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

[marc71178]

It has been demonstrated here that McCallum knew Murali wasnt attempting a run and i am sure you dont need to be told that you can be 'technically correct' and a 'illegitimate child' at the same time.

Sorry, but how has that been demonstrated?

The video linked on here shows him watching the ball being thrown in, not the batsman.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sorry, but how has that been demonstrated?

The video linked on here shows him watching the ball being thrown in, not the batsman.

No one should kid themselves that the keeper didn't know what he was doing. New Zealand know exactly what they did and are making no apology for it. There is no right or wrong answer to the "spirit of the game" question. As with any matter of opinion, it's completely subjective.

 

[mohammad16]

Seems a bit weird that people are standing up for him, I don't know who Murali thinks he is, but cricketing protocol demands that you don't wander out of your crease while the ball is being collected by an outfielder.. Even an under 7 cricketer knows that..

I'd have waited for him to return from congratulating Sangakkara and would have ran him out just before he got back to the crease, get the third umpire involved and make it even more fun..

how bout we all jump u to make it even more fun

 

[C_C]

Sorry, but how has that been demonstrated?

The video linked on here shows him watching the ball being thrown in, not the batsman.

Why do you wanna pretend you dont know cricket and how stuff occurs in cricket ?

 

[Ikki]

Guy got run out for being stupid - hey it happens. I'm not gonna pull the 'tisk tisk' bullcrap on NZ. Good on 'em. They're playing to win, not to socialise.

*prepares as C_C goes on some random and extreme example to hold a point*

 

[C_C]

Guy got run out for being stupid - hey it happens. I'm not gonna pull the 'tisk tisk' bullcrap on NZ. Good on 'em. They're playing to win, not to socialise.

But it was a low blow from the Kiwis. But then again, fairplay is not a concept thats very high on the regular Aussie cricketing culture, so i kinda understand where you are comming from.

 

[Dick Rockett]

given the way they (esp. under Fleming) have gone about stuff recently, it is too much to expect even a little bit of class and courtesy from this New Zealand side.

Example?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Why do you wanna pretend you dont know cricket and how stuff occurs in cricket ?

Whatever! I'm sure he knows as much as, if not more than you.

 

[Ikki]

But it was a low blow from the Kiwis. But then again, fairplay is not a concept thats very high on the regular Aussie cricketing culture, so i kinda understand where you are comming from.

And you don't generalise do you?

You're a duffer - a funny one though.

 

[silentstriker]

But then again, fairplay is not a concept thats very high on the regular Aussie cricketing culture, so i kinda understand where you are comming from.

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.

 

[shortpitched713]

Tbf, it is not like these things happen every match, so players do not always have the chance

1977 Randall given out caught behind, Rod Marsh called him back because he was not sure whether the ball had touched the ground

Would you like some more?

Thats not the point though. Obviously there are going to be individual cases of players following a code that could be equated to the "Spirit of cricket". But these cases are greatly outnumbered by the number of times that such incidents like the topic of this thread happen. AFAIC I don't blame anyone for not following the "spirit of the game" in their play on the field, as most of the time they can't reasonably expect it to be reciprocated.

 

[archie mac]

Thats not the point though. Obviously there are going to be individual cases of players following a code that could be equated to the "Spirit of cricket". But these cases are greatly outnumbered by the number of times that such incidents like the topic of this thread happen. AFAIC I don't blame anyone for not following the "spirit of the game" in their play on the field, as most of the time they can't reasonably expect it to be reciprocated.

That is the point, and as the spirit of the game is in the preamble to the laws, acts of sportsmanship should be commended and acts of poor sportsmanship should be condemed.

And the more times it happens (acts of sportmanship) the more times it will be reciprocated imho

 

[JF.]

I don't understand why people are still going on about this (ok..so I am too :P). If Murali had wandered out of his crease for any other reason than to congratulate Sanga, no one would have batted an eyelid. They would have just said how stupid he was. So why does Sanga's 100 suddenly make a difference? As Fleming said, the game doesn't stop because someone makes 100.

The fact is Murali went walkabout while the ball was still live and the fielding side did exactly what professionals SHOULD do. They ran him out.

