Geraint's run out and the spirit of the game

[Neil Pickup]

Well... we had everything kick off because Muralitharan was run out for being an idiot but not attempting a run. Today, Geraint Jones got run out for being an idiot but not attempting to run.

I trust everyone's going to vote in the same places as they did on the other poll...?

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

For clarification:

Yes
33/3from3.3, age_master, Alysum, andmark, andyc, Anil, Anon E-Mouse, Armadillo, Arrow, aussie, BoyBrumby, Butterteeth, chaminda_00, Clapo, cric_manic, Dasa, dontcloseyoureyes, FaaipDeOiad, GeraintIsMyHero, Goughy, greg, gunner, haroon510, Jamee999, JF., Jono, KaZoH0lic, Kweek, Langeveldt, Laurrz, luffy, Mahindinho, marc71178, Matt79, Neil Pickup, nightprowler10, NZTailender, oz_fan, Perm, Poker Boy, Right arm fast, shortpitched713, silentstriker, Sir Redman, SirBloody Idiot, SJS, tadeusz, telsor, The Baconator, thedarkmullet, Tim, Tomm NCCC, Victrinox, vic_orthdox, zinzan12, _Ed_, _TiGeR-ToWn_ 57 65.52%

No
Adamc, archie mac, Bob Bamber, cameeel, chipmonk, C_C, dinu23, Drake, duffer, gink, grecian, honestbharani, jack_sparrow, James90, JASON, JBH001, Josh, kof98, LA ICE-E, legglancer12, mohammad16, Natman20, Nnanden, pasag, PhoenixFire, roseboy64, Sanz, shankar, SpaceMonkey, Tony Blade 30 34.48%

 

[Steulen]

Good thing I didn't vote in the first one, as it would have been a NO vote in Murali's case and it's a YES vote this time.

Walking to your batting partner to congratulate him on a ton with the ball being in a coma (i.e., nearly but not quite dead) is quite different from not attempting a run nor getting into the safety of the crease while the ball is being fielded at silly point. Besides, it's Geraint and I've always been a Read man.

 

[Dravid]

I didn't see this runout either, what happen?

 

[Dasa]

Pretty poor thread from such a member IMO. Just ****-stirring.

The situations aren't really comparable either - one was going to congratulate a team-mate on a century and (incorrectly) assumed the ball wasn't alive, while this was when the player was waiting for a decision and the ball was clearly in play. Very different situations.

Anyway, I have the same view I had of the Murali run-out. I can see why the Aussies did it and I can understand international players wanting to get wickets any way they can, but it's not something I would do.

 

[Nate]

LOL Neil.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Jones was gaining an advantage against Warne by coming so far out of his crease to play him. So Australia had every right to run him out. Murli was gaining no advantage, just trying to congratulate his friend on a well earned 100. Two entirely different scenarios.

 

[pasag]

Agree with Steulen, there is a difference between the two and I think it's unfair to say that voting No in that thread and Yes in this thread is being inconsistent. Also I think some people voted No in that thread as a knee-jerk sort of thing and when thinking about it more came around to the Yes side. I did tbh.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Pretty poor thread from such a member IMO. Just ****-stirring.

The situations aren't really comparable either - one was going to congratulate a team-mate on a century and (incorrectly) assumed the ball wasn't alive, while this was when the player was waiting for a decision and the ball was clearly in play. Very different situations.

Anyway, I have the same view I had of the Murali run-out. I can see why the Aussies did it and I can understand international players wanting to get wickets any way they can, but it's not something I would do.

There's a fine line between ****-stirring and playing Devil's advocate, isn't there?

And I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that the ball was only "clearly in play" for Geraint's incident... still, what I'm trying to get at is that one of the biggest arguments at the end of the thread was that run outs should only be allowed if the player involved is attempting a run - and I want to see if people are still standing by that...

 

[Adamc]

FWIW I voted in the other poll before I'd seen footage of Murali's runout. I voted on the assumption that Murali had a reasonable belief that the ball was dead; if I had realised that the ball was in mid-air when he left his crease I would've voted differently.

The Geraint situation isn't comparable at all. It's the same principle as a stumping, the batsman's attempting to gain an advantage by playing that far forward that he's out of his crease.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Jones was gaining an advantage against Warne by coming so far out of his crease to play him. So Australia had every right to run him out. Murli was gaining no advantage, just trying to congratulate his friend on a well earned 100. Two entirely different scenarios.

While the ball was being returned from the outfield.

 

[pasag]

I didn't see this runout either, what happen?

From Burgey's match report:

Attempting to sweep Warne, Jones was struck on the pad. While Adam Gilchrist and Warne appealed vociferously, Ponting at silly point had the presence of mind to underarm at the stumps while Jones' back foot was on the crease rather than behind it. After several replays the third umpire delivered the verdict - run out. Jones' dismissal was bizarre, a product of Ponting's quick-wittedness and the batsman displaying all the peripheral vision of a blinkered race horse trying to cross a six-lane highway.

 

[Slow Love™]

Haha, yeah, nice try but no cigar, Neil. I didn't think NZ were beyond the pale in executing the runout against Murali (I forgot to vote, but my position should be obvious from my post), but the situations aren't really equivalent.

I would have thought a better example was the one I gave in the original Murali thread from the other day's Ashes play - where Gilchrist rolled the ball at the stumps after KP left the crease to talk to his partner while the ball was still live. He (Gilchrist) missed, but you'd have to assume that given he tried, he certainly would have appealed for the run-out.

 

[silentstriker]

I think both runouts were OK, but the situations aren't comparable.

 

[GIMH]

I've no problem with it tbh.

I've always wondered what the reaction would have been if Hoggard had ran out McGrath when given the chance at OT last year. I know it's not the same; just interested.

 

[Nate]

If Ponting wasn`t there, Jones might`ve attempted a run. Game onnnn.

 

[Ikki]

Um, nah, 'cause it pretty much ended England's hopes. Considering the series is over so early it doesn't seem 'sporting' - you gotta give the little guys their hope. I'm with Neil on this one.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah I was going to make this thread actually. Agree with Neil.

 

[steds]

Um, nah, 'cause it pretty much ended England's hopes.

We had hopes?

 

[Bob Bamber]

If the ball strikes Jones on the side of the pad , goes into Gilchrists gloves and he stumps him there is nothing wrong with it. Completely OK for me.