The World Cup [admin's warning: contains cricket]

[Snake]

Quite a remarkable sporting turnaround today when Bell was reprieved, but on reflection it was a shame that it took the Indian Team more than 15 minutes (as they were late taking the field after the break) to come to a decision and save their reputations. In fact if that blatant cheating had not happened on the last ball before tea I reckon a whole sub-continent would have been brought into disrepute by now. They have no idea how lucky they got this afternoon...

[A-Ro]

Quite a remarkable sporting turnaround today when Bell was reprieved, but on reflection it was a shame that it took the Indian Team more than 15 minutes (as they were late taking the field after the break) to come to a decision and save their reputations. In fact if that blatant cheating had not happened on the last ball before tea I reckon a whole sub-continent would have been brought into disrepute by now. They have no idea how lucky they got this afternoon...

I didn't think they were late back from tea, the tea break is 20 minutes from the time they leave the field and it took quite a while for them to leave due to the shenanigans, I thought they came back on just after 16:05 it was certainly nowhere near 16:15.

I understand why you are saying the Indians were lucky, however, had it not been the last ball before tea then the situation would never have arisen as Bell would not have gone walking off for tea.

I also think that using the word cheating is a tad harsh, they did nothing to contravene any of the laws of the game, they can be accused of being ungentlemanly or unsportsmanlike certainly but they didn't cheat.

Both teams approached the problem in a sensible way and reached the right conclusion, my only regret is that the decision was not broadcast to the spectators quickly enough which lead to the ugly and unneccesary booing of both the Indian players and the totally innocent umpires.

[YF Dan]

Sorry Snake but that is a load of cock.

Truth of the matter is that Bell was arrogant, and either extremely careless or very stupid. He was out. The damning evidence of it all is that if you watch the replay he's also setting off on the fourth run...he then thinks it's gone for 4 and, rather than going back to the crease, he carries on walking down the pitch and off to the pavillion.

Now, spirit of cricket and all that, probably the right decision was reached to reinstate him. But for England's captain and coach to go to the Indian dressing room and ask for him to be allowed to carry on was scandalous. Rahul Dravid said afterwards that immediately the Indian team were unhappy with Bell's dismissal and were involved in their own processes to reinstate him. But that should have been India's prerogative alone, and for England's hierarchy to wade in was wrong, wrong, wrong.

There is no hint of India cheating in this. Not a whiff.

Here's anothing thing.

The second wicket of Stuart Broad's hattrick was not out. There was a massive inside edge from Harbajan's bat onto his pads. Yep, India called for the DRS not to be used of LBWs, but in an instance where an umpire has made a mistake that obvious should the &quotspirit of cricket&quot not been applied there? Appealing when you know a batsman isn't out is cheating, surely, whereas India allowed a batsman to carry on when he was technically and correctly given out.

Cricket is full of contradictions, and it's so-called spirit is one of them. Adam Gilchrist was lauded for being a &quotwalker&quot and yet was shameless when it came to appealing for catches and LBW's which were clearly not out.

The boorish treatment of the Indian team from a drunken crowd was embarrassing, as was Ian Bell's TV interview afterwards where he said the &quotright&quot decision had been made. (He clearly changed his tune by the press conference, where he'd clearly been told by his media men to recognise his huge error that led to this whole debate). It was not Bell's right to say any decision was &quotright&quot, he should have just expressed great gratitude to the India team for letting him carry on what had already been a match changing innings. India should be applauded for this whole thing while England have not covered thmselves in glory at all.

[ty cobb]

So where was the spirit of cricket when we played NZ, Sidebottom completly took one of their batesman out, as he was lying on the floor we took the bails off and Colly sent him on his way?

Didn't seem to bring the whole of England (and Wales) into disrepute, although if I was from NZ I would have had a chuckle at the arrogant English and their notion of fair play and the spirit of cricket if I was watching yesterday.

[SteMerritt]

Sorry Snake but that is a load of cock.

