What is the spirit of cricket?

[RossTaylorsBox]

1. If it's legal, then it's ok. So Bodyline was fine, Chappell's underarm delivery, Mankads with no warning, the Bairstow stumping, England's running Grant Philips out in 2008, McCullum running Murali out etc.

That's right

 

[Coronis]

I don't think the guys booing are monkeys.

Are you sure?

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Who tf is Grant Philips?

 

[Chubb]

Whatever your side does is within it, whatever the opposition do is not within it. Everyone who preaches about this issue is being a hypocrite. That goes for Australia with their talk of crossing the line etc as much as it does for England.

That said of course New Zealand are the exemplars of the spirit of cricket and are a shining light for us all, and Zimbabwe are the victims of every other side refusing to play within the spirit of cricket and ganging up on them.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's right

Nah

 

[Spark]

Oh yeah totally. "Spirit" is a lot like "justice". If the speaker gets what they want, it's here. If they don't, it's not.

Haha glad to see this old saw of yours make a comeback, it's been a while

 

[Spark]

"Spirit of cricket" makes sense to invoke IMO when it involves weird edge cases that were likely never anticipated by the writers of the rules, actions that would be very very difficult to capture appropriately in the rules because you'd end up creating bad incentives, or cases where the logical action by the players leads to perverse outcomes (obstructing the field dismissals where the batsman was clearly just protecting themselves from injury fall into this camp imo). Anything else is infinitely more suspect IMO.

 

[SteveNZ]

Simon Taufel says it best.

• "My experience is when people don't like a dismissal under the Laws of Cricket, they cite the Spirit of Cricket to support their view.

Yep. Spirit of cricket is OK when it relates to the way in which the game is played between deliveries.

But for playing any part of the rules and bring seen as adjunct to the actual laws, it's too vague. It's too easily bent, moulded, slapped upon or alternatively completely ignored dependent on the team and situation it wants to be applied to.

 

[Aidan11]

Who tf is Grant Philips?

Think he means Grant Elliott.

 

[sledger]

Haha glad to see this old saw of yours make a comeback, it's been a while

Haha it's true. I just really hate it when people use stupid nebulous, vague and ultimately subjective terms in a way that suggests they provide some sort of objective standard. A true refuge for the intellectually dishonest who have identified a particular outcome they want, but have no coherent way of justifying their position.

 

[Molehill]

Simon Taufel says it best.

• "My experience is when people don't like a dismissal under the Laws of Cricket, they cite the Spirit of Cricket to support their view.

Adds Taufel to the list of Elite Australians who think they own the line....

 

[Spark]

In Taufel's case he'd be correct.

 

[Molehill]

In Taufel's case he'd be correct.

Should Broad have walked? 2013 Ashes Series- Cowdrey Lecuture | Spirit of Cricket - YouTube

And yet here he is suggesting it's up to Stuart Broad to ask himself whether he's done the right thing by the spirit of the game. He hasn't exactly suggested Cummins do likewise.

He could easily have said in Broad's case " My experience is when people don't like a non-dismissal under the Laws of Cricket, they cite the Spirit of Cricket to support their view".

I don't care one way or the other, by the laws Bairstow is out and Broad isn't. But it's just another example of Elite Aussies thinking they own where the line is in World Cricket.

 

[Spark]

Should Broad have walked? 2013 Ashes Series- Cowdrey Lecuture | Spirit of Cricket - YouTube

And yet here he is suggesting it's up to Stuart Broad to ask himself whether he's done the right thing by the spirit of the game. He hasn't exactly suggested Cummins do likewise.

He could easily have said in Broad's case " My experience is when people don't like a non-dismissal under the Laws of Cricket, they cite the Spirit of Cricket to support their view".

I don't care one way or the other, by the laws Bairstow is out and Broad isn't. But it's just another example of Elite Aussies thinking they own where the line is in World Cricket.

That is a wild misrepresentation of what he said in that clip. You're basically insinuating that he thinks that the right thing for Broad to do would have been to walk when that's not what he said at all; he literally says it's not for anyone else to judge.

You really seem to believe that one of the most respected and highly regarded international umpires of the last twenty years was merely a partisan hack. There is absolutely nothing that supports this claim.

 

[Molehill]

That is a wild misrepresentation of what he said in that clip. You're basically insinuating that he thinks that the right thing for Broad to do would have been to walk when that's not what he said at all; he literally says it's not for anyone else to judge.

You really seem to believe that one of the most respected and highly regarded international umpires of the last twenty years was merely a partisan hack. There is absolutely nothing that supports this claim.

All I'm pointing out is the inconsistency in his responses where the Spirit of Cricket has been questioned. I did not insinuate that he thought Broad should walk. What he said was that in that circumstance it's up to the player to consider the Spirit of Cricket. In the latest example, he clearly states that the Laws override the Spirit, no need for consideration.

I'm not calling him a partisan hack, but it's a little inconsistent wouldn't you say?

 

[Xix2565]

Only if you're high on the 'Spirit of Cricket'. Otherwise Taufel is right.