Murali's run out and the spirit of the game.

[_Ed_]

You can't ignore the fact though that Sanga himself had an opportunity to run Astle out in a similar fashion at the recent CT Trophy.

Astle says he can't remember that happening...which probably means someone is being dishonest, which is a real shame.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I've been firmly in the "McCullum was right" camp since the beginning, but when people pointed out the similarity to the underarm incident, I initially struggled to come up with any compelling reason why the two are different.

However, now that I've had time to think it over, I can see that the only similarity is that both incidents were technically sanctioned by the laws of the game.

The differences are thus: while Muralitharan is largely, if not entirely to blame for his dismissal, Brian McKechnie and the NZ side played no role in the decision to bowl the underarm delivery, other than having scored all but seven of the required runs for victory up to that point.

Also, Murali's runout was a spur of the moment action on that part of McCullum, rather than a calculated, planned move, and at any rate, there's plenty of doubt as to whether McCullum even knew whether a run was being attempted or not.

In addition we have the comparative match situations. The result of the test was still very much undecided, and when you consider the players' professional obligation to do what they can to win, there really wasn't much option but to run Murali out. On the other hand, Trevor Chappell's underarm delivery was to a number 10 batsman who was just short of rubbish, and needed to hit a six just to tie the game - remember, New Zealand could not have won unless that last delivery had been a no-ball or wide.

In conclusion, I'll also register my bafflement over this so-called "spirit of cricket", when what is being spoken of is really no different than the general sportsmanship expected of any athlete, playing any sport.

One last point: I think a few Aussies are a bit ill-informed if they believe we kiwis are still upset about underarm. They'll tell sheep jokes, we'll hassle them about underarm

 

[JASON]

I commend Natman 20 for being the only Kiwi on this forum to be honest enough to say something wrong was done !!

Good on you Mate .

 

[Natman20]

I commend Natman 20 for being the only Kiwi on this forum to be honest enough to say something wrong was done !!

Good on you Mate .

Changed my mind

It was perfectly allright. It was Muralis fault and he should know the rules

 

[Krishna_j]

i dont think indians can say anything

not after gettin inzi out obstructing the field

Eng Steve Harmison took a pot shot at Inzy's girth and also got him out -run out - case of kettle calling pot black

 

[archie mac]

Hear hear!!! Cricket USED to be a gentleman's game. It hasn't been since Bodyline.

That is not right, Wally Grout refused to take the bails off in a Test Match in the 60s after the bowler had collided with the batsman

 

[chipmonk]

Astle says he can't remember that happening....

Ahh ... How very Convenient !

 

[shortpitched713]

That is not right, Wally Grout refused to take the bails off in a Test Match in the 60s after the bowler had collided with the batsman

Instances like those are so few and far between that they are notable when they happen. If the "Spirit of cricket" existed in any significant manner, then such occasions would be commonplace, and the fact of the matter is that they are not.

 

[honestbharani]

Look, according to the spirit of the game, a batsman should be "run" out if he is not attempting a run or attempting to get back to the crease after being sent back for a run. But there obviously was nothing wrong with wat McCullum did vis-a-vis the rule book. Murali should have shown more awareness there and I guess the Kiwis could have shown a little more class. But then again, given the way they (esp. under Fleming) have gone about stuff recently, it is too much to expect even a little bit of class and courtesy from this New Zealand side.

 

[JASON]

Changed my mind

It was perfectly allright. It was Muralis fault and he should know the rules

Let No Kiwi start whingeing about Under Arm incident ever again....They should know the rules.

 

[marc71178]

Why do you persist in trying to link an apple (the underarm) with an orange (the run out)?

 

[_Ed_]

They should know the rules.

Indeed we should, we should have been able to predict that the underarm would be bowled and somehow the batsman should have got between Trevor Chappell's hand and the ground and smashed the ball for six.

How stupid of us not to know, it was entirely our fault.

