nightprowler10
Global Moderator
Or how about making a law saying that "a batsman shall not leave his crease unless making a run while the ball is in play".honestbharani said:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Murali's run out and the spirit of the game.
- Thread starter PhoenixFire
- Start date
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The question should be, Jack, how many of this team would say that the under arm incident was ok and there was nothing wrong with it?vic_orthdox said:How many of this team were involved in the underarm incident?
cameeel
International Captain
That's got nothing to do with it. The debate doesn't concern any potential rules changes, and probably won't ever concern them._Ed_ said:
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.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
That would work too, but we will have come up with a new term for that mode of dismissal, since, "run out" means you were trying to take a run and were caught short of the crease.nightprowler10 said:
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I completely disagree with the implication that if you thought that the underarm incident was wrong, that you must think that the fault here lies with NZ.honestbharani said:
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
vic_orthdox said:
Well said. I agree.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Bowling under arm was allowed by the law then, but was thought of to be against the spirit of the game. Same scenario here. I accept that this didn't decide the outcome of the game, but still, as far as the spirit of the game is concerned, this is the same for me.vic_orthdox said:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Its the same thing. You either think both are OK, or neither.vic_orthdox said:
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
Its not quite as black and white and you're making it seem.silentstriker said:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Not quite - but almost.nightprowler10 said:
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
silentstriker said:
I don't.
But then I'm a hypocritical, one eyed, biased, un-sporting Kiwi. We're a terrible lot.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
NZTailender said:I don't.
But then I'm a hypocritical, one eyed, biased, un-sporting Kiwi. We're a terrible lot.
Eh? Thanks for making up stuff I never said?
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
And before you jump in with idiotic comments - I never said what NZ did was unsporting. I think they did the right thing, but I also think the underarm incident was ok, because following the laws of the game can never be 'unsporting'.
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
I'm sure its mentioned, but I have no problem with it. If the ball was thrown from the deep and the keeper missed it, I'm sure they would have had no problems taking overthrows. If anything, Murali was getting a 2m head start on a possible run.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
silentstriker said:
I never said you did, but others have been saying things to that effect etc.
Mahindinho
State Vice-Captain
Underarm's got nothing to do with this - that was a tactic used in cold blood, and thoroughly thought through. Okay, so McCullum knew what he was doing, but it was all over in a matter of seconds - as the WK, he had a job to do, and he did it.
Overthrows also have nothing to do with it - the onus is on the fielder to hit those stumps (or the wickie's gloves, at least).
There's nothing wrong with what NZ did, and Murali clearly had a moment of madness - it's definitely his fault, not McCullum's or the ump's. It doesn't mean that I have to like it, though.
Take backing up as an example - it'd be considered extremely bad form for a bowler to run a batsman out without giving him a warning first. In this case, the batsman is actually trying to gain an unfair advantage - surely he'd deserve to be run out regardless?
If NZ had decided not to appeal (I admit that this would be a difficult thing to "not do" on the spur of the moment though), I think they'd be lauded, and deservedly so - they'd be performing a gentlemanly act and that deserves praise.
So...
No, there's nothing wrong with it...but just because it's not wrong, doesn't make it right.
Overthrows also have nothing to do with it - the onus is on the fielder to hit those stumps (or the wickie's gloves, at least).
There's nothing wrong with what NZ did, and Murali clearly had a moment of madness - it's definitely his fault, not McCullum's or the ump's. It doesn't mean that I have to like it, though.
Take backing up as an example - it'd be considered extremely bad form for a bowler to run a batsman out without giving him a warning first. In this case, the batsman is actually trying to gain an unfair advantage - surely he'd deserve to be run out regardless?
If NZ had decided not to appeal (I admit that this would be a difficult thing to "not do" on the spur of the moment though), I think they'd be lauded, and deservedly so - they'd be performing a gentlemanly act and that deserves praise.
So...
No, there's nothing wrong with it...but just because it's not wrong, doesn't make it right.
Langeveldt
Soutie
Seems a bit weird that people are standing up for him, I don't know who Murali thinks he is, but cricketing protocol demands that you don't wander out of your crease while the ball is being collected by an outfielder.. Even an under 7 cricketer knows that..
I'd have waited for him to return from congratulating Sangakkara and would have ran him out just before he got back to the crease, get the third umpire involved and make it even more fun..
I'd have waited for him to return from congratulating Sangakkara and would have ran him out just before he got back to the crease, get the third umpire involved and make it even more fun..
C_C
International Captain
Because it was, plain and simple, unsporting put simply.NZTailender said:
It has been demonstrated here that McCallum knew Murali wasnt attempting a run and i am sure you dont need to be told that you can be 'technically correct' and a 'illegitimate child' at the same time.
'Underarm' and this incident are definitely comparable in that both are clearly breaches of the the spirit of the game. But underarm was far more egregious and something which very few other teams would have done whereas this is a minor transgression and one which most other teams, if not all would have indulged in.
