What's spirit of the game have anything to do with DRS?
PS: I'm in favour of DRS being imposed on teams.
Cricket:India's tour of England 2011
- Thread starter The Taurean
- Start date
What's spirit of the game have anything to do with DRS?
PS: I'm in favour of DRS being imposed on teams.
There was no tricking. We did not work on this play in training grounds. PK is a rubbish fielder and he was not even clued up as to if he saved the four or not. It is plain and simple Bell's fault for making a stupid assumption, be it assuming it was four or that tea has been officially called. The fact Morgan himself sort of gestured Bell to go back, indicates the case was not as clear cut.
The spirit of wanting a fair game/correct decisions.
I said he was unintentionally 'tricked'.
I agree with the Indians, Hawkeye is shit and should have no part in sport.
Sanjays point was fairly irrelevant and un-neccessary TBH.
This incident will be repeated extremly rarely in the next 100 years of Cricket.
The human error of umpiring is long accepted as a part of Cricket.
Players 'tricking' or misunderstanding situations should not result in an advantage to any one team or person.
IMO
I understand this was a rarity, and Dhoni, and Indians showed class in reversing the decision. However, his point stands. Spirit of the game should be the norm.
Yeah, and let's ban photo finish technology in races and all.
Errrr even then there was no tricking involved. If I wander off my crease, then I won't accuse opposing side of tricking me if they run me out.
If any party if to blamed in this situation it is Umpires and Bell. We did what was right and when Strauss/Flower begged us to give Bell a reprieve, we obliged given how few joys English cricket team normally experience.
Kumar's body language made it out as a 4, the fielders around the wicket started heading off the field as did Bell, that's when he was stumped.
What you did was against the spirit of the game, plain and simple. Fortunately Dhoni eventually made the correct decision.
Umpires never called "over" whilst the ball was live. Bell lied whilst going off.
It's the same as this situation:
Bowler bowls the ball. It hits the stumps. Batsmen thinks he's out and walks out of his crease to leave the field. Oops, the umpire had called a no-ball which the batsman didn't notice. The wicket keeper whips the bails off. Out? It shouldn't be.
Cricket isn't about being fooled by whether the ball is dead or not, it's a game of skill and judgement.
I don't think many people gave a bonkers about the no1 ranked test/odi ranking till this year, and i am sure a lot of people still don't care about it.
Fact of the matter is England are comfortable favorites in this game now, India have been outplayed once again.
All Bell said was 'He called over'. Which he did.
...and laws
Photofinish technology works, Hawkeye doesn't (which is why you no longer see video replays in tennis).
Once again, praveen kumar wasn't even a bit trying to cheat - he had no clue what was going on. He just threw the ball back to dhoni gloves.
Agreed. Though he made out it was a four which fooled Bell. You don't normally lie off the pitch looking at the ball for a few seconds if it isn't dead.
Hawkeye is more accurate than the human eye. A lot more accurate.
Exactly, it was unintentional as you keep having to point out but it seemed the only logical thing was that the ball had gone for a 4.
Non sense.. even then it is batsmen's job to notice Umpire calling no ball or Umpire's responsibility to convey that to batsmen before he walks off...
It is a bit like GK walking off thinking it is half time when it is not. Should the opposing side not try to score a goal then?
You're comparing two completely different sports, one is all about sportsmanship and another is more about gamesmanship.
Basically Dravid summed it up when he said that if the roles were reversed, India would not be have been happy about it.
And thus the spirit of Cricket has been respected.
And thus the spirit of Cricket has been respected.
Just as in football you play to the whistle we were coached to play to the Umpires call from a very early age.
Bell made a basic mistake. India were magnanimous.
Correct. We did it because we are not cheating twats or cretins like Aussies.
Actually, you're wrong here. This example is specifically covered in the laws of the game, which is why I used it.
It's a similar situation to the one today.
But that is bollocks. All Dhoni had to do was not appeal and problem solved.
There is no playing to any whistle issue here. You could tell Dhoni was reluctant in the first place.
That is the exact reason why the sports aren't comparable. You don't have to appeal in football. In cricket a wicket is at the discretion of the fielding team, in football the referee's decision is final.
Yes, but I suspect Strauss wouldn't have been as sporting.
His past record indicates that he would, what with the Matthews decision that happened under his captaincy.
That's not opening for me, Mike. Wasn't there a similar situation involving NZ and England which resulted in a NZ player being given out?
M Atherton
"spirit of the game has subverted the laws of the game"
"spirit of the game has subverted the laws of the game"
Exactly as it should be.
That was under Collingwood's captaincy. Strauss recalled the player in the same situation: Controversial collision: Strauss recalls Mathews :: The largest library of cricket videos
The NZ batsman was taken out by the bowler. England ran him out. Umpire asked the England captain if he would reconsider in spirit of the game - he declined.
Anyone want to answer why the incident today is different to the law of the game I stated in post #1306?
In accordance with the spirit of the game, it's clear the laws (though not explicit for every situation) indicate that a batsmen should not be given out if they leave their crease under a misapprehension.
In accordance with the spirit of the game, it's clear the laws (though not explicit for every situation) indicate that a batsmen should not be given out if they leave their crease under a misapprehension.
What??? No way. England would never ever ever do that!!
That was Collingwood to be fair and not Strauss. And Collingwood has said he regrets that decision, he didn't have the chance to review the decision during a break and on the spot made the wrong call in my opinion, particularly as the NZ batsman unlike Bell did nothing wrong. Bell was lucky that the decision was able to be reviewed by Dhoni and India during Tea.