Ranatunga: 'In my book, you can't chuck a legbreak'

[marc71178]

So that excuses the marching off then? Because the umpire made a bad call?

The better man would've stayed out there and played on.

You moan about the umpires not following the ICC directives, but not about Ranatunga going against them...

 

[Deja moo]

Ok, but should the public suffer for that?
I think when someone has the opportunity to rise above childish antics, they should. I think it could've been handled better on Ranatunga's part is all.

See above post. I dont see why anyone should be expected to take such crap from Emerson.I refer to this part...........

Emerson got it so wrong that he continued to call Muralitharan when he switched to bowl leg-breaks in an orthodox manner.

 

[Deja moo]

So that excuses the marching off then? Because the umpire made a bad call?

The better man would've stayed out there and played on.

You moan about the umpires not following the ICC directives, but not about Ranatunga going against them...

If the umpire is so deficient/ full of himself, that he call orthodox leggies no-balls, why shouldnt the players walk off ?

 

[marc71178]

Why should they?

At the end of the day they are not fulfilling their obligations to the opposition, the crowd and themselves by walking off - regardless of whether the umpire has got it wrong.

 

[Deja moo]

Why should they?

At the end of the day they are not fulfilling their obligations to the opposition, the crowd and themselves by walking off - regardless of whether the umpire has got it wrong.

Their obligation was to play a proper ODI ( in the sense that the rules of the game were to be followed ).

The moment Ross Emerson no balls a delivery that cannot possibly be a no ball, he is breaking the rules....what is the point of playing then on ?

The umpires are the custodians of the game on the field of play foremost , and the game was being made a joke by the umpire.Why should the Sri Lankans have stayed on ?

Dont give me that 'obligation to the crowd ' thing. I highly doubt the Sri Lankans would have felt any obligation to cater to a crowd who was there to heckle Murali.

 

[SJS]

Relevant portions from an article by Mark Nicholas regarding the whole affair.........

.....
After these incidents the ICC investigated the bowler and, after careful analysis, exonerated him.

I dont think this article jsutifies Ranatunga's walking off the field. We are not discussing here whether an umpire's decision is right or wrong but whether once a decision is handed out, the players should accept it and get on with the game or should they decide to become the arbiterators of the game themselves ?

 

[Deja moo]

I dont think this article jsutifies Ranatunga's walking off the field. We are not discussing here whether an umpire's decision is right or wrong but whether once a decision is handed out, the players should accept it and get on with the game or should they decide to become the arbiterators of the game themselves ?

What about the no balling of the leg breaks ?

If an umpire gives someone out wrongly by mistake ( a wrong lbw for example ) ,there would be no justification for the players walking out.

But in case of blatant and persistent stuff like the no balling, I feel the players should make a point.I mean , what was the umpire doing no balling orthodox leg breaks ? Suppose you were a batsman and played a ball to midwicket cleanly along the ground, and then the umpire gives you out bowled, would you respect the decision saying that the umpires word is final?


I find a parallel to the episode in the incident in Pakistan where the umpires repeatedly refused to call the Pakistani bowlers when they were bowling those beamers at the Indian batsmen .
Frustrated by the umpires lack of action , Bushen Singh Bedi walked out with his players.

 

[SJS]

What about the no balling of the leg breaks ?

If an umpire gives someone out wrongly ( a wrong lbw for example ) ,there would be no justification for the players walking out.

But in case of bl

Frankly, one is not aware of the exact reasons why the umpire no balled him. If he thought he was chucking , he thought he was chucking. Only the umpire in question can answer what happened. I wasnt there. I would like to submit that if we do not allow the umpire to be the sole arbiterer , or a third umpire on the ground if you want, or any other neutral person not playing in the game who can adjudicate, there and then. That is fine but this can not be arrogated to the players themselves, that would lead to chaos.

 

[Deja moo]

Frankly, one is not aware of the exact reasons why the umpire no balled him. If he thought he was chucking , he thought he was chucking. Only the umpire in question can answer what happened. I wasnt there. I would like to submit that if we do not allow the umpire to be the sole arbiterer , or a third umpire on the ground if you want, or any other neutral person not playing in the game who can adjudicate, there and then. That is fine but this can not be arrogated to the players themselves, that would lead to chaos.

I just feel theres a lot of difference between honest decisions by the umpire(whether they are right or wrong) and blatant bias.We have different points of view. Lets leave it at that.

 

[JASON]

So that excuses the marching off then? Because the umpire made a bad call?

The better man would've stayed out there and played on.

You moan about the umpires not following the ICC directives, but not about Ranatunga going against them...

