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

[C_C]

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?

No, i am saying that anyone who actually has ever played cricket knows that a wicketkeeper in McCallum's position is almost always acutely aware of where the batsman/runner is and what he is doing. Its been commented here that McCallum's gesture after running Murali out left no room for doubt that McCallum was aware of what Murali was doing.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

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

Okay, so it is not OK for NZ to run Murali out, but you would have no problem with them taking overthrows?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Suspected me as?

Umm... guess that joke kind of fell flat. Moving right along...

 

[Dick Rockett]

No, i am saying that anyone who actually has ever played cricket knows that a wicketkeeper in McCallum's position is almost always acutely aware of where the batsman/runner is and what he is doing. Its been commented here that McCallum's gesture after running Murali out left no room for doubt that McCallum was aware of what Murali was doing.

I've certainly played cricket and will happily attest that it's impossible to be sure what someone is doing - let alone what they intend to do - when you're watching the ball come in from another direction.

On a side note, your supposed authority on this matter is really taking a hit from the fact that you don't even seem to be able to spell the player's name properly.

 

[cameeel]

Okay, so it is not OK for NZ to run Murali out, but you would have no problem with them taking overthrows?

If there had been overthrows, this whole debate would never have eventuated, so it's completely irrelevant.

That's like asking if Costello would have been a good PM if he was elected instead of Howard - it's purely hypothetical.

 

[archie mac]

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 keep giving you example of sportsmanship since Bodyline, but you keep repeating the same arguments

If he had left his crease to pick up his tissue and was run out it still would have been a disgrace

 

[JF.]

I keep giving you example of sportsmanship since Bodyline, but you keep repeating the same arguments

If he had left his crease to pick up his tissue and was run out it still would have been a disgrace

So you DO think the rules should be changed to accommodate guys when they make their milestones. Ok then, let's just reward Murali for being the one stupid enough to leave his crease while the ball was still on its way back to the keeper. In addition, let's penalise all the other blokes who manage to wait until the ball is dead before leaving their crease to go and congratulate their partner on his milestone....

 

[archie mac]

So you DO think the rules should be changed to accommodate guys when they make their milestones. Ok then, let's just reward Murali for being the one stupid enough to leave his crease while the ball was still on its way back to the keeper. In addition, let's penalise all the other blokes who manage to wait until the ball is dead before leaving their crease to go and congratulate their partner on his milestone....

The rules are fine, just the sportsmanship of the NZ team that needs to be addressed

 

[JF.]

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?

Oh ok.. the traditionalists say the game is still a gentleman's game so let's all agree shall we? I'm sorry but I think what happened back in 1977 changed all that. It wasn't The Establishment that won that battle.

I have no problem with some slack being applied. I'd have a problem with this if McCullum stood there ball in hand waiting for Murali to leave his crease instead of sending it on its way back to the bowler. But that's not what happened. The BALL WAS IN THE AIR on its way back to him. Why shouldn't NZ whip the bails off? Murali could have asked. He could have waited. It's really beginning to annoy me that everyone is pinning the blame on NZ when it was MURALI who made the error!!!

I'll pose another question. Another 20-30 runs would have been difficult for NZ to make. They said so themselves. I wonder if that is affecting SL's stance?

 

[JF.]

The rules are fine, just the sportsmanship of the NZ team that needs to be addressed

Let me get this straight. You are saying that it's ok for a guy to wander out of his crease while the ball is in MID AIR on its way back to the keeper, solely because a guy has made 100?

 

[archie mac]

Let me get this straight. You are saying that it's ok for a guy to wander out of his crease while the ball is in MID AIR on its way back to the keeper, solely because a guy has made 100?

I think I wrote before that I will still be upset, if he had left the crease to pick up his tissue, and was run out in those circumstances

 

[NZTailender]

No, i am saying that anyone who actually has ever played cricket knows that a wicketkeeper in McCallum's position is almost always acutely aware of where the batsman/runner is and what he is doing. Its been commented here that McCallum's gesture after running Murali out left no room for doubt that McCallum was aware of what Murali was doing.

