Would you have upheld the appeal?

[Furball]

Yes. It's plain hypocrisy to suggest that Praveen was being deliberately deceptive while maintaining that Bell wasn't looking for the 4th run.

I don't think anyone has suggested Praveen was deliberately being deceptive, but the way he fielded the ball would have suggested to me that the ball had crossed the boundary and was therefore dead Suresh Raina evidently thought that the ball had gone for 4 as well.

 

[Burgey]

This.

Having said that I don't think India were wrong to have appealed in the first place, still not sure the right outcome has come about but whatever we think it looks like the Dhoni decison could well hand England a 2-0 lead.

England were heading to a 2-0 lead anyway mate. He was 130 odd at the time, not 15 n.o.

 

[GotSpin]

I would definitely call the batsman back in similar circumstances if I was the captain. But then, I am a stickler for the Spirit of the Game and there's a bit less on the line in Hutt Valley cricket.

I don't think I would have appealed tbh. Was always brought up to follow the spirit of the game by coaches and parents.

 

[benchmark00]

What a joke, it was out. An unfortunate brain fade, no doubt, but you don't get a reprieve in test cricket for brain fades.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I don't think I would have appealed tbh. Was always brought up to follow the spirit of the game by coaches and parents.

Yes, but it's not up to the Captain to appeal. If the someone else did, then the Captain has the right to withdraw the appeal. That's what I was saying.

 

[GotSpin]

Yes, but it's not up to the Captain to appeal. If the someone else did, then the Captain has the right to withdraw the appeal. That's what I was saying.

Yeah, true.

Not strictly relevant to the case in question right now, but we've called back batsmen when particularly atrocious decisions were made by an umpire that were obvious to everyone else bar the person making the decision

 

[ankitj]

Indeed, and as you said before, practically every English poster said it was a terrible decision by Colly. So the basic point being made here by 8anjitk is twaddle.

Firstly, you've got my ID all wrong. You can simply call me Ankit. Being addressed to by my ID feels weird because I do have a weird ID that I picked for reasons I will elaborate some other day.

Secondly, considering that some of the nicer English posters have said that they probably wouldn't have reversed the appeal, I think it's totally conceivable that many English posters would have supported the appeal had the actors in the incident been on opposite sides. Unless of course you think English posters have much better "gamesmanship" than the Indian ones, which would be a very prejudicial position.

Colly's case was different, as are any two cases, so can't extend anything from that.

 

[biased indian]

the most interesting thing to me was how the 2 English batsmen was reacting to the situation in different ways..check morgan as bell come near to him he make sure that he has grounded the bat in the crease ..this when he was standing just 3 -4 feet away from rauf

i would not have definitely withdrawn the appeal ..it was foolish thinng on our part

as for praveen if we look at the replay you can see as he flick the ball back it hits the front part of his leg which would have made him think that the ball would have come back to wards the rope..i don't know how it went side ways ???

 

[Smudge]

Indeed, and as you said before, practically every English poster said it was a terrible decision by Colly..

Scaly piscine says hi. Although he's a big, Scrabble-playing, perm-haired exception to the rule...

 

[honestbharani]

The umpire was? Wasn't aware of that. It was certainly very silly of Murali to quickly touch down when the ball was still clearly live and go down to Sangakkara. However, isn't the law something to do with not attempting a run?

And the Elliot example is being used because it falls under the umbrella of sportsmanship, and whether or not to appeal. I would've thought that was pretty easy to understand.

As for anyone who says Bell is turning for a fourth, and why would he run, pretty laughable.

I didn't see any umpire asking him to come back to his crease at all.. And I have seen it so many times now. Just think it was plain obvious Murali was running to congratulate Sanga and McCullum was just being a dick.. Don't think there is anything more to that at all.. And if we take what the umpires say as truth, here it was Erasmus who actually suggested the run out to the Indians, by all accounts..

 

[honestbharani]

Give it a break ffs.

Say that when Marc posts, FFS..

 

[centurymaker]

Lord MS Dhoni

 

[fredfertang]

Lord MS Dhoni

Has he written a calypso?

 

[centurymaker]

Dozy Bell pretended to save his wicket: Vaughan | News | NDTVSports.com

hmmm he might be right

bell jogged halfway down and then realized he had messed up, so he pretended that nothing had happened.

 

[Smudge]

I didn't see any umpire asking him to come back to his crease at all.. And I have seen it so many times now.

Watch it again then. What else could that umpire's hand signal mean? And who said the umpire 'asked him' to come back to his crease?

‪Muttiah Muralitharan's amazing run out @ Christchurch v.s NZ‬‏ - YouTube

 

[centurymaker]

Watch it again then. What else could that umpire's hand signal mean? And who said the umpire 'asked him' to come back to his crease?

‪Muttiah Muralitharan's amazing run out @ Christchurch v.s NZ‬‏ - YouTube

yeah agree

 

[keeper]

That Murali one. Was there any subsequent explanation as to why the umpire was moving so purposefully towards the wicket from square leg?

 

[Stapel]

I've been watching the incident again and again. Praveen acts as if he is reasoanbly sure it is a FOUR. Though he doesn't signal a boundary in the usual proper way, his body language DOES signal a four. And Bell picked that up.

Technically Bell was out, but only so because he was (unintentially) deceived by Kumar's body language. Can't appeal then! I wouldn't! And if a team mate would, I would immediately make clear it couldn't stand.

 

[Smudge]

That Murali one. Was there any subsequent explanation as to why the umpire was moving so purposefully towards the wicket from square leg?

Swapping sides with Murali coming on strike?

 

[SteveNZ]

That Murali one. Was there any subsequent explanation as to why the umpire was moving so purposefully towards the wicket from square leg?

I'm fairly certain he was going to square leg - change of left-hand/right-hand with Murali supposedly coming onto strike. You could say Rudi shouldn't have been moving in and possibly confusing Murali, but that happens all the time. It's for all intents and purposes one run, Rudi is moving to the other side to save time. Think it's taking it a bit far to motion to Murali that he needs to get back though!

I remember at the time thinking McCullum was well within his rights. Now I don't.

To relate it back to Bell, what if Bell wasn't out the last ball before tea..what if it was in the middle of a session? India wouldn't have had the chance to cool their jets and recall him. They didn't before tea, therefore you'd have to suggest in another timeframe Bell would've walked off and Prior would've been in. And then it might've been a bigger incident, and Dhoni would be the villain as opposed to the good guy.