**Official** New Zealand in England

[KiWiNiNjA]

Steve Davis - "The rain was just getting ridiculous, we couldn't have played an extra over. We had players out there who were GETTING WET. We cant have these professional atheletes getting wet, they could catch a cold. At the end of the day, we just have to be consistent, and considering we had stayed out in the rain for 20mins, common sense and consistency told us that we should go off."

 

[stumpski]

Would be interested to know whether match referee Srinath gave any consideration to reducing the interval. That's the sort of thing he's there for after all - not just for dealing with dissent.

 

[Nate]

Ian Smith absolutely distraught.

New Zealand supporters - have your back.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I wonder if the umpires even know what common sense is......

 

[GGG]

I've been to an ODI that was rain interupted and the break was only 10-15mins.

I though that was the norm?

 

[Richard]

Would be interested to know whether match referee Srinath gave any consideration to reducing the interval. That's the sort of thing he's there for after all - not just for dealing with dissent.

I wonder if the umpires even know what common sense is......

Apparently the ruling is unequivocal - there was NO choice but

I'd blame whichever I$C$C committee makes these regulations rather than the Umpires on this particular day for this one TBH.

 

[Jono]

For the record, going by the laws of the game I can understand that IF there leaves no room for discretion on the umpires behalf, then they had to go off, even if with one over to go. Playing devil's advocate and all.

My major gripe is with the 30 minute break in particular, although if there IS room for discretion (and I don't think there is, correct me if I'm wrong) by the umpire regarding whether to come off or stay on if there is 1 over left, as opposed to 2 or 5, then they should have used this discretion. I understand the slippery slope argument (if 1 over left, what about 1.3? What about 2.3? etc.), however, again I stress, IF THERE IS discretion allowed via the laws of the game, the umpires should have used it IMO.

If there isn't discretion allowed, then it should be to save the game from farces like this. Cricket is the only major game (baseball too?) where mere drizzle can send the players off. When you're dealing with millions of dollars, both relying on the results and on ticket sales/viewers, this **** can't go on.

But as I said, my biggest gripe is the 30 min interval. If apparently it was raining during that interval, well fair enough then, but was it raining the whole 30 mins? 10 minute break should have been minimum, and then ONCE it stopped raining after those 10 mins, play should ahve started immediately.

 

[cowboysfan]

I feel sorry for the Kiwis.This is a disgrace .somebody should have stepped up and ensured some fair play and they didnt.

 

[Jono]

Also, I don't think any blame should be put on Collingwood and the England team. This is a professional sport and there is a difference between breakign the spirit of the game, and gamesmanship. Going off when the umpires off you to, with one over left and a likely loss to occur, is not England's fault.

Its the administration (and possibly the laws) that need a real good look at.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I feel sorry for the Kiwis.This is a disgrace .somebody should have stepped up and ensured some fair play and they didnt.

This sort of thing usually happens to England not for, so i find it hard to feel sorry for the Kiwis, sorry! I actually find it rather amusing

 

[GGG]

Also, I don't think any blame should be put on Collingwood and the England team. This is a professional sport and there is a difference between breakign the spirit of the game, and gamesmanship. Going off when the umpires off you to, with one over left and a likely loss to occur, is not England's fault.

Its the administration (and possibly the laws) that need a real good look at.

This slowing the game down has been going on for years and nothing has ever been done. What can be done?

 

[Richard]

Also, I don't think any blame should be put on Collingwood and the England team. This is a professional sport and there is a difference between breakign the spirit of the game, and gamesmanship. Going off when the umpires off you to, with one over left and a likely loss to occur, is not England's fault.

Its the administration (and possibly the laws) that need a real good look at.

The reason Collingwood and co could possibly have their fairness of play called into question was that it was fairly obvious they were deliberately delaying the game as the would-be final over approached. Had it been started, it'd probably have been finished.

Not really all that surprising and players have cheated in far worse ways before - but it is a little disappointing.

 

[Richard]

For the record, going by the laws of the game I can understand that IF there leaves no room for discretion on the umpires behalf, then they had to go off, even if with one over to go. Playing devil's advocate and all.

