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

[JF.]

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.

Flem pointed out that the game doesn't stop when someone scores 100 and he's right. How many other batsmen do you see leaving their crease when the ball is still live to go and congratulate their partner? Why didn't he just wait until he KNEW the ball was dead? Sorry, that's crap. And as others have said, SL would happily have taken the runs if there had been overthrows.

 

[gunner]

i dont think indians can say anything

not after gettin inzi out obstructing the field

 

[JF.]

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.

As long as it's a rule that everyone knows - as with the Murali runout - I have no problem with it.

All this business about etiquette and sportsmanship is well and good - but where was it when Jardine brought in Bodyline? This is Test cricket people. It's about winning. As Allan Border once said, "it's not tiddlywinks out there".

Murali should not have left his crease while the ball was still live. End of story.

 

[archie mac]

As long as it's a rule that everyone knows - as with the Murali runout - I have no problem with it.

All this business about etiquette and sportsmanship is well and good - but where was it when Jardine brought in Bodyline? This is Test cricket people. It's about winning. As Allan Border once said, "it's not tiddlywinks out there".

Murali should not have left his crease while the ball was still live. End of story.

In 1882 WG ran out Jones for leaving his crease to perform some gardening, that was condemned at the time and this should be condemned now

I love that cricket has some unwritten rules of sportsmanship, the captain should have called him back, shame on NZ cricket

 

[Jono]

i dont think indians can say anything

not after gettin inzi out obstructing the field

I hate when people act like this.

Because the Indian team did this, and say hypothetically I disagreed with what they did, because they were Indian and I'm an Indian cricket fan, despite disagreeing I can't criticise anything that has to do with the spirit of the game in any other circumstance?

In the end I agree with Inzy's dismissal, and Murali's dismissal, but that comment was stupid.

 

[silentstriker]

i dont think indians can say anything

not after gettin inzi out obstructing the field

LOL. Right. Because all of us Indian fans were out on the field when that happened.

 

[R_D]

LOL. Right. Because all of us Indian fans were out on the field when that happened.

Hey What you expect.. he's an Arsenal supporter
After watching it on youtube... my thoughts what the hell was Murali thinking, NZ team had every right to get him out i guess.

 

[NZTailender]

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

Because he was run out? Why do you think?

I love that cricket has some unwritten rules of sportsmanship, the captain should have called him back, shame on NZ cricket

Since when does the captain have the power to decide who is out and who is not out? They were trying to win a test. Murali was run out. End of story.

And don't say "shame on NZ cricket" either because every nation has been, and will be, guilty of "bad sportsmanship"

 

[_Ed_]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=4&ObjectID=10414764
This is a fantastic article. His point in the first few paragraphs is so true, especially with the ridiculous attitude the media seem to have towards the NZ cricket team, regarding it as out of the ordinary when NZ wins a match and "surprise surprise they've collapsed again" when we lose.

 

[marc71178]

i dont think indians can say anything

not after gettin inzi out obstructing the field

How is that relevant?

Inzy deserved to be given for what he did, can't blame India for it!

 

[C_C]

The Pro-kiwi clan here is approaching this in a fundamentally flawed way.
'spirit of cricket' is not about 'rights' and 'wrongs' but a gentleman's code of conduct on field.
Your wife has the 'right' to sue you at anytime....but it sure would be a 'low blow' for her to do it unless you really deserved it.
Technically the Kiwis were right to run out Murali but it was a gross violation of the spirit of the game because they knew Murali wasnt attempting a run.

 

[silentstriker]

The Pro-kiwi clan here is approaching this in a fundamentally flawed way.
'spirit of cricket' is not about 'rights' and 'wrongs' but a gentleman's code of conduct on field.
Your wife has the 'right' to sue you at anytime....but it sure would be a 'low blow' for her to do it unless you really deserved it.
Technically the Kiwis were right to run out Murali but it was a gross violation of the spirit of the game because they knew Murali wasnt attempting a run.

So, how does calling the mother of the batsman in the middle a slut fit into the whole gentleman's code of conduct? I don't think such a code exists really, and it shouldn't be a factor.

 

[NZTailender]

Same goes for short pitched deliveries, making the batsmen duck and weave.


Shouldn't we all bowl full tosses outside of leg to let the batsmen get off the mark?

 

[marc71178]

Technically the Kiwis were right to run out Murali but it was a gross violation of the spirit of the game because they knew Murali wasnt attempting a run.

How exactly did McCullum know that then?

 

[silentstriker]

How exactly did McCullum know that then?

McCullum did exactly the right thing, but are you claiming that McCullum thought it was a run?

 

[marc71178]

I don't think McCullum knew what was going on - he wasn't watching it, then took the return and instinctively went for the stumps - then he realiesed Murali was off being an idiot and correctly appealed.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think McCullum knew what was going on - he wasn't watching it, then took the return and instinctively went for the stumps - then he realiesed Murali was off being an idiot and correctly appealed.

Yea, thats probably right. Anyway, this whole gentleman crap is BS. You see an opportunity to take a wicket legally - you do it. It would be totally dumb to do anything else.

 

[Tim]

Cricket is a professional sport. The days of being charitable to the opposition are fading because players are under more pressure to win due to increased media coverage, increased money in the sport etc.

Trying to dig up the "Spirt of cricket" in this scenario is old-fashioned.

 

[Tim]

From what I saw. McCullum was watching Martin return the ball and on completion of the return noticed that Murali was not in his crease, so he was correctly entitled to make the run-out. If anything Murali was breaking the spirit of cricket by going to congratulate his partner too early.

 

[archie mac]

Because he was run out? Why do you think?





Since when does the captain have the power to decide who is out and who is not out? They were trying to win a test. Murali was run out. End of story.

And don't say "shame on NZ cricket" either because every nation has been, and will be, guilty of "bad sportsmanship"

The captain always has the right to call a batsman back, the umpire almost always allows this.

I know he was run out

I will write shame when ever the spirit of cricket is damaged by which ever team. It is in the preamble of the game after all