New Zealand in England

[RoboRocks]

It's easy to say Collingwood made the wrong decision after the game but when you're out there having to make that decision, it would be so tempting to appeal because England at the time needed Elliot out. I know this might make me unpopular but I think I would of done the same thing that Colly did if I was the captain because at the time, England needed that wicket to give themselves a chance to stay in the match and the series and that can make you do this. Don't get me wrong, Collingwood's decision wasn't in the spirit of the game and it's a decision he may live to regret but when it's time to make that key decision under pressure, you can't always make the right.

It was good though that Collingwood said in his interview that he did make the wrong decision and that the two captain resolved the issue.

 

[kiwiguy67]

i was thinking about it today, and i thought that its pretty unfair and stupid when a batsman can be out for obstructing the field, for instance if elliot had kicked the ball away from sidebottom, and given out when he has been obstructed from his run as well.

 

[age of the fall]

Shut up irrotev, seriously. New Zealand ran out a guy who was clearly celebrating a fantastic innings from a good friend of his, you don't see people running out a centurion if they come out of their ground to celebrate, so why's it OK to run out the non striker?. Collingwood did nothing that was against the rules, the rules state that if there is serious injury then a dead ball should be called and the batsman called back. Elliot wasn't seriously injured, he got back up and attempted to make his ground, if he had stayed down then England wouldn't have appealed. The fact that he ran all the way down the pitch, after going down makes it perfectly reasonable to appeal, as the lad didn't appear injured. I don't agree with it, but international sport's a harsh game, you sometimes have to do things that you don't see as right to win the game.

New Zealand did nothing against the rules in the incident you mentioned. The ball wasn't dead yet and murili was out of his crease

 

[irottev]

Shut up irrotev, seriously. New Zealand ran out a guy who was clearly celebrating a fantastic innings from a good friend of his, you don't see people running out a centurion if they come out of their ground to celebrate, so why's it OK to run out the non striker?.

I was trying o keep tis way, but since you obviously want to see it.

No, you shut up. McCullum was facing Chris Martin who was returning the ball into him. When McCullum received the ball and broke the stumps. All he saw was Murili out of his ground. MURILI WAS CARELESS. THE BALL WASN'T DEAD. You can't go celebrate a hundred while the ball's still in the outfield. That's ridiculous. It wasn't against the spirit of the game, because it was done unknowingly. The umpires never asked our captain to take it back, because our captain would have, unlike yours the cheating and unsportsmanlike Collingwood.

Collingwood was asked by the umpire to withdraw the appeal. Had the umpire just have given Elliot out, then there's nothing that can be done. That's life. The fact that Collingwood went along with it shows how pathetic England are. Win at any cost attitude is disgusting. It's not in the spirit of cricket. He was asked to withdraw it. No excuse. He had the chance. I would have called Elliot back. Sidebottom obviously blocked his run.

When it's a case of the Batsman running into the bowler who's following through then there's no problem. The fact that Sidebottom ran sideways across the pitch and collided with Elliot was (unintentional, i'm sure) but how can you run a guy out when you've just knocked him over. Elliot could have been knocked out. He took Sidebottom's knee right to the thigh, you could see it on replay. He had to have treatment on the pitch. That's an injury.

I'll tell you what, it's only going to fire us up more for the last game. I've lost 100% respect for Collingwood, not that I had a lot, because he's a bad captain.

 

[King Pietersen]

Could have been knocked out ? Is it possible to run the entire length of the pitch to try and make your ground while unconcious ? If Elliot had stayed down we wouldn't have appealed, but he obviously wasn't seriously injured so we were within our rights to appeal. It wasn't sporting, but there was nothing against the rules done. Pietersen had the exact same thing in the Twenty20 Cup and it as good as cost us the game, he was our best player throughout the tournament and was run out in the same fashion, you didn't see us campaiging for Pollock and Smith to be banned.

Obviously Collingwood was going to appeal, Vettori would have done exactly the same, hell, I'd have done exactly the same. If you're in a position of almost guarenteed loss and have a chance to win, then take it. It wasn't sporting, but wasn't against the spirit of the game or against the rules of the game. You still won the game, and Collingwood admitted his mistake, get over it.

 

[irottev]

Well I just find it hilarious that to win, England had to resort to that, and in the end they still messed it up. What am embarrassment.

 

[Sureshot]

There's been comments about the Murili incident. That's a totally different situation. Murli was careless. The ball was literally just being thrown back to the keeper when he left his crease. How is that not in the spirit of cricket? You can't just wander down the pitch when the ball is still live. I argue at the time it happened and i'll continue it now. The ball was still being fielded and returned. There's no comparison to a player being taken out while running and injured and then being run-out.

Laws state you can only be run-out if you are attempting to make a run. Not that I think there was any malice in that incident. Anyway, Collingwood has admitted he got it wrong. Takes big baws to do that. As said before, very proud that both captains behaved like men post-match. Especially when you see reactions from some captains in previous incidents.


Right, everyone stop telling people to 'shut up'. We won't tolerate it any further, it's descending into childish bickering, rather than a thought out discussion on a serious issue. Posts will be deleted if this continues after this. As will all posts flaming and trolling.

 

[irottev]

That was the umpire's call to make. Whether he was attempting to run or not. He gave it out straight away and hat was that.

 

[Sureshot]

I think Nasser made a good comment yesterday, about umpires taking more control on incidents like that. It would have been nice if Benson would have been able to say, "Dead ball" and that be that. With the amount of money in the game, expecting captains to make split-second decision in the heat of the battle is hard. In 5 months time in those Stanford T20s, when each player is playing for half a million pounds, the likelihood of the "gentleman's game" fading from the game is very high. Umpires are neutral, they should use their common sense to take over the situation. But I am glad the captains did what they did at the end, it would have been a much bigger problem if they hadn't. I'm interested to see what happens in relation to the relationships between the teams at Lord's.

 

[irottev]

I think we can all agree on that one.

I mean, in future, it won't be hard for some of the more unsporting players (Akhtar for example if he were to play again) to make it look like he was going for he ball, but to just tackle the batsman. Easy wicket. Yet another thing the ICC needs to fix.

 

[PhilD123]

New Zealand did nothing against the rules in the incident you mentioned. The ball wasn't dead yet and murili was out of his crease

Neither did England. What happened in both occasions was against the spirit of cricket. I don't like it, but you can see why under pressure Collingwood decided to do that, and he'll regret it now as he said he has. Glad to see everything has apparently been sorted between the teams, although I wouldn't be surprised if a grudge was still held.

Yeah, I agree that the umpires should be able to call dead ball, what with such large amounts of money around the corner, it would be a horrible decision for the captain to have to make.

 

[irottev]

There's a difference between being asked by the umpire whether you want to change the appeal and in the Murili case, the batsman just being given out.

The ICC either need to let anything happen or police it and leave it in the hands of the umpires to decide what's fair play and what isn't.

 

[King Pietersen]

Why should they have changed their mind? There's nothing in the laws that state that they have to change the appeal, so they've done nothing wrong. You can moan about it all you want, but England did nothing wrong. Morally wrong yes, but not wrong in the spirit of the game or the rules of the game. We're just repeating ourselves, I don't agree with the decision, and not many people do, but there was nothing illegal about it. So the ICC have no reason to change the rules, as a similar thing happened in South Africa at the T20 World Cup, and there was no major protest about that, so just leave it.

 

[Thurya]

Collingwood should resign.

 

[Stephen Bailey]

Collingwood should resign.

Oh come off it! How many more times does it have to be said that no rules were broken? What was said after the game will hopefully draw a line under the incident.