Should Smith have been allowed a runner?

[Kyle]

Meh.

You know "it's" can't be possessive right.

Better?

Smith is fitter than he has been and as so many have said in this thread, cramp has very little to do with fitness.

If you want to be a grammar nazi then you should end your question, even if rhetorical, with a question mark.

 

[Uppercut]

Pre-conditioning can help prevent most injuries. You can no more blame a lack of fitness for Smith getting cramp than you can blame a failure to warm up properly for someone pulling a hamstring, for example.

 

[zaremba]

I don't know the details of this, but I'd have thought you'd allow the batsman a runner.

In any case, it might have been in England's interests to allow Smith a runner. When runners come on, confusion and run-outs often seem to follow. And I'd have thought that it would be pretty easily foreseeable that it would be a strong motivation to Smith if he was refused a runner.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this morally it was a pointless decision by Strauss that gained him nothing and will probably come back and bite him on the arse at sometime in the future.

 

[JBH001]

Think Strauss was in the right on this one. I dont think runners should be allowed, except in the case of genuine on field injuries. A cramp does not qualify.

Its weird that it tends to happen in ODI cricket, perhaps because of the conditions? But I dont see batsmen being given a runner in tests just because they have been at the crease for 5 hours iin hot conditions, are cramping up, and are nearing a double hundred. I think the same should apply.

There is a difference between being sporting and giving the opposition a leg up. In this case it was the latter.

 

[Kyle]

Think Strauss was in the right on this one. I dont think runners should be allowed, except in the case of genuine on field injuries. A cramp does not qualify.

Its weird that it tends to happen in ODI cricket, perhaps because of the conditions? But I dont see batsmen being given a runner in tests just because they have been at the crease for 5 hours iin hot conditions, are cramping up, and are nearing a double hundred.I think the same should apply.

There is a difference between being sporting and giving the opposition a leg up. In this case it was the latter.

So what about Bresnan on for Shah? Given the fact Shah had dropped a catch, was otherwise fielding poorly and showed no signs of injury.

 

[JBH001]

Dont know about substitute fielders rulings, although in my view that is also happening far too much of late (and not just for toilet breaks and on field niggles and the like). But in that case, Shah was in the wrong and should have stayed on the field. I did notice too, that soon after that 'ruckus' Shah returned to the field and took a catch (Smiths?). So Flower probably, and quite wisely, sent him out. Regardless, it is another area of the game that needs clamping down.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

What the hell, how has this thread reached 5 pages?
Having a runner for cramps is the most ridiculous pile of BS I've heard all week

Cramps are short and sharp, and although they may reoccur, any team physio worth their salt would be able to sort it out and relieve any pain.
They aren't an 'injury'.

 

[Burgey]

England in moralising-on-runners-while-themselves-spurning-spirit-of-the-game-with-sub-fielder shocker.

 

[Smudge]

No, he shouldn't. Cramp is NOT the same as an injury such as a hamstring tear or, in Ryder's case, an abductor muscle injury.

We played against a guy over a few seasons who had a long-standing muscle disorder/issue which caused him to cramp after batting for 30 overs. The first time we played him, we weren't aware, and allowed him a runner. But after we'd been advised of his issues during the next game that season, he wasn't getting a runner if it was the last thing we did.

 

[Jono]

Lol at people missing the facetitious Healy reference.

You didn't really lol at that. Liar.

 

[Jono]

Should Strauss have allowed Smith a runner? Well yes, because of his philosophy: you can't be hypocritical and allow someone a runner based on what type of pain they are suffering from.

Should players be allowed runners? No, go back to the dressing room if you are not fit to run.

100% agree with your post.

I do not believe runners are allowed. But if they are going to be allowed, I think Smith should have got one... and that decision should have been made by the umpires.

 

[Burgey]

No, he shouldn't. Cramp is NOT the same as an injury such as a hamstring tear or, in Ryder's case, an abductor muscle injury.

