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

[Ikki]

Whats wrong with Murali's batting? Don't tell me he's cheating with the bat too...

**Runs**

 

[JF.]

The point is, with a caught behind, you can always argue that the umpire is there to do a job and did it. Here, it was not the case.

So now it's the umpire who is at fault?

Let me get this straight, the fault lies with NZ, the umpires and the rules. Make up your mind what you actually believe

 

[JF.]

When did I say it was only the Kiwis. Teams have done it in the past and will continue to do so in the future. But no one does it as a planned tactic as many times as NZ have done in recent times. Ganguly did that to Steve Waugh in 2001 but I don't think he ever used that tactic again. But with Fleming, he has used that many a time. I am not ranking New Zealand as the worst at this, but I just made the point that, given the way they have played the game over the last 10 years or so, I won't really expect them to do the sporting thing when the opportunity is there. That's all.

All that post tells me is that you are a kiwi hater. ALL teams do these things. Get over it

 

[JF.]

English players have been pros for years (well over a 100) relying on cricket for their livelihood and they still managed to show good sportsmanship.

"They are on a lot of money and under a lot of pressure they can't be good sports". That is a cop out

And who would a sponsor rather be associated with a team that shows good sportsmanship but still wins. Or a team that uses 'sharp practice' and still wins?

Show me where I said, "They are on a lot of money and under a lot of pressure they can't be good sports". Don't twist my words

Umm sponsorship is about exposure. Why do you think offer so many deals to people like Warnie?

 

[mohammad16]

I say that Mohammed bloke (or baby) will be the next to get banned after BingLee and Bhupinder Singh.

someone ban me

 

[adharcric]

Now we'll all be able to say "he asked for it".

 

[archie mac]

Show me where I said, "They are on a lot of money and under a lot of pressure they can't be good sports". Don't twist my words

Umm sponsorship is about exposure. Why do you think offer so many deals to people like Warnie?

I thought it implied and if not my apologises

Warney has lost a lot of contracts because of his off field behaviour, despite the exposure, and I am sure sponsors would not be happy with supporting bad sportsmanship

 

[cameeel]

Why should they have done?

Murali made a mistake and should pay for it.

Flintoff made a mistake chasing a wide one and edging to slip the other day - why didn't Ricky call him back?

What a stupid statement. While we're at, why not abolish all forms of dismissal

 

[cameeel]

I thought it implied and if not my apologises

Warney has lost a lot of contracts because of his off field behaviour, despite the exposure, and I am sure sponsors would not be happy with supporting bad sportsmanship

Exactly. See Warne's Channel 9 contract being torn up for off-field behaviour.

 

[JF.]

I thought it implied and if not my apologises

Warney has lost a lot of contracts because of his off field behaviour, despite the exposure, and I am sure sponsors would not be happy with supporting bad sportsmanship

No problem

I agree, sponsors would prefer good sportsmanship and yes, you are right about Warne.

Look, it's great if players can show sportsmanship. However, my point is that given the amount of money involved in elite cricket these days, it shouldn't be expected. And that applies to Murali's runout. He was stupid enough to go wandering out of his crease when the ball was still live. McCullum did what any professional keeper should do and whipped off the bails. And Fleming did what any professional captain should do and celebrated the wicket. I would expect the same from Ponting. Now, you guys don't know me very well here but over at the Colosseum they are sick and tired of my criticisms of Ponting's captaincy :P

 

[C_C]

There you go again, telling people what they know or don't know.

Jeez, off the top of my head, so far you've made out that you're the world's foremost expert on ancient history, religion, Western racial attitudes, classical music, the Holocaust, being an international wicketkeeper, what level of cricket that CW posters have played, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

If you know such much about absolutely everything, why do you bother debating in these forums with a bunch of miscreants who are obviously nowhere your enormous intellect? More to the point, how do you even find the time to post when you must surely be spending every waking hour mopping up the last few morsels of human wisdom that you haven't already stored in that cavernous, ravenous, utterly insatiable and immaculate mind of yours?

On second thought - stay, O Great One. Share with us all that you know, so that we may someday become mere shadows of your towering, majestic, indomitable self. I prostrate myself at your feet, for only now do I see your splendour for all that it truly is.

