• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

That Grant Elliott run-out (and other stories)

Snippie27

Cricket Spectator
If it's two batsmen felling each other, definitely run him out - it's the same as a batsman tripping/slipping.

Sidebottom/Elliot is definitely more tricky, but I agree with those that say that there are many other unlucky ways to get out - wandering from your crease (you stupid arse!) - where I feel it's definitely in the fielding's side's prerogative to complete the runout. As such, can't really fault England here, however, it's not quite in the spirit of the game...
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Cricket Controversy *Sidebottom Elliot Run out incident* New Zealand v England 4th ODI The Oval 2008 - YouTube

See around 1:45 in the vid for the replay. Sidebottom charges across the pitch into Elliot's running path, Elliot tried to move out of the way, but Sidebottom (who was clearly focused on getting to the ball) hammered into him.

I agree with Jono. It's one thing for a bowler to hold his ground, but quite another for the bowler to cut across in front of a batsman and physically obstruct him, even when it's unintentional.
 
Last edited:

vandem

International 12th Man
... See around 1:45 in the vid for the replay. Sidebottom charges across the pitch into Elliot's running path, Elliot tried to move out of the way, but Sidebottom (who was clearly focused on getting to the ball) hammered into him.
.
IMHO not quite. Sidebottom starts to go for the ball, but realises that there will be a collision, and is stopping and putting his hands up. Look at the positioning of both player's feet just before the collision. Elliot's apart = moving. Sidebottom's together = stationary. Once Sidebottom does this, he is no longer going for the ball, he is blocking the batsman.

Anyway, as a coach it was the correct call, at U11 level you have a duty to teach good sportsmanship. I coach and referee kid's football, same principles apply. Play fair. They'll soon be old enough to play hard.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I actually have the opposite opinion here. I would definitely not run out Bell/Murali because they weren't attempting a run at all. Especially Murali.

I probably would've run Elliott out though. It's a tough one for me, but if I think that if you're attempting a run then it's your responsibility to make sure you don't run into someone else and fall over, whether it's a member of the opposition or a member of your own side. It's obviously a lot different if it's deliberate, but I actually think it's part of judging a run to make sure you can safely get to the other end given where the fielders are likely to be. If I was batting, I'd have probably not run in Elliott's situation in fear or exactly what happened, so I think it's only fair to punish those who roll the dice and come up snake eyes.
yeah.. PEWS, if we go by your opinion, what is gonna stop bowlers/fielders intentionally getting into the likely running path of the batsman and forcing them to go around them as a tactic to try and run them out ? It is a silly thought because players can easily feign that they were only moving to get the ball and then stopped becoz they realized they could not get there only in that instant.. Opening a huge can of worms if you start thinking Sidebottom/Elliott was ok..
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
yeah.. PEWS, if we go by your opinion, what is gonna stop bowlers/fielders intentionally getting into the likely running path of the batsman and forcing them to go around them as a tactic to try and run them out ? It is a silly thought because players can easily feign that they were only moving to get the ball and then stopped becoz they realized they could not get there only in that instant.. Opening a huge can of worms if you start thinking Sidebottom/Elliott was ok..
Well what's stopping them now?

Whether or not we decide it's okay, it's perfectly legal. And if you're a big enough **** to deliberately knock a batsman down (which actually is illegal) then you're definitely a big enough **** to ignore an unspoken moral code about whether it's okay to do it accidentally.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Well what's stopping them now?

Whether or not we decide it's okay, it's perfectly legal. And if you're a big enough **** to deliberately knock a batsman down (which actually is illegal) then you're definitely a big enough **** to ignore an unspoken moral code about whether it's okay to do it accidentally.
Nothing stops them from getting in the way now, but if they happen to collide, there is a very real expectation that the run out shouldn't be claimed.. So batsmen can still take the risk of running straight into the opposition player hoping they move out or that there wil be backlash if they claim the run out after a collision.. You are saying to take that away and that just gives the opposition players even more freedom to do that ****.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Well, today if a fielder or a bowler deliberately stands in the running line of the batsman, if the batsman runs anyway and jams into him (without looking or acting as if he did not look), the fielders know there will be an issue in claiming the run out.. You start taking away that piece of moral pressure, the fielding side are gonna queue up to go stand in the way of the batsman's run..
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
If it was Brad Hodge, I would have no hesitation.

Anyone else, even Ricky Ponting (bless him), no.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Anyone else yell at the screen when he dipped the bat in water?

"Wait, he's not going to...... OH NO MAAAAAN. GEEZ."
 

Biryani Pillow

U19 Vice-Captain
In the OPs situation - no problem, batsmen's own fault.

In the Elliot/Sidebottom situation - correct decision made. It was a 'racing incident'. Sidebottom was fully entitled to take that line to get the ball and made no wilful attempt to impede the batsman. An interesting point, however, is the running line taken by Elliot. In good Club cricket (which I umpire) the batsman almost always runs down the opposite side of the pitch to the non striker (to avoid possible collisions) - this should be even more common practice higher up the game. However, it is a neat trick used by some batsman to drop the ball close to the bat and take a line to 'run the bowler off' - I would suggest Elliott was doing this. Certain subtle recent changes to the Obstructing the Field Law might cause a question for an umpire in this situation

In the Bell situation - although technically under the Laws it was a run out the fact that many of the Indian players clearly thought there was no further action on the delivery and, perhaps more importantly, the bowlers end umpire was giving the sweater back to the bowler (although they might take it of their own accord I would not offer it until I was content that all worthwhile action on the delivery was complete) indicates that, possibly, the strikers umpire, might have decided differently. Ironically the day before this happened I had a moment in the match I was umpiring. A single had been taken, the cover fielder chased down the ball and, as there was no serious thought on either side regarding a 2nd run, he threw the ball to mid off the batsman at my (the bowler's) end decided to do a little gardening. Mid off shaped to throw at the stumps and looked at me. I shook my head. Although technically under the Law the ball wasn't dead in all common sense it was - and the fielder fully accepted this.

In the Murali situation the problem was Murali set off very quickly to congratulate the batsman. The fielder could reasonably have thought a run was being attempted. Had Murali waited even a couple of seconds I suspect the umpire may have disallowed the appeal.
 
Last edited:

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It could well be that Elliott was running the line he usually runs, but because Sidebottom is a left armer, that line happened to be on the same side as his partner.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Cricket Controversy *Sidebottom Elliot Run out incident* New Zealand v England 4th ODI The Oval 2008 - YouTube

See around 1:45 in the vid for the replay. Sidebottom charges across the pitch into Elliot's running path, Elliot tried to move out of the way, but Sidebottom (who was clearly focused on getting to the ball) hammered into him.

I agree with Jono. It's one thing for a bowler to hold his ground, but quite another for the bowler to cut across in front of a batsman and physically obstruct him, even when it's unintentional.
I'd never run them out in that situation. Could make an arguement for obstructing the field though IMO it would be bull****.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Had another situation today. Starting to think I'm going soft.

Ball played out to cover (I think) and batsmen call no. Ball is then thrown back to mid off who notices that the batsman is a fraction (unintentionally) outside his crease, jogs in and knocks the bails off. Umpire gives him out and my team (U12s) celebrate. Cue moral quandary on my part and a gut instinct that it didn't feel right, before deciding we should recall the batsman... probably influenced by the fact that I was fairly sure the match was as good as won.

I've also refused to accept penalty runs in a close match this season on the grounds that it was U10 cricket...

I've had an interesting summer.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Doesn't really help that Knott has already pulled all three stumps out of the ground by then. Definitely a bit iffy.
 

Top