Should Smith have been allowed a runner?

[JBH001]

This was my point earlier about umpires foisting the responsibility onto Strauss.

Although, partly it may also be, that informally fielding captains have begun to give permission in cases where the umpires were uncertain.

Again, I think Strauss is being hard done by.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Wasn't being entirely serious.

However, particularly in the middle to latter stages of an ODI, running between the wickets is a hugely important part of batting. If you're not fit enough to run, then IMO you're not fit enough to bat. Either man up and bat and run through the pain, or get your arse off the field.

Yeah agree with this, by all means retire hurt and if you have to get some treatment in the changerooms and come back out later that's fine. You don't have a right to a runner because you cramp up though.

 

[Smudge]

I'm interested in this, as many years ago a fellow played at our club for a team at a reasonable level who had polio as a child, and as such could hardly walk. He batted at 11 and stood at slip (when he fielded). I don't think he was ever refused a runner by another team.

I realise this is a very different situation to the one involving either Smith or the fella you're talking about, but I wonder whether it comes down to the level you're playing at when deciding these things.

The other issue was that this particular batsmen was ****ing boring, and a **** of a man to go with it - which made our decision easier.

 

[pup11]

Yeah. Cramping can be ****ing agony. It's unsporting to ask someone to keep running in extreme pain, and comments like "it's just because he's unfit!!" just seem mean-spirited to me. Having a runner puts you (and the guy at the other end) at a big disadvantage regarding running between the wickets anyway.

No, I'm with Struass on this one, cramping is a conditioning and fitness issue and it has been a consatnt problem with Smith in particular, a lot of times he has played a longish innings he has eventually cramped up, so Strauss was well within his rights to deny him the runner.

Anyways, I just don't like the idea of having a runner, as a batsman if despite an injury if you are willing to stay out there and bat, then you should also try to run your own runs, and if you are not in the condition of doing that, then just come off the field, it should be just as simple as that.

 

[marc71178]

Just a small point to counter the Strauss attack here, remember Edgbaston this year?

He could've easily refused to let Manou play - yes it would've a harsh call, but there'd have been nothing that anyone could've done about it if he'd said no.

OK, not strictly speaking the same as a runner here as in that case, Haddin was actually injured, but if events prior to that in the series can be used to attack him, surely this can be used to defend him?

Unfortunately this furore is beginning to overshadow what actually happened on Sunday (in terms of SA failing yet again when the expectation was on) - and the margin of victory does suggest to me that it was an irrelevant point.

 

[pup11]

Just a small point to counter the Strauss attack here, remember Edgbaston this year?

He could've easily refused to let Manou play - yes it would've a harsh call, but there'd have been nothing that anyone could've done about it if he'd said no.

OK, not strictly speaking the same as a runner here as in that case, Haddin was actually injured, but if events prior to that in the series can be used to attack him, surely this can be used to defend him?

Unfortunately this furore is beginning to overshadow what actually happened on Sunday (in terms of SA failing yet again when the expectation was on) - and the margin of victory does suggest to me that it was an irrelevant point.

I don't think there is any need to count Strauss' good and bad deeds here, the thing is Strauss was well within his rights to deny Smith a runner there and I'm glad he did that, because its high time that this topic was discussed within the ICC, and I hope they scrap the use of runners completely from the game.

 

[shivfan]

Just for the record, I thought Strauss was extremely sporting when he called Angelo Mathews back the crease, and deserves all the kudos coming his way for upholding the spirit of the game in the match against Sri Lanka....

However, the opposite has happened here, and Strauss deserves any criticism coming his way. Especially since England batsmen have used runners for batsmen who've suffered from cramp this decade, including Trescothick and Bell, as far as I can remember. There is also a columnist on the BBC who recalls an ODI last year in India when Shah and Prior developed cramps and used Bell as a runner.

So, this sudden change of attitude by Strauss towards using a runner for cramp is a bit disingenuous, and it will be interesting to see how long he and his team maintain that stance....

