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

[nightprowler10]

Not to start another useless debate, but I wonder how many people agreeing with "legal = acceptable" think that Murali's action is just fine since its legal by ICC's definition.

 

[silentstriker]

Not to start another useless debate, but I wonder how many people agreeing with "legal = acceptable" think that Murali's action is just fine since its legal by ICC's definition.

It is just fine, because it is legal. I don't like it, but that doesn't mean its not OK. Meaning, I wouldn't no ball him.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

This is complete idiocy. You can't go wandering out of your crease at any time when the balls live, if you could, the stumping rule wouldn't exist because "you weren't attempting a run" you were just wandering out of your crease like a ****ing idiot.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Trying to find black and white out of greys.

Muralitharan was incredibly stupid to wander halfway down the wicket while the fielder was throwing the ball in to the keeper. What do you expect McCullum to do? "Excuse me, Muttiah, but you appear to have had a brain fart?" Abnormal game situation. No rule bending. Note no-one fussed when Mpofu had the same moron moment 16 months ago.

It is a completely different scenario to being underhand (it's midnight, I couldn't help myself) and bending a normal game situation.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I would put the same argument back to you .. If you use the same argument in this incident isn't that good reason for the Kiwis to not run this guy out in this manner ?

One can't draw a parallel, sorry. I wouldn't have said Sri Lanka were anything like "10 million (or even 100 million )to one" to win the game at that point &, moreover, even if they were it'd be a very poor reason for the opposition not to dismiss someone if they could.

As Neil pointed out, NZ weren't the architects of their own demise with the under arm incident, Murali very definitely was. He's a senior professional cricketer, not a child.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'd run a child out like that without a second thought anyway.

 

[NZTailender]

Jason, you're trying to say because NZ ran out Murali in this fashion, they have no sportsmanship.

I'm saying NZ have plenty of sportsmanship, and you're having a whinge because you can't believe anyone would be that stupid in getting themselves out in such a manner.

It was legal, it was within the professionalism of the game, and sportsmanship (as I said earlier) doesn't enter into it when the ball is live.

End of story as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not going to say anymore on the subject, because there's not much more I can say.

 

[silentstriker]

, and sportsmanship (as I said earlier) doesn't enter into it when the ball is live.

If that is true, and I agree that it is, then you have to agree that underarm ball was perfectly valid and had nothing to do with sportsmanship, right?

 

[LA ICE-E]

people get over it..heres the thing...just like walking out of the crease is idiotic...running him out knowing he wasn't going for the run is not good sportsmanship...

 

[NZTailender]

If that is true, and I agree that it is, then you have to agree that underarm ball was perfectly valid and had nothing to do with sportsmanship, right?

It was agreed to before the ball was bowled.

A live ball is once it's been released from the bowlers hand (IIRC) and until it's declared dead.

Edit: damn you SS for making post again in this thread.

 

[silentstriker]

It was agreed to before the ball was bowled.

A live ball is once it's been released from the bowlers hand (IIRC) and until it's declared dead.

Edit: damn you SS for making post again in this thread.

Eh? Yes, so if he bowled it underarm, the ball is live from when he left his hand. I don't understand. You're making up a distinction.

 

[nightprowler10]

There is a clear distinction between underarm and this runout. The laws did not say anything against underarm because they did not think of it, or didn't think anybody would try it, and the law was changed to ban underarm right away. You won't see them making a new law for Murali's situation.

 

[NZTailender]

Eh? Yes, so if he bowled it underarm, the ball is live from when he left his hand. I don't understand. You're making up a distinction.

No. If we're talking about sportsmanship and and the under arm ball, it's bad sportsmanship because it was agreed to before the ball was bowled. It's not the actual physical delivery that I didn't like about it, just that Australia decided beforehand that thats how they wanted to win the game.

However, it was within the rules of the game and they felt they needed to do that to win.