My major gripe is with the 30 minute break in particular, although if there IS room for discretion (and I don't think there is, correct me if I'm wrong) by the umpire regarding whether to come off or stay on if there is 1 over left, as opposed to 2 or 5, then they should have used this discretion. I understand the slippery slope argument (if 1 over left, what about 1.3? What about 2.3? etc.), however, again I stress, IF THERE IS discretion allowed via the laws of the game, the umpires should have used it IMO.

If there isn't discretion allowed, then it should be to save the game from farces like this. Cricket is the only major game (baseball too?) where mere drizzle can send the players off. When you're dealing with millions of dollars, both relying on the results and on ticket sales/viewers, this **** can't go on.

But as I said, my biggest gripe is the 30 min interval. If apparently it was raining during that interval, well fair enough then, but was it raining the whole 30 mins? 10 minute break should have been minimum, and then ONCE it stopped raining after those 10 mins, play should ahve started immediately.

As I said earlier - I hope this game will have enough fuss kicked-up by enough parties that I$C$C will promptly look at changing the ruling so that anything with interruption can have the interval shortened - and anything where an innings of less than 30 overs has just been played-out has a 10-minute break regardless of all other circumstances.

As far back as the 1999 WC, regulations of some sort certainly existed allowing the interval to be cut if bad weather abounded - even for games where no overs had yet been deducted. It's not like nothing's ever been contemplated - it just hasn't been made watertight currently.

 

[GIMH]

We would never have conceded seven, it's us who were robbed

 

[Jono]

The reason Collingwood and co could possibly have their fairness of play called into question was that it was fairly obvious they were deliberately delaying the game as the would-be final over approached. Had it been started, it'd probably have been finished.

Not really all that surprising and players have cheated in far worse ways before - but it is a little disappointing.

Hmm, I agree in principle, but generally when judging someone I put myself in their position and ask would I have done the same thing. I probably would have, as captain of my national team.

I didn't watch the end mind you, so I am unsure as to what these specific tactics were. If they were talking to the bowler, changing the field etc. then I think its gamesmanship and not cheating. Its on the cusp of the spirit of the game, I acknowledge that. If it was worse (struggling to think, maybe ridiculous faking injury, calling for drinks or something, too late/early to think right now) then I see your point.

Anyway I still feel NZ were screwed, and I had money on NZ too so I will stop defending Collingwood and co.

 

[GGG]

Every international captain would have done the exact same thing.

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, I agree in principle, but generally when judging someone I put myself in their position and ask would I have done the same thing. I probably would have, as captain of my national team.

I didn't watch the end mind you, so I am unsure as to what these specific tactics were. If they were talking to the bowler, changing the field etc. then I think its gamesmanship and not cheating. Its on the cusp of the spirit of the game, I acknowledge that. If it was worse (struggling to think, maybe ridiculous faking injury, calling for drinks or something, too late/early to think right now) then I see your point.

Anyway I still feel NZ were screwed, and I had money on NZ too so I will stop defending Collingwood and co.

I am telling you...it was an obvious maiden on the way

 

[Scaly piscine]

Been playing on a Wii since this afternoon, come back to see this.

Gotta appreciate the little things in life. Hehehe.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, I agree in principle, but generally when judging someone I put myself in their position and ask would I have done the same thing. I probably would have, as captain of my national team.

No, absolutely. I said precisely that - not at all surprising, you can only expect people to employ all means in order to improve their team's chances which cannot be proven to be law-breaking or are not law-breaking because laws to outlaw them are not possible to pen. I highly doubt I'd have acted any differently, as you tend not to under heat-of-the-moment circumstances. That doesn't, though, mean you can't reflect and consider it's a little disappointing.

I didn't watch the end mind you, so I am unsure as to what these specific tactics were. If they were talking to the bowler, changing the field etc. then I think its gamesmanship and not cheating. Its on the cusp of the spirit of the game, I acknowledge that. If it was worse (struggling to think, maybe ridiculous faking injury, calling for drinks or something, too late/early to think right now) then I see your point.

Basically it was just standing at the start of Broad's run-up, doing nothing in particular. I'd say it was fairly obvious they were hoping for the Umpires to take them off the field. It was nowhere near as bad or blatant as Ramnarine-circa-Kensington-Oval-2001, but it wasn't exactly 100% fair-play.

 

[Jono]

I am telling you...it was an obvious maiden on the way

Yeah I should be happy that Collingwood and co. saved me money