Dravid said quite clearly that the players were discussing the incident and were not happy with what had transpired. I didn't hear him mention Edgbaston, which is traditionally a ground with significant Indian support.
No Ginger Colly DIDN'T recall a player in a similar incident against New Zealand.
Doesn't really matter whether it was a collision, it just shows that Strauss does sometimes place the spiritof the game before the Laws.
Clearly none of this would have arisen if if it had not been the sixth ball of the last over before tea. If there had been another over to go he would not have left his ground. That's one good reason why the appeal was quite rightly withdrawn.
Oh no doubt Bell won't second guess a boundary for the rest of his career, but did he really do wrong?
Who apart from Dravid actually saw that there could be a wicket on the cards? It's hardly a collective celebration of taking a wicket, rather a gradual realisation.
It's this that made the wicket so controversial. Plenty of batsmen have done utterly stupid things and no-one has had any sympathy when their wicket is mercilessly taken.
Given the controversy, it makes perfect sense that Strauss and Flower would act in the way they did.
With the controversy,
What a predictably troll-like article by a predictably troll-like poster. Sometimes you don't actually have to read anything beyond the name of the original poster - this is one of those occasions.
England are hammering India, Strauss just went into their dressing room to take the p!ss
Another aspect towards this controversy was the lack of information coming from the PA announcers either during or directly after tea but prior to the teams returning to the pitch.
One would have thought that if all parties (including umpires) agreed on reversing the appeal during the tea interval, the news would have been passed on to the PA people before the teams returned and thus placate the crowd & TV audience with some basic information.
Hope lessons have been learnt, because the premature booing by the crowd of the umpires & Indian team was embarrassing if not understandable given the lack of information coming out of the respective dressing rooms
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
He was rightly given out.
The umpires are there to uphold the Laws of the game, not it's spirit and, according to the Laws of the game, Bell was out.
The question is whether appealing for the run-out under those circumstances was in keeping with the spirit of the game and most people including, on reflection, the Indians, agrred that it wasn't.
Therefore withdrawing the appeal was a fair decision on the part of the Indian team and one which they should be congratulated for, even though they probably shouldn't have appealed in the first place.
-------------------------
So the players running near the ropes and thriving themselves to stop a run are fools. I would really be very angry to the team players in the case they would not have been bothered to apeal for the cause irrespective of what happened afterwards.
old one eye
A troll?
I don't think so. I'm just saying that I would have got on with it rather than gone begging.
Thanks to certain posters, my mind has been changed slightly, as we don't know what really went on and that we do not need this incident taking over from the actual Cricket.
Bell was out and as he said he was naive. However the players thought it was a 4 because Kumar made no effort to get the ball in quickly and Bell though over had been called.
Well done to Dhoni for withdrawing the appeal, nothing wrong if he'd decided not too. Also nothing wrong with Flower and Struass for asking it to be withdrawn, the Indians discussed it and decided to withdraw - seems the players came to the right conclusion.
Look how nasty England players and esp Paul Collingwood was on a similar occasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87m2d6cV4F0
and how Vettori responded later in another match
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/8281682.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6854475.ece
Now who does play fair game?
Yes Collingwood hardly covered himself in glory on that occasion did he? Still i think it depends on the player/situation at the time. Slightly different run out as well
for what its worth - I disagreed with the appeal - but whats done is done - if I were Dhoni I wouldnt of changed my mind - but I take my hat of to the Indians as a unit if what Dravid said is correct - I agree with Ginger about the coach and captain going to ask.
As someone has already mentioned if it wasnt for the tea interval it wouldnt of happened - its just one of those odd things
Sign in if you want to comment
Strauss and Flower
Page 2 of 2
posted on 31/7/11
Dravid said quite clearly that the players were discussing the incident and were not happy with what had transpired. I didn't hear him mention Edgbaston, which is traditionally a ground with significant Indian support.
posted on 31/7/11
No Ginger Colly DIDN'T recall a player in a similar incident against New Zealand.
Doesn't really matter whether it was a collision, it just shows that Strauss does sometimes place the spiritof the game before the Laws.
posted on 31/7/11
Clearly none of this would have arisen if if it had not been the sixth ball of the last over before tea. If there had been another over to go he would not have left his ground. That's one good reason why the appeal was quite rightly withdrawn.
posted on 31/7/11
Oh no doubt Bell won't second guess a boundary for the rest of his career, but did he really do wrong?
Who apart from Dravid actually saw that there could be a wicket on the cards? It's hardly a collective celebration of taking a wicket, rather a gradual realisation.
It's this that made the wicket so controversial. Plenty of batsmen have done utterly stupid things and no-one has had any sympathy when their wicket is mercilessly taken.
Given the controversy, it makes perfect sense that Strauss and Flower would act in the way they did.
With the controversy,
posted on 31/7/11
What a predictably troll-like article by a predictably troll-like poster. Sometimes you don't actually have to read anything beyond the name of the original poster - this is one of those occasions.
posted on 31/7/11
England are hammering India, Strauss just went into their dressing room to take the p!ss
posted on 31/7/11
good one Pie Eater
posted on 1/8/11
Another aspect towards this controversy was the lack of information coming from the PA announcers either during or directly after tea but prior to the teams returning to the pitch.
One would have thought that if all parties (including umpires) agreed on reversing the appeal during the tea interval, the news would have been passed on to the PA people before the teams returned and thus placate the crowd & TV audience with some basic information.
Hope lessons have been learnt, because the premature booing by the crowd of the umpires & Indian team was embarrassing if not understandable given the lack of information coming out of the respective dressing rooms
posted on 1/8/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/8/11
He was rightly given out.
The umpires are there to uphold the Laws of the game, not it's spirit and, according to the Laws of the game, Bell was out.
The question is whether appealing for the run-out under those circumstances was in keeping with the spirit of the game and most people including, on reflection, the Indians, agrred that it wasn't.
Therefore withdrawing the appeal was a fair decision on the part of the Indian team and one which they should be congratulated for, even though they probably shouldn't have appealed in the first place.
-------------------------
So the players running near the ropes and thriving themselves to stop a run are fools. I would really be very angry to the team players in the case they would not have been bothered to apeal for the cause irrespective of what happened afterwards.
posted on 1/8/11
old one eye
A troll?
I don't think so. I'm just saying that I would have got on with it rather than gone begging.
Thanks to certain posters, my mind has been changed slightly, as we don't know what really went on and that we do not need this incident taking over from the actual Cricket.
posted on 1/8/11
Bell was out and as he said he was naive. However the players thought it was a 4 because Kumar made no effort to get the ball in quickly and Bell though over had been called.
Well done to Dhoni for withdrawing the appeal, nothing wrong if he'd decided not too. Also nothing wrong with Flower and Struass for asking it to be withdrawn, the Indians discussed it and decided to withdraw - seems the players came to the right conclusion.
posted on 1/8/11
Look how nasty England players and esp Paul Collingwood was on a similar occasion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87m2d6cV4F0
and how Vettori responded later in another match
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/8281682.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6854475.ece
Now who does play fair game?
posted on 1/8/11
Yes Collingwood hardly covered himself in glory on that occasion did he? Still i think it depends on the player/situation at the time. Slightly different run out as well
posted on 1/8/11
for what its worth - I disagreed with the appeal - but whats done is done - if I were Dhoni I wouldnt of changed my mind - but I take my hat of to the Indians as a unit if what Dravid said is correct - I agree with Ginger about the coach and captain going to ask.
As someone has already mentioned if it wasnt for the tea interval it wouldnt of happened - its just one of those odd things
Page 2 of 2