Truth of the matter is that Bell was arrogant, and either extremely careless or very stupid. He was out. The damning evidence of it all is that if you watch the replay he's also setting off on the fourth run...he then thinks it's gone for 4 and, rather than going back to the crease, he carries on walking down the pitch and off to the pavillion.

Now, spirit of cricket and all that, probably the right decision was reached to reinstate him. But for England's captain and coach to go to the Indian dressing room and ask for him to be allowed to carry on was scandalous. Rahul Dravid said afterwards that immediately the Indian team were unhappy with Bell's dismissal and were involved in their own processes to reinstate him. But that should have been India's prerogative alone, and for England's hierarchy to wade in was wrong, wrong, wrong.

There is no hint of India cheating in this. Not a whiff.

Here's anothing thing.

The second wicket of Stuart Broad's hattrick was not out. There was a massive inside edge from Harbajan's bat onto his pads. Yep, India called for the DRS not to be used of LBWs, but in an instance where an umpire has made a mistake that obvious should the &quotspirit of cricket&quot not been applied there? Appealing when you know a batsman isn't out is cheating, surely, whereas India allowed a batsman to carry on when he was technically and correctly given out.

Cricket is full of contradictions, and it's so-called spirit is one of them. Adam Gilchrist was lauded for being a &quotwalker&quot and yet was shameless when it came to appealing for catches and LBW's which were clearly not out.

The boorish treatment of the Indian team from a drunken crowd was embarrassing, as was Ian Bell's TV interview afterwards where he said the &quotright&quot decision had been made. (He clearly changed his tune by the press conference, where he'd clearly been told by his media men to recognise his huge error that led to this whole debate). It was not Bell's right to say any decision was &quotright&quot, he should have just expressed great gratitude to the India team for letting him carry on what had already been a match changing innings. India should be applauded for this whole thing while England have not covered thmselves in glory at all.

No, the right decision HAD been made. The fielder on the fence thought it had gone for 4, a good amount of the Indian team thought so as well, and were walking off. Bell was an idiot, no doubt about that, but the correct decision was absolutely made. It would have been scandalous if that decision had stood.

Ty, the decision you mention was a disgrace as well, and Collingwood came out afterwards and apologised for it (as well he should). The difference was Dhoni was able to sit in the dressing room and think about what had happened, whereas Collingwood was on the pitch.

[BigCrompy]

So where was the spirit of cricket when we played NZ, Sidebottom completly took one of their batesman out, as he was lying on the floor we took the bails off and Colly sent him on his way?

Didn't seem to bring the whole of England (and Wales) into disrepute, although if I was from NZ I would have had a chuckle at the arrogant English and their notion of fair play and the spirit of cricket if I was watching yesterday.

Collingwood was absolutely slaughtered in the press over the Grant Elliott incident actually, which was one of the primary reasons for Andrew Strauss' recall of Arnold Mathews in similar circumstances just 2 years after.

Was absolutely glued to coverage overnight in Melbourne, and both incredulous and delighted when the right thing was done. Of course it wouldn't have happened were Aus or SA our opponents, and India once again demonstrated why they are everyone's favourite other team.

Think it a bit tight to call Bell 'arrogant' ahead of 'foolish' and Strauss/Flower 'scandalous' to ask India to reconsider their appeal in the name of averting an unsavoury incident for all. We may never know if they had their own discussion already in place or had to be asked after all they did appeal in the first instance and if there was any question some members didn't want to appeal, it would have been shouted down there and then.

I'm not sure the umpires are entirely blameless either reportedly there was no appeal until Erasmus asked if they appealing, essentially offering a wicket on a platter, and both should have known the ball is dead as soon as both teams consider it so. Aggers implied Kumar, Bell and Morgan's behaviour was enough to make it so.

So - agree with uber-plaudits to Dhoni but undeniably the 'right' decision and I do question whether England under Strauss would even have appealed. The 'spirit' of cricket is alive and well! (outside Buckingham)

[SmileyMan]

But for England's captain and coach to go to the Indian dressing room and ask for him to be allowed to carry on was scandalous. Rahul Dravid said afterwards that immediately the Indian team were unhappy with Bell's dismissal and were involved in their own processes to reinstate him. But that should have been India's prerogative alone, and for England's hierarchy to wade in was wrong, wrong, wrong.