This is not backyard cricket or a friendly game between kids in the street. This sort of thing would happen in under 12s. It certainly happened when I played low-grade women's cricket. And no one whinges when it does.

These are highly paid professional cricketers doing what highly paid professional cricketers are supposed to be doing! Winning games of cricket according to the rules!

The gentleman's game disappeared in 32/33 when Bodyline occurred and we've had any number of incidents - previously cited on this thread - since then. The game is professional now and there is big money involved. Get over all this mumbo jumbo about spirit of the game. It died 70 years ago!!!!!!!

BTW - I'm an Aussie and I believe that the underarm was a disgrace.

 

[cameeel]

I'm sure its mentioned, but I have no problem with it. If the ball was thrown from the deep and the keeper missed it, I'm sure they would have had no problems taking overthrows. If anything, Murali was getting a 2m head start on a possible run.

Why should that matter? You can't form an opinion based on guessing the outcome of a hypothetical situation (ie. McCullum missing the throw)

 

[cameeel]

The gentleman's game disappeared in 32/33 when Bodyline occurred and we've had any number of incidents - previously cited on this thread - since then.

Why do people keep insisting on bringing that up? One series between two of the test-playing nations does not mean the game has to be reclassified as not being a 'gentleman's game'. The bodyline series - an isolated series - had no more effect on the gentleman status of the game than did the underarm or the run-out in question. All the bodyline did was sour cricketing relations between England and Australia. Australia/England/NZ aren't the be all and end all of the gentlemanly status of cricket.

 

[marc71178]

Why do you wanna pretend you dont know cricket and how stuff occurs in cricket ?

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?

 

[JF.]

Why do people keep insisting on bringing that up? One series between two of the test-playing nations does not mean the game has to be reclassified as not being a 'gentleman's game'. The bodyline series - an isolated series - had no more effect on the gentleman status of the game than did the underarm or the run-out in question. All the bodyline did was sour cricketing relations between England and Australia. Australia/England/NZ aren't the be all and end all of the gentlemanly status of cricket.

Why do we bring it up? Because there is a perpetual myth that cricket is still a gentleman's game. It hasn't been for a long time and, in the modern era, is fully professional. I would expect professionals to do anything and everything they can in order to win the game - without cheating of course. That is what they are paid to do. Make no mistake, cricket is big business.

And btw - Murali himself was at the centre of one of the biggest storms to hit cricket probably SINCE Bodyline. So you're right, Aus/ England and NZ aren't the be all and end all of the 'gentlemanly' status of cricket. It doesn't exist on the subcontinent either!

I want to pose a slightly different question. Should we just throw the rules out because a guy has made 100???

 

[Dick Rockett]

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.

I always suspected you, you know

 

[silentstriker]

I always suspected you, you know

Suspected me as?

 

[cameeel]

Why do we bring it up? Because there is a perpetual myth that cricket is still a gentleman's game. It hasn't been for a long time and, in the modern era, is fully professional. I would expect professionals to do anything and everything they can in order to win the game - without cheating of course. That is what they are paid to do. Make no mistake, cricket is big business.

And btw - Murali himself was at the centre of one of the biggest storms to hit cricket probably SINCE Bodyline. So you're right, Aus/ England and NZ aren't the be all and end all of the 'gentlemanly' status of cricket. It doesn't exist on the subcontinent either!

I want to pose a slightly different question. Should we just throw the rules out because a guy has made 100???

I brought up the professional game in an earlier post, but the fact that players are now being made vast sums of money to play the game does not mean that sportsmanship has no place in the game.

Cricket being considered the gentleman's game is not a myth. It may not be as true as it once was, but the fact remains that amongst the mainstream sports such as rugby, aussie rules etc. cricket is indeed the most gentlemanly. And if the traditionalists want to continue calling it that why bother arguing?

Professional athletes or not, one of the most attractive things about cricket is the sportsmanship - Why should money change that?

Re. the last part of your post; No, the rules shouldn't be thrown out upon a player reaching a century, but some leeway should definitely be applied. A 100 is a huge milestone for a batsman, and thus some slack should be applied - if you want to apply the rules that strictly why do batsmen get to waste so much time saluting the crowd and jumping around?