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

[PY]

Can't help but feel there wouldn't be as much of a storm if it wasn't Murali.

 

[honestbharani]

Then he shouldn't have been complacent and waited for the ball to be returned to the keeper, ffs.

no one is saying what Murali did was right. That is why, had NZ taken the high road and not appealed, it would have been a very SPORTING act. I really don't get why you are having such a tough time understanding this.


As another poster mentioned earlier, what NZ did was not wrong. But that doesn't mean they did the right thing either. They did the normal thing when they had the chance to do a sporting thing. And sporting gestures are more common in cricket than in most other sports. So it is not too much to expect a sporting gesture from a cricket team.

 

[honestbharani]

You what?

I watched the video - he was watching the ball into his gloves then took the bails off and appealed - are you telling me that all that time he was watching Murali and it was magic he caught the return and took the bails off without watching the ball?

no, I think he or Fleming could have withdrawn the appeal after they got hold of the circumstances as to why Murali left his ground.

 

[honestbharani]

Okay, so it is not OK for NZ to run Murali out, but you would have no problem with them taking overthrows?

would have been tough seeing that Sanga had already started celebrating his hundred.

 

[NZTailender]

no one is saying what Murali did was right. That is why, had NZ taken the high road and not appealed, it would have been a very SPORTING act. I really don't get why you are having such a tough time understanding this.


As another poster mentioned earlier, what NZ did was not wrong. But that doesn't mean they did the right thing either. They did the normal thing when they had the chance to do a sporting thing. And sporting gestures are more common in cricket than in most other sports. So it is not too much to expect a sporting gesture from a cricket team.

So basically, NZ haven't been un-sporting, they just didn't jump on a chance to be sporting and friendly to Sri Lanka? Fair enough. I can see that, and probably agree but IMO they weren't "un-sporting" or "disgraceful" as has been said.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh ok.. the traditionalists say the game is still a gentleman's game so let's all agree shall we? I'm sorry but I think what happened back in 1977 changed all that. It wasn't The Establishment that won that battle.

I have no problem with some slack being applied. I'd have a problem with this if McCullum stood there ball in hand waiting for Murali to leave his crease instead of sending it on its way back to the bowler. But that's not what happened. The BALL WAS IN THE AIR on its way back to him. Why shouldn't NZ whip the bails off? Murali could have asked. He could have waited. It's really beginning to annoy me that everyone is pinning the blame on NZ when it was MURALI who made the error!!!

I'll pose another question. Another 20-30 runs would have been difficult for NZ to make. They said so themselves. I wonder if that is affecting SL's stance?

jeez. It WAS Murali who made the error and that is why it would have been SPORTING on the part of the Kiwis had they not appealed. Just like how it is SPORTING if a bowler warns a batsman for backing up too much at the non-striker's end and just like how it is SPORTING if a batsman walks after he nicks it even if the umpire doesn't give him out and the catch is taken. You do the SPORTING thing when you refuse to take advantage of an error by the opponent when the error is not reg. cricketing skills (I mean, batting, bowling or fielding).

 

[honestbharani]

So basically, NZ haven't been un-sporting, they just didn't jump on a chance to be sporting and friendly to Sri Lanka? Fair enough. I can see that, and probably agree but IMO they weren't "un-sporting" or "disgraceful" as has been said.

I am not sure if it was "disgraceful". That is a little OTT for me, but it def. was unsporting, as in what they did was the opposite of being sporting.

 

[honestbharani]

That is ridiculous reasoning, it is nothing like that.

If Murali's run out is against 'the spirit of the game,' then you have to say that taking overthrows would be as well. They would not have hesitated in taking overthrows, so why should NZ hesitate in running him out?

because they were not taking A RUN?


Simple, really.

 

[NZTailender]

I am not sure if it was "disgraceful". That is a little OTT for me, but it def. was unsporting, as in what they did was the opposite of being sporting.

No, the opposite of being sporting in this case would've been if McCullum had gotten the ball while Murali was in his crease and waited for him to get out of his crease before appealing for a run out.


But as we've established (from the video) he didn't know as he was taking the bails off.


NZ didn't do anything wrong, or anything right, in the sportsmanship area.

 

[honestbharani]

If you are going to argue on the basis of cricket being 'a gentleman's game' and the spirit of the game that goes with it - then it's very relevant because all of that was lost when the game became professional.

This whole thing about the 'gentleman's game' goes back to an era when you had 'gentleman' who were rich and you had commoners. It was a game for upper class people in England at the time it was created. I don't see how it's relevant now.

No one has given me a good reason yet as to why the rules should be applied differently simply because someone has made 100. Plenty of other batsmen have managed to avoid this situation by simply waiting until the ball was no longer live. Why are we suggesting that Fleming should have rewarded Murali for being stupid enough to wander out of his crease when the ball hadn't even got back to the keeper yet? Why are we trying to apply 1920 values to what was an amateur sport for the genteel in an era when it's big business and fully professional?