You have a canny ability to make people come back and post, SS

 

[silentstriker]

No. If we're talking about sportsmanship and and the under arm ball, it's bad sportsmanship because it was agreed to before the ball was bowled. It's not the actual physical delivery that I didn't like about it, just that Australia decided beforehand that thats how they wanted to win the game.

THat distinction does not make sense. If McCullum had decided before the game to 'run out anyone who leaves their crease to congratulate a team mate', would that have been not OK in your eyes?

 

[NZTailender]

THat distinction does not make sense. If McCullum had decided before the game to 'run out anyone who leaves their crease to congratulate a team mate', would that have been not OK in your eyes?

I don't have much problems if McCullum runs someone out if they're out of their crease while the ball is live, regardless of what they're doing. Despite all my posts on the subject, I didn't exactly celebrate the run out. It was just shoddy cricket all round.

 

[SJS]

I am rather old fashioned in such affairs but honestly if I did something like what Murali did and was run out, I would curse myself and walk out. It would be a nice gesture if McCullum did NOT run Murali out but its not such a devilish thing to do (today's context) as is being made out. It might look bad (not sure some wouldnt think it was sharp/smart thinking by the fielder if the match hung by a thin thread) but is it such a terrible terrible mean underhand trick? I am not so sure.

Must admit I havent seen the game or the clip (enjoying a fabulous winter in the Himalayas!!!) and it might look much worse from whats been described by some.

PS : Just by the way, suppose the throw to McCullum had gone ary and crossed the boundary for four overthrows, would Sri Lanka have "returned" those runs ?

 

[SJS]

The only thing that seems to make Murali seem not so stupid is if he looked up at the umpire as if to say "May I ?" and the umpire kind of nodded/acquiesed in response and Murali felt it was safe. But if that was so, it was the umpire who needed to have come to murali's rescue and not the NewZealanders.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I am rather old fashioned in such affairs but honestly if I did something like what Murali did and was run out, I would curse myself and walk out. It would be a nice gesture if McCullum did NOT run Murali out but its not such a devilish thing to do (today's context) as is being made out. It might look bad (not sure some wouldnt think it was sharp/smart thinking by the fielder if the match hung by a thin thread) but is it such a terrible terrible mean underhand trick? I am not so sure.

Must admit I havent seen the game or the clip (enjoying a fabulous winter in the Himalayas!!!) and it might look much worse from whats been described by some.

PS : Just by the way, suppose the throw to McCullum had gone ary and crossed the boundary for four overthrows, would Sri Lanka have "returned" those runs ?

you cant ask you runs on the other hand you appeal for the wicket...but i don't think if it was a over through they would have taken it....just because McCullum did it twice and everybody thinks spirt of cricket is bs doesnt mean it was a good thing...was right but not good....

 

[LA ICE-E]

The only thing that seems to make Murali seem not so stupid is if he looked up at the umpire as if to say "May I ?" and the umpire kind of nodded/acquiesed in response and Murali felt it was safe. But if that was so, it was the umpire who needed to have come to murali's rescue and not the NewZealanders.

that didn't happen but the umpire started walking to go to the other side for batsmen because muralis right handed and sangakkara is a lefty ...umpires dont just start walking when the balls still alive so i think murali saw him and thought he was safe but still not saying its any bodys fault but muralis for not know the rules but it was right thing but not a good one from NZ and a bad thing from the umpire for he should not have walked before the play was dead or made the gesture

 

[SJS]

you cant ask you runs on the other hand you appeal for the wicket...but i don't think if it was a over through they would have taken it....just because McCullum did it twice and everybody thinks spirt of cricket is bs doesnt mean it was a good thing...was right but not good....

I meant if the throw went wide in which case there wouldnt have been an appeal or am I missing something?

I never said anything about McCullum having done it twice.

Yes, I agree entirly with you it wasnt a good thing. No sir, it wasnt. But was it such a hugely evil thing as to cause such a furore....not so sure.