We played against a guy over a few seasons who had a long-standing muscle disorder/issue which caused him to cramp after batting for 30 overs. The first time we played him, we weren't aware, and allowed him a runner. But after we'd been advised of his issues during the next game that season, he wasn't getting a runner if it was the last thing we did.

I'm interested in this, as many years ago a fellow played at our club for a team at a reasonable level who had polio as a child, and as such could hardly walk. He batted at 11 and stood at slip (when he fielded). I don't think he was ever refused a runner by another team.

I realise this is a very different situation to the one involving either Smith or the fella you're talking about, but I wonder whether it comes down to the level you're playing at when deciding these things.

 

[JBH001]

From my understanding, the law is pretty clear. Smith should not have had a runner.

I think the umpires possibly forfeited some responsibility here and foisted it on Strauss, who was well within his rights to take the stance he did.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nah, it'd be too open to abuse and the supersub in ODIs was a bust.

Runners less than perfect, but the only other option is the batsman sucking it up. Which there's an argument that they should anyway, bowlers don't get a runner if they're crocked in the course of a game.

I'd love to see bowlers getting a runner though. Someome carrying Big Merv in so he could roll his arm over would have been hilarious to watch.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It was unsporting. It is the same law, so Shah should not have been allowed a substitute fielder, he clearly had no injury. England are one of the most prolific abusers of the substitute fielder.England now have a series in South Africa. You can bet if there's a runner needed by England, there'll be an argument.

Yeah I agree with this, it's farcical. You'd almost think the poor dears are incapable of staying on the field for an hour stretch at times. They're better than they were though.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I agree with this, it's farcical. You'd almost think the poor dears are incapable of staying on the field for an hour stretch at times. They're better than they were though.

Back in 05 they had to continually leave the field in order to get a fresh supply of mints.

Everyone knows that.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Cramps can happen to any player at any time...it has very little to do with pre match fitness level of the player..Most batsmen do get a runner..That certainly was unfair to deny Smith a runner at that stage of the game. I am sure Strauss would have no problems if South Africa were 100 runs short!

 

[Furball]

That's just Healy being ignorant. Cramp is far more complex than "if you're unfit you get it, if you're fit you don't". I'm as unfit as they come at the moment but I never, ever get cramps as a result of fatigue. Likewise at school I knew rugby players who spent their entire lives doing cardio and weights every day but who regularly cramped up 60-odd minutes into a game.

If Mickey Arthur and Smith's waistline are to be believed, the guy's fitter than he's ever been. Yet he's scored massive double centuries with a massive belly and there's been no sign of cramp whatsoever. There's no way you can make a statement like "if he was conditioned properly it wouldn't have happened." Cramp doesn't necessarily work like that.

Wasn't being entirely serious.

However, particularly in the middle to latter stages of an ODI, running between the wickets is a hugely important part of batting. If you're not fit enough to run, then IMO you're not fit enough to bat. Either man up and bat and run through the pain, or get your arse off the field.

 

[Sanz]

I am kind of confused here reading the law in this regard :-

Law 2 (Substitutes and runners; batsman or fielder leaving the field; batsman retiring; batsman commencing innings) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's


(ii) a runner when batting.
Any injury or illness that occurs at any time after the nomination of the players until the conclusion of the match shall be allowable, irrespective of whether play is in progress or not.
(b) The umpires shall have discretion, for other wholly acceptable reasons, to allow a substitute for a fielder, or a runner for a batsman, at the start of the match or at any subsequent time.
(c) A player wishing to change his shirt, boots, etc. must leave the field to do so. No substitute shall be allowed for him.
2. Objection to substitutes
The opposing captain shall have no right of objection to any player acting as a substitute on the field, nor as to where the substitute shall field. However, no substitute shall act as wicket-keeper. See 3 below.
3. Restrictions on the role of substitutes
A substitute shall not be allowed to bat or bowl nor to act as wicket-keeper or as captain on the field of play.

---------------------

the above doesn't say anywhere that the opposing captain has the powers to deny the request for a runner.