I see nothing wrong with a professional cricketer doing precisely what he is being paid for. Attempting to win a game of cricket.

Rules shud remain the same. Rules weren't written after seeing the intent behind it. The rule book "assumes" that a batsman would only leave his crease when the ball is in play to take a run or to "attempt" to take a run. It is obvious that in this case, it was neither and therefore, the rule should not be applied at that stage. And the action should have come from NZ themselves because once they appealed, the umpire had to give them out according to the rule. I actually guess that the umpire could have interpreted the rule better then and there and perhaps ruled NOT OUT. That is another point that needs discussion, I think.

 

[C_C]

I've certainly played cricket and will happily attest that it's impossible to be sure what someone is doing - let alone what they intend to do - when you're watching the ball come in from another direction.

On a side note, your supposed authority on this matter is really taking a hit from the fact that you don't even seem to be able to spell the player's name properly.

Err, if you've played cricket at any level higher than in your backyard, the above is simply not true. Close-in fielders must have spatial awareness and they demonstrate it every single day they are out in the middle.
Its utter BS to suggest that a wicketkeeper cannot tell the difference or sense that the guy is walking down the wicket rather than blitzing down it for a second run.
I don't care if McCallum or anyone swears that its impossible- they are simply being dishonest.

 

[Ikki]

surely then, it ceases to become SPORT, if you can't be sporting. If winning is everything, then there is something wrong in that person's head more than anything else.

It depends what fanciful way you wish to describe 'sporting'. There were SIMPLE rules in place and Murali forgot them and as a result got out. That's all there is to it

Do you still consider a batsmen out if he takes a half-swing, cancels his stroke, but still the ball hits his bat? What, he didn't mean to hit it (just as Murali wasn't intending for a run)?

Sporting is playing inside the rules and winning. If these things should be 'sporting' and are a big problem, then they should be in the rules.

 

[Ikki]

Ah yes, and everyone else is the epitome of virtue. You know, no one ever does things like pitch tampering, ball tampering, action tampeting or match fixing. Its all the evil Aussies. I blame western civilization TBH.

Hahahaha, becareful, once he gets really heated he'll make some racial generalisations too.

 

[luffy]

A wicket is a wicket no matter how you get it.

 

[JF.]

What an evil, evil cretin. Obviously you've never played cricket in 19th century England. Makes me feel sorry for your whole generation that will never understand the genteel values that we've honored for hundreds of years...

 

[JF.]

just the way they systematically sledged Smith and threw him off his wits end (fleming himself admitted that) and some of the statements he made against INdia in 2003 before the WC and the way they generally play these days. Not really surprised that being sporting doesn't figure high on their list.

You are delusional if you think it's only Kiwis. Imran Khan has admitted to ball tampering, the bookies largely reside in India, former SL captain Ranatunga once refused to shake Mark Taylor's hand after a match in which there were several heated exchanges (a REAL case of poor sportsmanship if you ask me), England had their bowlers constantly leaving the field last year while they brought one of the country's best fielders on. Flintoff was seen on live tv chatting with Fletcher as they both looked at his laptop. I'm sure others can think of countless other incidents.

Welcome to modern cricket.

 

[JF.]

yeah, but the point is, he DID run across only to congratulate his team mate on a hundred. Don't think it is too much to expect a bit of class and courtesy in sports.

You are deluding yourself if you think modern Test cricket is still just a "sport". Consider how much money some of these guys are on. Consider the amount of revenue it generates. Think about the sponsors .. etc....

It is a business and players are highly paid professionals.

 

[JF.]

Can't help but feel there wouldn't be as much of a storm if it wasn't Murali.

I thought that - but I didn't want to say it

 

[JF.]

jeez. It WAS Murali who made the error and that is why it would have been SPORTING on the part of the Kiwis had they not appealed. Just like how it is SPORTING if a bowler warns a batsman for backing up too much at the non-striker's end and just like how it is SPORTING if a batsman walks after he nicks it even if the umpire doesn't give him out and the catch is taken. You do the SPORTING thing when you refuse to take advantage of an error by the opponent when the error is not reg. cricketing skills (I mean, batting, bowling or fielding).

I see...so would you whinge so much if a guy knicked it and stood his ground?

Or if it wasn't clear that a catch had carried but the player said they caught it?

Come on..these things happen all the time. Build a bridge....

 

[JF.]

Rules shud remain the same. Rules weren't written after seeing the intent behind it. The rule book "assumes" that a batsman would only leave his crease when the ball is in play to take a run or to "attempt" to take a run. It is obvious that in this case, it was neither and therefore, the rule should not be applied at that stage. And the action should have come from NZ themselves because once they appealed, the umpire had to give them out according to the rule. I actually guess that the umpire could have interpreted the rule better then and there and perhaps ruled NOT OUT. That is another point that needs discussion, I think.

So it's not NZ sportsmanship that you are really moaning about, it's the rule itself?