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

[ohtani's jacket]

Only in a sport like cricket would this be a big deal.

 

[pasag]

Only in a sport like cricket would this be a big deal.

It's not a big deal afaik. Not in the wider media and public anyways.

 

[NZTailender]

It's not a big deal afaik. Not in the wider media and public anyways.

To me a bigger deal is our middle order losing about 4 wickets for ten runs. Dire.

 

[_Ed_]

And 4 for 7 in the first innings!

When we bat like that I'm glad we don't play much Test cricket.

 

[Victrinox]

muralis runout in my opinion is silly school boy stuff!!!

Laughable!!

 

[silentstriker]

And 4 for 7 in the first innings!

When we bat like that I'm glad we don't play much Test cricket.

Combine the Indian top order and the NZ middle order and you will have the worst lineup in the history of the game?

 

[NZTailender]

Combine the Indian top order and the NZ middle order and you will have the worst lineup in the history of the game?

Nah, our top order hasn't been much better. Although Cumming seems to be a good solution for a few years.

 

[cameeel]

Can we also please end the comparisons to underarm?

Murali brought this on himself; NZ didn't.

Why? The comparisons between this and the underarm incident are justified. NZ cried foul about the 'appalling sportsmanship' of the Australian's actions (rightly) to the extent that their Prime Minister joined in. Now, they've gone and done the same thing, and expect the excuse the Aussies used back then to work now - It's within the rules of the game.

It's shocking hypocrisy on the part of the New Zealand team. While it's fine for them to play out of the spirit of the game (and within the laws), but it's a different kettle of fish when it's their team that suffers.

It was stupid of Murali to leave the crease, but he clearly tapped his bat down and there was no doubt as to his intentions, yet McCullum still took off the bails.

As SS said earlier, there's no way now that the Kiwi's can continue to label Australia or our player's behaviour as unsportsmanlike when they are guilty of the exact same thing.

 

[Jono]

Combine the Indian top order and the NZ middle order and you will have the worst lineup in the history of the game?

Have you had a look at SL's batting line-up lately?

 

[_Ed_]

It was stupid of Murali to leave the crease, but he clearly tapped his bat down and there was no doubt as to his intentions, yet McCullum still took off the bails.

I still disagree with this. McCullum was facing away from Murali and I'm not sure he knew what was going on. He caught the ball and saw that Murali was not in his crease and took the bails off, as you would expect a keeper to do.

 

[Jono]

But he realised Murali was walking and not meaning to run because he tapped Murali as if to say "You silly boy". The commentators even pointed this out.

 

[_Ed_]

Oh right, didn't see that. My mistake.

 

[NZTailender]

But he realised Murali was walking and not meaning to run because he tapped Murali as if to say "You silly boy". The commentators even pointed this out.

He realised after he took the bails off, yeah.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The more I watch it the worse it looks.

WTF is Murali doing? Why would the ball be dead? There is no way that ball could be considered dead. YOu cant just go wandering out of your crease whilst a throw is coming in.

Im changing my tune on this the more I watch. Previously it left a bad taste, now Im thinking if Murali wants to gift a wicket good luck to him.

I agree with this. It seemed a bit distasteful at first, but come on. It was just unbelievably stupid on Murali's part, and McCullum would have been doing his team a disservice if he didn't run him out.

This isn't a "spirit of cricket" issue at all. It's not equivalent to, say, a fielder claiming a catch he isn't sure he took. Murali left his crease while the ball was alive and was run out. The best equivalent example I can think of is an incident where a batsman assumes he'll get into his crease comfortably for an easy single or even returning after backing up, and a fielder throws the stumps down with his back turned. David Boon was run out like this in a test against India in 1991/92, and there was a similar incident in Australian domestic cricket a week or so ago. It's perfectly legitimate.

 

[NZTailender]

and there was a similar incident in Australian domestic cricket a week or so ago. It's perfectly legitimate.

Haddin ran out Simpson (IIRC) who was slowly walking back to his crease.
It was described as "smart, quick thinking" on the news as well, and I agree.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haddin ran out Simpson (IIRC) who was slowly walking back to his crease.
It was described as "smart, quick thinking" on the news as well, and I agree.

Yeah exactly. Simpson had his back turned, assuming he'd walk into the crease, Haddin threw the ball under arm with his gloves on from his keeping position and hit the stumps at the bowler's end to run him out. It was a brilliant run out, and the ball was live so sportsmanship doesn't enter into it.

The best point made in this thread in the one SJS made earlier, when he asked about overthrows. If McCullum had missed the ball, Sri Lanka would have taken any available runs without hesitation. Murali should never have left his crease, simple as that. At first I assumed, without having seen the incident, that the ball had stopped, and they'd picked it up and run him out. That'd be a different issue, but here the throw was on the way in. It's just inexplicable on Murali's part.

The underarm incident isn't comparable at all, but the Boon run out is. Unfortunately I forget the fielder involved, but the incident wasn't even mentioned twice.

 

[andyc]

For mine, it's on par with other bizarre dismissals. Like a ball being hit into a player, it getting caught in the players clothes, and the player taking it as a catch.

Or something like this, even.

Look, it was totally within the rules of the game, and there was nothing at all wrong with it, as you could see by the fact that the umpire straight away gave it out. It's Murali's fault for not waiting for the ball to become dead. As SJS said, if the throw had gone for four overthrows, or the fielder slipped, dropped the ball, and let it roll to the boundary, Sri Lanka would no doubt have happily accepted the runs. It's just clever thinking from NZ.

 

[Josh]

New Zealand are still dirty on the underarm incident, so I guess "spirit of the game" probably doesn't exist over there lol.

 

[archie mac]

I think all of this it is in the rules is missing the point.

Otherwise we would have players attempting a Mankad every other over, but no they warn the batsman.

How do we know that the Sri Lankans could not have put on another 100 runs?

Not cheating but 100% sharp practice

 

[adharcric]

The best point made in this thread in the one SJS made earlier, when he asked about overthrows. If McCullum had missed the ball, Sri Lanka would have taken any available runs without hesitation. Murali should never have left his crease, simple as that. At first I assumed, without having seen the incident, that the ball had stopped, and they'd picked it up and run him out. That'd be a different issue, but here the throw was on the way in. It's just inexplicable on Murali's part.

Definitely agree with the points you and SJS have made. Really, the only reason I was defending Murali earlier was because it appeared to me that he got a heads-up after seeing the umpire walking in. Perhaps it was just me but that's what I understood from the footage at first glance. If he didn't get approval from the umpire, there's nothing to discuss and Murali is completely at fault. If he did get some sort of tacit approval from the umpire, I reckon the umpire should have taken that into account before raising his finger. Now, at best he probably made an assumption and didn't get real approval so it's tough to defend Murali on this one. Can't really blame McCullum IMO.