 

[_Ed_]

And besides, as a lot of people are saying it is completely different.

It is now against the rules to bowl a ball underarm, whereas I doubt it will become illegal to run out anyone who leaves their crease while the ball is live.

 

[archie mac]

Instances like those are so few and far between that they are notable when they happen. If the "Spirit of cricket" existed in any significant manner, then such occasions would be commonplace, and the fact of the matter is that they are not.

Tbf, it is not like these things happen every match, so players do not always have the chance

1977 Randall given out caught behind, Rod Marsh called him back because he was not sure whether the ball had touched the ground

Would you like some more?

 

[nightprowler10]

Another instance, taken from Cricinfo:

Another such incident involved Javed Miandad and Rodney Hogg when Pakistan toured Australia in 1978-79. During the Test in Melbourne, Hogg tapped a ball to point where Miandad was standing. The ball came to a halt a few yards before Miandad. Thinking it to be a dead ball, Hogg left his crease to do a little bit of gardening on the pitch. Javed picked the ball up and stealthily walked upto the wicket and removed the bails. Hogg, after being given out by the umpire, kicked down the stumps in anger. Mushtaq Mohammad, the captain, withdrew the appeal and called back Hogg. But the umpire Clarence Harvey, officiating in his first Test, insisted on adhering to his 'out' decision.

 

[honestbharani]

Why do you persist in trying to link an apple (the underarm) with an orange (the run out)?

because they are both "fruits"?

 

[honestbharani]

And besides, as a lot of people are saying it is completely different.

It is now against the rules to bowl a ball underarm, whereas I doubt it will become illegal to run out anyone who leaves their crease while the ball is live.

I think there is fair grounds to make a law that says you can only be run out when you are "attempting a run" or "attempting to get back to the crease after deciding not to take a run".

 

[cameeel]

And besides, as a lot of people are saying it is completely different.

It is now against the rules to bowl a ball underarm, whereas I doubt it will become illegal to run out anyone who leaves their crease while the ball is live.

That's got nothing to do with it. The debate doesn't concern any potential rules changes, and probably won't ever concern them.

The comparisons between the underarm are - as Marc said - on the surface apples and oranges.

The argument comparing the two are that at the root of both incidents were unsporting acts that were technically within the laws of the game.
The underarm incident was a despicable act, and while the Murali run-out isn't quite so bad, it does deal with a similar debate on the merits of sportsmanship in the professional game.

The underarm incident - a legal incident - was an act of gamesmanship undertaken in a professional match that ensured a win. The run-out, while not guaranteeing the Kiwis a win, was also an act of gamesmanship in a (more) professional match. Ignoring the potential outcome of the game had Murali not been run-out, the incidents are at a basic level very similar - There's no doubt that running out the No. 11 when the non-striker is on 100 is beneficial to the fielding side.

I think that's the reason why people are calling this incident hypocrisy on the part of the New Zealand team.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think that's the reason why people are calling this incident hypocrisy on the part of the New Zealand team.

How many of this team were involved in the underarm incident?

 

[honestbharani]

That's got nothing to do with it. The debate doesn't concern any potential rules changes, and probably won't ever concern them.

The comparisons between the underarm are - as Marc said - on the surface apples and oranges.

The argument comparing the two are that at the root of both incidents were unsporting acts that were technically within the laws of the game.
The underarm incident was a despicable act, and while the Murali run-out isn't quite so bad, it does deal with a similar debate on the merits of sportsmanship in the professional game.

The underarm incident - a legal incident - was an act of gamesmanship undertaken in a professional match that ensured a win. The run-out, while not guaranteeing the Kiwis a win, was also an act of gamesmanship in a (more) professional match. Ignoring the potential outcome of the game had Murali not been run-out, the incidents are at a basic level very similar - There's no doubt that running out the No. 11 when the non-striker is on 100 is beneficial to the fielding side.

I think that's the reason why people are calling this incident hypocrisy on the part of the New Zealand team.

very well put.