...after that he saw he was walking down to congratulate him. After running him out. And yes, I do think he could sense he left his crease, hence turning and whipping the bails off so quickly. I don't think he sensed that he was going to congratulate his partner.


We're talking about sportsmanship...what about courtesy? Murali should have had the courtesy to wait until the ball had been returned to the keeper.

 

[JF.]

I think I wrote before that I will still be upset, if he had left the crease to pick up his tissue, and was run out in those circumstances

Then we are going to have to agree to disagree. The rule is there for a reason and it doesn't change whether someone is going to pick up a tissue, do some gardening, fix his box, play with himself, get 100, have ***, or anything else he can think of.

To me the bottom line is that Murali stuffed up and got penalised for it. End of story.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

If there had been overthrows, this whole debate would never have eventuated, so it's completely irrelevant.

That's like asking if Costello would have been a good PM if he was elected instead of Howard - it's purely hypothetical.

That is ridiculous reasoning, it is nothing like that.

If Murali's run out is against 'the spirit of the game,' then you have to say that taking overthrows would be as well. They would not have hesitated in taking overthrows, so why should NZ hesitate in running him out?

 

[NZTailender]

The rules are fine, just the sportsmanship of the NZ team that needs to be addressed

Is it? How many other acts of bad sportsmanship were in the test?

 

[JF.]

We're talking about sportsmanship...what about courtesy? Murali should have had the courtesy to wait until the ball had been returned to the keeper. [/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more. It's good enough for everyone else. Why wasn't it good enough for him?

 

[cameeel]

Oh ok.. the traditionalists say the game is still a gentleman's game so let's all agree shall we? I'm sorry but I think what happened back in 1977 changed all that. It wasn't The Establishment that won that battle.

I have no problem with some slack being applied. I'd have a problem with this if McCullum stood there ball in hand waiting for Murali to leave his crease instead of sending it on its way back to the bowler. But that's not what happened. The BALL WAS IN THE AIR on its way back to him. Why shouldn't NZ whip the bails off? Murali could have asked. He could have waited. It's really beginning to annoy me that everyone is pinning the blame on NZ when it was MURALI who made the error!!!

I'll pose another question. Another 20-30 runs would have been difficult for NZ to make. They said so themselves. I wonder if that is affecting SL's stance?

It doesn't matter what the traditionalists/establishment choose to call the game, we're arguing the merits of the Murali run-out.

I'm not saying that McCullum shouldn't have whipped the bails off, but he or Fleming should at least have called Murali back - but then Fleming isn't known for his desire to keep sportsmanship in the game is he?

Again, the last part is irrelevant. The debate is on the sportsmanship of running out Murali, not on how the partnership may have gone if NZ had chosen not to run him out.

 

[cameeel]

That is ridiculous reasoning, it is nothing like that.

If Murali's run out is against 'the spirit of the game,' then you have to say that taking overthrows would be as well. They would not have hesitated in taking overthrows, so why should NZ hesitate in running him out?

They're completely different. Yes, given Murali's intentions taking overthrows would also have been wrong, but the potential consequences of the two are completely different. What's worse - ending an innings with an act of unsportsmanlike behavior or taking 1/2 runs?

 

[NZTailender]

Again, the last part is irrelevant. The debate is on the sportsmanship of running out Murali, not on how the partnership may have gone if NZ had chosen not to run him out.

That's not quite clear, though, is it? The debate should be on the sportsmanship after running out Murali, as you had just said - whether Fleming or McCullum should have called him back.

 

[NZTailender]

They're completely different. Yes, given Murali's intentions taking overthrows would also have been wrong, but the potential consequences of the two are completely different. What's worse - ending an innings with an act of unsportsmanlike behavior or taking 1/2 runs?

Yeah, not buying the overthrows thing myself. That would mean that anytime overthrows are taken it's against the spirit of the game. Which, of course, it isn't. It's just sloppy cricket on the fielding team.