This.

It was India that had behaved unsportingly, therefore it was up India to reverse that choice, which they had done. An act in the adrenaline and heat of live competition was rescinded upon the calm reflection of true sportsmen. Absolutely fine.

Bell was an idiot - most kids learn to play to the whistle very early on, and if he's forgotten it then he's showing an unpleasantly arrogant side. The gentlemanly thing to do would have been to make one scoring shot and then retire out. In fact, 'unpleasantly arrogant' is a pretty good description of England's behaviour over the whole incident.

[John Byrne's Underpants]

But for England's captain and coach to go to the Indian dressing room and ask for him to be allowed to carry on was scandalous. Rahul Dravid said afterwards that immediately the Indian team were unhappy with Bell's dismissal and were involved in their own processes to reinstate him. But that should have been India's prerogative alone, and for England's hierarchy to wade in was wrong, wrong, wrong.

This.

It was India that had behaved unsportingly, therefore it was up India to reverse that choice, which they had done. An act in the adrenaline and heat of live competition was rescinded upon the calm reflection of true sportsmen. Absolutely fine.

Bell was an idiot - most kids learn to play to the whistle very early on, and if he's forgotten it then he's showing an unpleasantly arrogant side. The gentlemanly thing to do would have been to make one scoring shot and then retire out. In fact, 'unpleasantly arrogant' is a pretty good description of England's behaviour over the whole incident.

Agree with most of this, although I think it's slightly harsh to call Bell arrogant. Stupid, maybe but I don't believe it was anything other than a momentary lapse of reason and not deliberate by any means. Now what Flower and Strauss did was arrogant.

Personally, I wouldn't have been too upset had India not changed their minds. Bell, after all, was out. Would England have done the same if the roles had been reversed? Under Flower/Strauss, maybe perhaps, but under previous regimes, certainly not.

[Kernow Yellow]

Now, spirit of cricket and all that, probably the right decision was reached to reinstate him. But for England's captain and coach to go to the Indian dressing room and ask for him to be allowed to carry on was scandalous. Rahul Dravid said afterwards that immediately the Indian team were unhappy with Bell's dismissal and were involved in their own processes to reinstate him. But that should have been India's prerogative alone, and for England's hierarchy to wade in was wrong, wrong, wrong.

There is no hint of India cheating in this. Not a whiff.

While I agree with your rebutting of Snake's ludicrous post, I think you go a bit far in your criticism of England players, management and fans.

India certainly didn't cheat, but the umpires seemed to check with Dhoni both before and after the 'review' that led to the initial out decision, and evidently Dhoni said he wanted to appeal for a dismissal. Even after the delay and seeing what had gone on on the big screen. Which doesn't quite tally with Dravid's comments as you report them.

Don't forget - Tony Greig is still to this day remembered as 'unsporting' for effecting a very similar run-out nearly 40 years ago, even if that appeal was also later withdrawn. Yet Dhoni is now being lauded as a hero, despite being heavily involved with everything that led to the original appeal being made.

And what were the crowd supposed to think? They didn't have the benefit of endless replays and commentators explaining what was going on - they just saw an Indian fielder giving the ball up as a boundary before his team mates then appealed for a dismissal as a batsman who was saving/winning the game for England was walking off for tea. I'd have been pretty upset had I been there. Anyway, it all added to the pantomime drama of the incident. Or do you think an Eden Gardens crowd would (and should) have just clapped politely had the roles and location been reversed? In the end it was fantastic entertainment, with everyone reasonably happy about the outcome. And you can't ask for much more than that.

[Mr T]

No one seems to have commented on the fact that the umpire handed the jumper to the bowler before the bails were removed, thereby implying that he too felt that the ball was dead...

