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

[Josh]

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

Having been the victim of a mankad myself (it being illegal under both the old rules and new rules, but umpires didn't know what the **** they were doing), it certainly isn't a pleasant feeling. Didn't help that we needed 10 off 12 to win the premiership and I was the last batsman, either.

 

[marc71178]

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 nothing like the same thing - the underarm was callous and planned.

This was spur of the moment and McCullum reacted on instinct when receiving the throw (since it very much looks like he didn't know where Murali was until he turned and saw him not in the crease)

 

[Matt79]

Two questions in the original post - so two answers: Yes, NZ were right to run him out. They didn't lure him out of the crease by pretending they weren't interested in running him out, or deceive him in anyway - also, it's not like anyone claimed a catch they knew didn't carry or had impeded him from making his ground. He just had a brain explosion and forgot what he was doing - in a professional match for your country you're obligated to take advantage of such lapses.

And Yes, the spirit of cricket should mean something, but that something should include playing as hard as you can against your opponent, WITHIN the law. As happened here.

 

[andyc]

Having been the victim of a mankad myself (it being illegal under both the old rules and new rules, but umpires didn't know what the **** they were doing), it certainly isn't a pleasant feeling. Didn't help that we needed 10 off 12 to win the premiership and I was the last batsman, either.

Good to see you're not bitter about it though.

 

[Tim]

FFS, you play to win. NZ were quite within the laws to make the run-out, the wicket was served to them on a plate..not their problem. As far as im concerned, if the ball has not returned to the keeper and a batsmen is wandering out of his crease, then he's entitled to be run out. It was a typical #11 brain explosion.

Ask most other sides and privately im sure most of them would agree that in the heat of a test match, they'd make the play.

 

[Josh]

We know it was within the laws, but the question asks if it's in the SPIRIT OF THE GAME.

And quite frankly, it isn't. Then you can argue the point that Murali shouldn't be so damn stupid as to walk down the pitch before the ball is dead, but relating your argument to the LAWS probably has nothing to do with the question in the end.

The LAWS and the SPIRIT are different things.

 

[Tim]

The spirit of the game doesn't apply in this situation when the ball is still in play and the batsman has gone walk-abouts. Murali is a genuine #11 but he has enough experience to know that the first thing he should do is wait till the play is complete before moving out of his crease!

 

[Josh]

I think it's because it was the fact that he was celebrating his partner's 100 that might bring the spirit of the game into play.

Yes, the laws say you can do it, but in my opinion, it was a complete dog's act.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Spirit of the Game isn't about covering up for the opposition's mistakes.

 

[Bob Bamber]

Murali made a mistake. Plain and simple. But I don't think whipping the bails off was in the spirit of the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3ObXmALrRk

If anyone wants to see it again its about 1 - 2 minutes in.

 

[Tim]

typical, the underarm incident gets wheeled out by a few idiots. Most of whom weren't even alive that day.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Spirit of the Game isn't about covering up for the opposition's mistakes.

Hear hear.

 

[NZTailender]

Murali made a mistake. Plain and simple. But I don't think whipping the bails off was in the spirit of the game.

FFS. What game was everyone watching? If you watch that video, you can plainly see McCullum has his back to Murali while he's completing his run. He still have his back to Murali when he touches the bat down. He still has his back to him, as Murali walks out of his crease.

McCullum collects the ball, twirls around, sees Murali out of his crease and immediately whips the bails off.

He doesn't ask "hey Murali, are you going to congratulate your partner" and the whip the bails off, knowing that he is. He saw him out of his crease, and hit the stumps.


All this "against the spirit of the game" bollocks is being said with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[NZTailender]

It's nothing like the same thing - the underarm was callous and planned.

This was spur of the moment and McCullum reacted on instinct when receiving the throw (since it very much looks like he didn't know where Murali was until he turned and saw him not in the crease)

Well said. That's what I've been trying to say all along. Marc has summed it up perfectly.

 

[pasag]

Yep if he was acting instinctively, which you can't really tell from the youtube clip, then there is no way in a million years you'd be able to fault him and 'spirit of the game' doesn't apply at all.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

I think the quote that says it all is "The Game doesn't stop because someone scores a hundred." There have been much, much more unsporting gestures than this and if you want to win, you have to be ruthless. NZ were well within their rights

 

[Isolator]

Since it was mentioned, what do people think of mankading? I think it should be allowed. Batsmen have no business leaving their crease before the ball is bowled.

 

[NZTailender]

We were taught to keep our bat in the crease at all times, though have our body outside the crease, ready to run.

As a bowler, I was taught (at school level etc) that fi you're running in and you see the batsman out of his crease, you stop when you'd bowl and sort of motion to the wickets and the crease, but not remove the bails.

However, if the same batsman does it again you're free to get him out in that fashion, because he had been warned effectively.

 

[Krishna_j]

In a test match in Mumbai in 1981 ind vs eng the test debutant Krish Srikkanth wandered out of his crease to tap the pitch after edging a ball to slip which was fielded and in play and was adjudged run out though he was'nt taking a run - not too much protests then and poetic justice India won handsomely

Another famous instance of DEAN JONES bowled off a no ball in a test match in West Indies in the 90's and walking off not hearing the call and the West Indies ran him out !!

 

[archie mac]

FFS. What game was everyone watching? If you watch that video, you can plainly see McCullum has his back to Murali while he's completing his run. He still have his back to Murali when he touches the bat down. He still has his back to him, as Murali walks out of his crease.

McCullum collects the ball, twirls around, sees Murali out of his crease and immediately whips the bails off.

He doesn't ask "hey Murali, are you going to congratulate your partner" and the whip the bails off, knowing that he is. He saw him out of his crease, and hit the stumps.


All this "against the spirit of the game" bollocks is being said with the benefit of hindsight.

Even it that was true (and i doubt it) why didn't they call the batsman back?