in fact a pioneer for what he did in the Bodyline series. Chappell was a great tactician for exploiting a loophole that bowling underarm wasnt prohibited? :blink: The underarm incident was one of the most disgusting incidents to have happened on a cricket field.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Chappell was a great tactician for exploiting a loophole that bowling underarm wasnt prohibited? :blink: The underarm incident was one of the most disgusting incidents to have happened on a cricket field. As I said to each his own. To me he did nothing wrong and was smart enough to exploit the loophole. Same with Jardine even though he was reviled for inventing Bodyline. At least both Chappell and Jardine had balls and could care less what people would say about them. OTOH our players withdraw a genuine appeal which should never have been withdrawn
ganeshran Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 As I said to each his own. To me he did nothing wrong and was smart enough to exploit the loophole. Same with Jardine even though he was reviled for inventing Bodyline. At least both Chappell and Jardine had balls and could care less what people would say about them. OTOH our players withdraw a genuine appeal which should never have been withdrawn Defending Jardine I can understand, but Chappell was an effing cheat when he asked his brother to bowl the underarm ball. Benaud called it the most disgraceful incident to happen on a field. IIRC there was criticism from the prime ministers of the countries too. A win attained by such means is hollow and I fail to see how it shows his balls, rather it showed his cowardice and lack of faith in the bowler to win on fair terms. What he did was legal, but completely unethical and hence was rightly criticized. It was like a criminal who was let off as the conclusive evidence was rendered inadmissible because of the way it was collected.
dial_100 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 They should use 3rd umpire to make a decision at the end of the over if someone is backing up too far. If there are more than 3 occurrences of backing up more than 1 feet out of crease then third umpire can give him out at the end of the over with the help of on field umpire. There should be a provision for on field umpire to warn him at the first occurrence of more than 1 feet of early start. So that captain of the fielding side can observe the non-striker and appeal to the umpire and game goes on. Third umpire looks at replays and decide of there are 3 occurrences and gives him out at the end of the over, even if he was not physically ran-out. Rest of the rule can still remain where fielding team can warn the non-striker for early start and run him out even if he is backing up less that 1 feet. It will be fair to both fielding as well as batting team and good that the third umpire will have some work to do. Especially in the tight situations, the last 2-3 overs, bowlers are concentrating on their bowling. There is no way he can watch the non-striker. Especially if only 2-3 runs be scored, third umpire giving out for early start would make sense and put more pressure on batting side to play fair game. It will apply to all. If not then at least a rule to take away all the runs from the total of the team where non-striker as taken early start of more than 6 inches out of the crease. No need to run him out. Just reduce those runs. They will only know it after the inning is over. Third umpire can decide that with the coach and 12th player of the batting team
Raghav_12 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Defending Jardine I can understand, but Chappell was an effing cheat when he asked his brother to bowl the underarm ball. Benaud called it the most disgraceful incident to happen on a field. IIRC there was criticism from the prime ministers of the countries too. A win attained by such means is hollow and I fail to see how it shows his balls, rather it showed his cowardice and lack of faith in the bowler to win on fair terms. What he did was legal, but completely unethical and hence was rightly criticized. It was like a criminal who was let off as the conclusive evidence was rendered inadmissible because of the way it was collected. You can't compare bodyline with underarm ball. Bodyline controversy was created on something which kind of became norm few decades later. Australians were just timid to cry out foul on seeing some short-pitch stuff. Underarm ball is something which became part of history following that incidence.
The Outsider Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 You can't compare bodyline with underarm ball. Bodyline controversy was created on something which kind of became norm few decades later. Australians were just timid to cry out foul on seeing some short-pitch stuff. Underarm ball is something which became part of history following that incidence. :hysterical::hysterical: Bodyline is illegal even today! Became the norm - the one time it was implemented in modern times a line up of Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Viswanath, and Amarnath ended up forfeiting the test.
Sachinism Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 We learnt nothing from the Bell incident. India deserved to be screwed. Its a shame Sehwag didn't think back to how he was denied that ton
nballa Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 I think the ICC should change the rule to automatically rule a batsman out or penalize the team x number of runs if the runner is out of the crease when the ball is not yet delivered. that should end all ridiculous discussions.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Defending Jardine I can understand, but Chappell was an effing cheat when he asked his brother to bowl the underarm ball. Benaud called it the most disgraceful incident to happen on a field. IIRC there was criticism from the prime ministers of the countries too. A win attained by such means is hollow and I fail to see how it shows his balls, rather it showed his cowardice and lack of faith in the bowler to win on fair terms. What he did was legal, but completely unethical and hence was rightly criticized. It was like a criminal who was let off as the conclusive evidence was rendered inadmissible because of the way it was collected. You are being too harsh on Chappell comparing him with a criminal. What he did was within the rules of the game and is very similar to appealing against the batsman for "handling the ball" when the batsman is trying to return the ball to fielding side, or replacing your unfit player with an outstanding fielder etc. Cheating and unethical are ball tampering, pitch tampering, claiming catches off bump balls etc., i.e. doing something which is not permitted within the laws of the game.
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