I agree with your point on Ranatunga, in that an analysis of his conduct in various incidents would show he was far from an ideal character.

But one must admire his leadership quality and his great loyalty to his Team Mate, much akin to an Army Commander standing by his soldier.

I have not come across any other cricket captain committing such an act of loyalty to his Team Mate .

I would ask members of the Cricket Web to suggest any such incidents that they can recall (of a Captain standing by his Team Mate to this extent).

 

[Neil Pickup]

Given that the Sri Lankan team is so dependent on Murali's bowling, it's not particularly easy to compare to another team.

Having said that, I'd like to think that I'd have done the same as Ranatunga did in that situation.

 

[marc71178]

If an umpire gives someone out wrongly by mistake ( a wrong lbw for example ) ,there would be no justification for the players walking out.

Yet he makes a mistake in no balling (more than likely got caught up in the heat of the moment) and that is justification?

 

[ReallyCrazy]

yes no-balling a player for alleged chucking is good enough to lead the team off the field. Because in this case, its not really an honest mistake the umpire is committing. If I was in Ranatunga's shoes, I would have done the same.

I agree that umpires are there to see the game proceed fairly and are the authority on the field. But if an umpire keeps making blatant calls against one team (and its not an honest mistake either), then the team does not have to subject itself to this humiliation. Yes...Murali, as an international player, was utterly humiliated in front of the world. He does not deserve that and he does not have to take that.

There comes a time when one has to fight authority and bring about changes (not just in cricket!) and this is what Ranatunga did.

 

[Scallywag]

If Sri Lanka had followed procedure when Murali was called for throwing he would have been treated the same as any other bowler. By walking off during a match rather than accept an umpires decision was the mistake that made people doubt Sri Lanka, Ranatunga and Murali's credibility and honesty.

 

[luckyeddie]

If Sri Lanka had followed procedure when Murali was called for throwing he would have been treated the same as any other bowler. By walking off during a match rather than accept an umpires decision was the mistake that made people doubt Sri Lanka, Ranatunga and Murali's credibility and honesty.

Right or wrong, it brought matters to a head - and it meant from that point on, a workable procedure was established to deal with such unfortunate 'incidents' should they arise in the future.

No longer were bowlers subjected to the whims of an arguably politically motivated umpire.

It's worth reading Steve Dunne's thoughts on the matter (Murali 'incidents') in his book "Alone in the middle - an umpire's story" (unless you think that Mark Taylor's poo has no smell)

 

[bennyr]

If Sri Lanka had followed procedure when Murali was called for throwing he would have been treated the same as any other bowler. By walking off during a match rather than accept an umpires decision was the mistake that made people doubt Sri Lanka, Ranatunga and Murali's credibility and honesty.

I think the "people" of whom you speak are rare. I'm not one of them, and neither are any of the people I discussed the incident with since it happened.

Whilst it is a contentious issue as to whether Ranatunga was justified, I think most people would overwhelmingly agree that he was provoked.

I really fail to see how dishonesty comes into it.

 

[SJS]

I think the "people" of whom you speak are rare. I'm not one of them, and neither are any of the people I discussed the incident with since it happened.

Whilst it is a contentious issue as to whether Ranatunga was justified, I think most people would overwhelmingly agree that he was provoked.

I really fail to see how dishonesty comes into it.

You are right. Dishonesty doesnt come into it. Just a question of wether one can keep cool even if under 'provocation' real or perceived.

 

[tooextracool]

Aus tour of Sri Lanka 92-93

Aus tour of Sri Lanka 99....SL won 1-0.

Isnt 2004 their worst performance ever? I think that it wasnt entirely due to Australias strength.....SL was bad too.....worse than in 99 and 92.

umm not really....sri lanka never had anyone half as good a bowler as murali in 92 and their batting was worse too. the 99 side was perhaps better but i dont think this side is by any means "the worst SL side ever". the 3-0 was largely due to this aussie side being far better than the previous ones and despite all that it must be said that the 3-0 scoreline doesnt show how close the series actually was.... in most of those tests SL outperformed australia in the first innings

 

[Tom Halsey]

Giving your opinion on a given matter does not amount to "thinking you should own the world". Which school of Logic did you graduate from ?

Maybe not, but telling the umpire where to stand just because he called someone for chucking does.

 

[Tom Halsey]

IIRC he won Sri Lanka a World Cup by beating a very classie Aussie outfit in the final. ie by scoring more runs than the opposition in lesser number of overs (which is the purpose of One day Cricket). Not by getting on other people's nerves!!

I ask you the same question. What school of logic did you come from?