[Isaac]

It's a good discussion point this, but there is some nonsense on here. First things first, there is no whistle to play to in cricket. Batsman make assumptions about the ball being dead all the time without being arrogant, it is a judgement call, not a finite decision. For example, a batsman will often leave a ball, the keeper takes it and the batsman wanders out to pat the pitch/speak to the other batsman/stare enigmatically at the clouds etc etc. The umpire doesn't announce &quotthe ball is dead&quot at any point, unlike a football referee who does so by blowing his whistle.

If you play the game you can easily understand why Bell assumed the ball was dead - the fielder gave every impression that it had gone for 4 (as he thought it had), Dhoni had wandered away from the stumps (which he wouldn't do if he thought the ball wasn't dead), as others have said fielders and umpires were all acting like it was the end of the over. Yes, you can say Bell was naive/stupid or whatever and you'd be sort of right, but of all the naive/stupid things done on a cricket pitch this is a long way down the list. I'm not an umpiring expert by any means, but I don't see why the umpires couldn't have just said the ball was dead out on the boundary and sorted out whether it was 3 or 4 runs during tea. In fact....

Law 23 (Dead ball)
1. Ball is dead
(b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.

After that it's interesting that Dhoni made the same &quotprofessional&quot decision as Collingwood on the pitch (although it's not the same situation - this one was less clear cut). I thought when it happened that it would be overturned at tea, because it would kill the series if it was allowed to stand. The impression, even if it was a wrong impression, was that India had done something very sly to run out Englands main batsman at a critical point. I've played in games where a significant element of mistrust is formed between the two teams and it descends pretty quickly into unpleasantness. So the right decision was reached in the end and you have to admire Dhoni and India for making it. As for Flower/Strauss, it's probably better they indicated their unhappiness with the decision to Dhoni/Fletcher when there was still the chance to rectify it, than let the problem show itself elsewhere.

[Snake]

I maintain my line of reasoning that a whole subcontinent got lucky on account of the fact that their players, administrators (and quite probably others) had a few minutes to chew over the disgraceful disrespect of the unwritten laws of the game and made the proper decision in the end – that is my point.

In terms of a footballing analogy it’s like when someone kicks a ball out of play when the opposition clearly have a player injured (thereby losing the advantage) but don’t get given the ball back immediately after a restart. There is nothing in the written rules of football that says you must do that, it’s just a given. Taking the bails off was a moment of madness, but they only got away with it because of the timing of the tea break.

Moving on, if things stand the same come the end of this series (2-0 to us) then we are officially the best cricket team on the planet.

[SmileyMan]

Moving on, if things stand the same come the end of this series (2-0 to us) then we are officially the best cricket team on the planet.

On English pitches, with our first team fit, undoubtedly.

There's some depth to the batting, and our wagging tail is helping a lot, but lose Swann, or two of Anderson/Broad/Bresnan/Tremlett and we'd struggle to get other teams out in time I think.

Of course, the same applies to all other top teams and their star players - luck/preparedness with injuries is a big part.

[John Byrne's Underpants]

Moving on, if things stand the same come the end of this series (2-0 to us) then we are officially the best cricket team on the planet.

On English pitches, with our first team fit, undoubtedly.

There's some depth to the batting, and our wagging tail is helping a lot, but lose Swann, or two of Anderson/Broad/Bresnan/Tremlett and we'd struggle to get other teams out in time I think.

Of course, the same applies to all other top teams and their star players - luck/preparedness with injuries is a big part.

Number one in the world on paper maybe, but in reality England need to face South Africa next year (and beat them, obviously), in my opinion, before we can really call ourselves the best. And yes, I agree, at home on pitches that suit we are undoubtedly the best at the moment but it's abroad, particularly in the sub-continent with the flat pitches where we need to excel.

[SteMerritt]

Number one in the world on paper maybe, but in reality England need to face South Africa next year (and beat them, obviously), in my opinion, before we can really call ourselves the best.

We were over there 2009/10, and drew the test series 1-1, so it isn't as if we haven't faced them recently.