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

ICC backs Strauss in runner controversy | Cricket News | ICC Champions Trophy, 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Take that 'yes' people

 

[Lillian Thomson]

ICC backs Strauss in runner controversy | Cricket News | ICC Champions Trophy, 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Take that 'yes' people

Being backed by the ICC doesn't add to an individual's credibility.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Anyways, I just don't like the idea of having a runner, as a batsman if despite an injury if you are willing to stay out there and bat, then you should also try to run your own runs, and if you are not in the condition of doing that, then just come off the field, it should be just as simple as that.

Yeah I agree, Smith does have a choice and he wasn't asked to continue in agony. His other option is to retire hurt. He obviously thought it was important for him to be there at that stage and so he didn't want to do that. If I was him I'd be cursing the cramp for coming when it did, not Strauss.

 

[shivfan]

I was just about to post that article....

What amuses me is that, once again, the ICC makes policy on the hoof!

It's a pity they didn't announce this before the tournament started. After all, earlier this month the umpires had no problem allowing Tendulkar to have a runner when he developed cramp in the ODI series in Sri Lanka. But, I suppose, it's better late than never. I hope this now means that there will be a lot more consistency in terms of decisions re cramp and runners in future.

 

[Kyle]

Dont know about substitute fielders rulings, although in my view that is also happening far too much of late (and not just for toilet breaks and on field niggles and the like). But in that case, Shah was in the wrong and should have stayed on the field. I did notice too, that soon after that 'ruckus' Shah returned to the field and took a catch (Smiths?). So Flower probably, and quite wisely, sent him out. Regardless, it is another area of the game that needs clamping down.

That's just it, it's the exact same law.

 

[GIMH]

Fair enough, I thought they were separate laws and retract my stance on that bit.

 

[andyc]

As a few others have mentioned, I think there should be more scrutiny of the umpires in this case. Nowhere in the laws that Sanz posted a few pages back does it say that the opposing captain has any say whatsoever in allowing a runner or a substitute fielder. Surely, if you're an international umpire, you shouldn't be just deferring anything you're not sure about on to the opposition captain?

 

[Kyle]

As a few others have mentioned, I think there should be more scrutiny of the umpires in this case. Nowhere in the laws that Sanz posted a few pages back does it say that the opposing captain has any say whatsoever in allowing a runner or a substitute fielder. Surely, if you're an international umpire, you shouldn't be just deferring anything you're not sure about on to the opposition captain?

Agreed, it was incosistent and bad umpiring, especially at international level. But since Strauss was asked, he should have either taken the moral high ground and agreed or stated it wasn't his decision and walked away. The absolute last thing he should have done was emphatically shake his head and say no - that's where it became unsporting.

 

[Furball]

Agreed, it was incosistent and bad umpiring, especially at international level. But since Strauss was asked, he should have either taken the moral high ground and agreed or stated it wasn't his decision and walked away. The absolute last thing he should have done was emphatically shake his head and say no - that's where it became unsporting.

How is it unsporting to deny someone a runner?

In ODIs particularly, if you're incapable of running then you're incapable of batting.

 

[Kyle]

How is it unsporting to deny someone a runner?

In ODIs particularly, if you're incapable of running then you're incapable of batting.

Because he knew it wasn't his choice. And he was flaunting the exact same rule at the exact same moment, having Bresnan on for Shah. Unless Badfieldingitis has become a recognised illness?

 

[GIMH]

Jesus, go have a cry or something

 

[biased indian]

so will they remove anwars record now ??

try to solve the issue for ones and all rather than keeping the side of umpire or players if you have law that cannot be interpreted in 2 way there would not have been any confusion in the first place

 

[Furball]

Because he knew it wasn't his choice. And he was flaunting the exact same rule at the exact same moment, having Bresnan on for Shah. Unless Badfieldingitis has become a recognised illness?

Pretty sure when the umpires ask a captain, it becomes their choice.