Should Smith have been allowed a runner?

[Streetwise]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Not necessarily, no.

You can be in pain without it being an injury (as was the case in this situation)

How can this situation be different to the three occasions where England have used runners when their players have cramped. Are you saying in certain circumstances cramp is a injury but not in others.

[Faisal1985]

Come on guys 2 more for Smith...........................

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Remember when he charged towards an umpire who had the gall to turn down his appeal for a catch?

Lol. Charged. He walked towards the umpire at a pace slightly above what was considered socially acceptable.

[Streetwise]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Australia have been intimidating and disrespecting umpires pretty much throughout Ponting's tenure. Remember when he charged towards an umpire who had the gall to turn down his appeal for a catch? All the times Warne double/triple appealed after the umpire said not out. I could go on for quite a while.

.

So this justifies English captains to carry dirt in thier pockets to alter the condition of the ball and to use runners for cramps and then refuse to allows others to do the same.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Lol. Charged. He walked towards the umpire at a pace slightly above what was considered socially acceptable.

Haha, with the ball thrust towards the umpire's face, yeah.

[Uppercut]

See how the Ponting in full flight ruthlessly chases down its prey, in this case an unsuspecting nearby umpire...

[GIMH]

Haha look, it's been done to death during the Ashes, so I'm not going down that road again. Not quite sure why it's actually being discussed in this thread

[Uppercut]

Haha, I just think Ponting is pretty hard done by in general, he seems a pretty decent guy to me. Streetwise's unsuccessful trolling is pretty annoying, but he has a point- if Ponting had taken a runner for cramps, then later refused his opposite number with the words "My personal view is that you shouldn't get a runner for cramps, full stop", he'd be absolutely crucified. Just like the cricketing world is invariably harsher on England's poor ODI performances than they are on anyone else's, Ponting gets a bum deal from fans all over.

[Johnners]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

See how the Ponting in full flight ruthlessly chases down its prey, in this case an unsuspecting nearby umpire...

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Haha, I just think Ponting is pretty hard done by in general, he seems a pretty decent guy to me. Streetwise's unsuccessful trolling is pretty annoying, but he has a point- if Ponting had taken a runner for cramps, then later refused his opposite number with the words "My personal view is that you shouldn't get a runner for cramps, full stop", he'd be absolutely crucified. Just like the cricketing world is invariably harsher on England's poor ODI performances than they are on anyone else's, Ponting gets a bum deal from fans all over.

Completely AWTA

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Australia have been intimidating and disrespecting umpires pretty much throughout Ponting's tenure. Remember when he charged towards an umpire who had the gall to turn down his appeal for a catch? All the times Warne double/triple appealed after the umpire said not out. I could go on for quite a while.

Oh and as for that run out the batsman ran into the fielder. Tough titties. There's no comparison at all. Collingwood was not out and it was up to the umpires to make the correct decision. NZ's batsman was *out* and it was up to the captain to decide whether he should get another go after there's a good chance he'd have been run out anyway if he'd bothered to not run into the path of the fieldsman.

And England have been abusing the substitute fielder rule for a good 4-5 years.

I do remember when Ponting moved in the umpires direction and gesticulated for a catch when he thought the umpire was ruling on an LBW yes.

And the NZ batsman tried to avoid the fielders, was taken out, and then Collingwood let him walk. Anyone with any sense of sportsmanship wouldn't have let him walk, something Collingwood himself ended up admitting later.

I also remember that you're an almost fanatical hater of Ricky Ponting.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Lol. Charged. He walked towards the umpire at a pace slightly above what was considered socially acceptable.

Yeah, charged sounds far more impressive though. Might as well say he buzzed the umpire in a light airplane shooting cricket balls from the mounted gun turrets.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

And England have been abusing the substitute fielder rule for a good 4-5 years.

I do remember when Ponting moved in the umpires direction and gesticulated for a catch when he thought the umpire was ruling on an LBW yes.

And the NZ batsman tried to avoid the fielders, was taken out, and then Collingwood let him walk. Anyone with any sense of sportsmanship wouldn't have let him walk, something Collingwood himself ended up admitting later.

I also remember that you're an almost fanatical hater of Ricky Ponting.

Fielder takes a direct path towards the ball, batsman moves into that path. It isn't up to the fielder to make way for them. Tough luck batsman.

As for the substitute rule England are hardly alone in abusing it. Same as all teams slow the over rate in certain situations. Teams take advantage of the rules and singling one team out for it is pretty dumb. Most of these teams don't however regularly come up with some pompous ****e about the spirit of the game..

[aussie]

I'm with Smith & the saffies here, dont see why Strauss didn't allow the runner, Smith clearly couldn't move freely.

[Burgey]

Smitteh doesn't need a runner. The runner needs Smitteh.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

And the NZ batsman tried to avoid the fielders, was taken out, and then Collingwood let him walk. Anyone with any sense of sportsmanship wouldn't have let him walk, something Collingwood himself ended up admitting later.

Not sure you're remembering this quite right, SOC. First, far from "trying to avoid the fielder", the NZ batsman changed direction onto a collision course with the fielder (in fact it's quite possible to draw the conclusion that he did so deliberately). Second, it's the batsman's job to get out of the way anyway. Third, the batsman wouldn't have made his ground if there hadn't been a collision. Fourth, I'm not sure Collingwood admitted quite what you remember him admitting.

Having said all of which, I'd have preferred Collingwood to have withdrawn the appeal.