Please do not project your insecurities on to me. I realise knowledge spawns jealousy and insecurity but debate with me not based on the credetials but only on merit of what you speak.
I never claimed to be an authority in anything but perhaps only my field of expertise.However, one thing my dad taught me good was to use my own head in evaluating a scenario and not just bend over backwards simply because someone's got a degree document in something. I dont give one hoot whether you are an authority in your field- if i think you are spouting garbage, i will say so. And i am damn proud of that attitude-to form your own judgement based on the facts presented and your understanding of reality.
If you or even Sobers tells me that a wicketkeeper isnt aware of whether the batsman is barrelling down the wicket or walking down it while their back is partially turned, i will tell you or Sobers that you'r speaking out of your bottom. For it simply is NOT true and anyone who's played the game in a competetive setting knows that for a fact.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I realise knowledge spawns jealousy and insecurity but debate with me not based on the credetials but only on merit of what you speak. I never claimed to be an authority in anything but perhaps only my field of expertise.

Go on, tell us another one.

one thing my dad taught me good was to use my own head in evaluating a scenario and not just bend over backwards simply because someone's got a degree document in something.

Ahem.

 

[Dasa]

Can't help but feel there wouldn't be as much of a storm if it wasn't Murali.

I don't know about that...there's been a reaction because of the higher profile cricketers involved...but if, for example, it was Ricky Ponting and Stuart Clark (instead of Sanga and Murali), I think there would be even more of a storm about it than there has been.
In fact, I don't think anyone in this thread (apart from a couple who have brought up the old Murali = cheat falsehood) has even made reference to Murali and have been commenting on the event, rather than those involved in the event.

 

[Dick Rockett]

In fact, I don't think anyone in this thread has even made reference to Murali and have been commenting on the event, rather than those involved in the event.

On the face of it, that's true. However, this exact same thing has happened before, in a Zimbabwe vs NZ test, and no-one made a fuss then. Surely PY is right in pointing out that the players involved in this particular incident must have something to do with it being given much closer scrutiny this time around.

 

[Dasa]

On the face of it, that's true. However, this exact same thing has happened before, in a Zimbabwe vs NZ test, and no-one made a fuss then. Surely PY is right in pointing out that the players involved in this particular incident must have something to do with it being given much closer scrutiny this time around.

Yeah, but that's because there aren't many (if any) Zimbabwe fans on the forum, and most people wouldn't get that series on TV. I'm assuming that people on the subcontinent could get this series on TV, and we're getting it here in Australia. Like I said, it's not getting attention because the player involved is Murali, but because the player involved has a high profile.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Yeah, but that's because there aren't many (if any) Zimbabwe fans on the forum, and most people wouldn't get that series on TV. I'm assuming that people on the subcontinent could get this series on TV, and we're getting it here in Australia. Like I said, it's not getting attention because the player involved is Murali, but because the player involved has a high profile.

Agreed.

 

[JF.]

Just saw this and thought I should post it. This guy has pretty much said what I've been saying

http://www.ashburtonguardian.co.nz/index.asp?articleid=8484

Sportsthought - The (PC) crowd goes wild

By Matt Richens
Can the PC brigade please leave sport alone?
Go away. Don’t come back.
I cannot believe the comments I’ve heard and read about big bad Brendon McCullum running out poor wee Muttiah Muralitharan in the first test at Jade Stadium on Saturday.
It is a sport and as one of our great dreadlocked sport stars once said, “It’s not tiddlywinks”.
It was a TEST match, they aren’t supposed to be easy. They are a competition between two countries with winning as the sole objective.
I bet Stephen Fleming’s team talk didn’t go, “Okay guys we would quite like to win this game but remember it’s about having fun, being gentlemen and Sri Lanka - New Zealand relations”.
If it had happened the other way, if the Sri Lankan wicket keeper, Prasanna Jayawardene, had run out Chris Martin in the same circumstances, the New Zealand public would have initially thought it unfair but would have said Chris Martin should know better.
It would have been comical and probably forgotten. Murali has played 200 first class games now, 109 tests and taken 664 test wickets.
He should have known better.
McCullum did the right thing. He’s a competitor. He saw a chance to get a wicket and he took it.
No one can honestly say that Murali hasn’t exploited rules of the game to get himself wickets, and when he retires he will go down as at least the second most successful spinner ever.
Why do people always have to get on the sportsmanship bandwagon?
It drives me insane when people go on about the spirit of the game, participation is the key, sport should just be about having fun and scores shouldn’t be kept.
Crap! Sport is about competition. It’s about winning. Sure, you’re not not going to win every game but the idea is to try and you do what you can to do it.
Richie McCaw pushes the rules to the extreme and he is a national hero. He does what he can, to the limit of the law, to help his team win.
Greg Ford of the Sunday Star Times said this incident would stop him watching test cricket again and it was a disgrace.
How much worse is it then appealing every time the ball touches a kiwi batsmen’s pads?
Is it worse than the personal attacks that go on under the heading of sledging and chirping? No. It’s is part of the game.
Murali knows the rules and is an idiot for walking out of his crease. I’m just glad for Kumar Sangakkara that he got his hundred and Murali didn’t get even more carried away by the situation and hug him before completing the first run.
He’d never admit it, but Murali knows he mucked up.
He’s been around the traps long enough to know what he can and cannot do and he knows if New Zealand, and any other team for that matter, have a chance to get him out they will take it gladly.
As for the people I’ve heard comparing it to the Chapple brothers’ under-arm disgrace, it has one similarity. The Australians did everything they could, within the rules, to win that game.
However, the rule was so obviously wrong that it was changed immediately. This rule of live ball dead ball will not change just because Murali had a brain explosion.
Commentator Peter Sharp summed it up quite well when he said Murali reminded him of a “dark Rowan Atkinson”. He was falling over, backing away, playing shots that can be described unorthodox at best.
The McCullum run out made no difference to the outcome of the game but had added spice to a nothing series. The only exciting thing about the games is that we are actually playing test cricket.
There are so many ODI’s being played that the occasional interlude of real cricket is great. If Mr Ford doesn’t want to watch test cricket any more he is only joining the long list of people who don’t want to spend time watching the purist’s version of the game.
It is a shame we can’t attract the crowds like the Australians can because to watch the party atmosphere looks like a great way to spend a day.
But the second test at the Basin Reserve starting on Friday will still only attract a crowd of mainly retired men and the school children lucky enough to have cricket loving teachers.
Hopefully those children watching will take away the message that to play competitive sport is to try and win. Not cheat, but do what you can to beat your opponents.
These guys are professionals and play their sport to win.
December 13 2006

 

[Jamee999]

That's exactly my Sentiments. From hereon I have no f****** sympathy for Kiwis who come whingeing about the Under Arm incident. That was within the rules of the game too. But certainly not in the spirit of the game.

So to you, there's no difference between running out a number 11 and stopping a team from having any chance of winning a game.

 

[Jamee999]

Well the law says you can't run out a batsman who thought he was dismissed (say for eg. he was caught off a no-ball). Now assuming that law didn't exist, would you run him out in such a scenario? Say he nicked the ball to slip, simple catch, didn't hear the no ball call and was walking back to the pavillion which means he's stepped out of his crease walking ot the other side of the ground.

Yes.

 

[honestbharani]

You don't get it mate. This is cricket and it has rules. If you disagree with them make some inquiry (the player's in question should actually) into the need for these rules. He got out because he put himself into a position where he could and therefore SHOULD be tried to be gotten out.

Cullinan shouldn't have touched the ball. Simple rules ladies and gents, let's not kill ourselves over this one. If you don't get the rules then look them up. These players SHOULD know them because by god they're getting a crap-load of money to play the sport.

Look, that ball that Cullinan handled was never even going anywhere near the stumps. Had he did what he did a few seconds later, the appeal would have been laughable at best, because the ball would have been dead by then. Sure, it was stupid of Cullinan to touch the ball just like it was stupid of Murali to dash off to congratulate his mate when the ball was in play. But surely, it is not too much to ask the opposing captains to take into consideration the intent of the players before appealing for such dismissals. The reason the handled ball dismissal came in was so that players wont be able to throw away balls that are rolling on track to hit the stumps. Similarly, the run out dismissal is when a run is being attempted. I think maybe we really shouldn't expect too much sportsmanship these days, as a lot of guys here have pointed out.


The better way to go about this would be by perhaps giving the umpire the power to interpret these laws. Like with Cullinan, he could say "Look, he was just picking up the ball that would have never gone on to hit the stumps and throwing it back to the keeper. So NOT OUT." And in the same way, with Murali, he could say "He is not going for a run, so NOT OUT." Because it is quite that most teams are not willing to play sportingly these days.