"It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
Ah, the old one way hypocrisy.
Strauss knows a guy who took a runner in that situation in a game he didn't play in, and his ex-teammate took a runner in that situation before they were even teammates, and he should be bound by that precedent.
andyc a bit stiff here, TTYTT.
Still undecided, tbh, think Strauss probably applied the letter of the law rather than necessarily the spirit of the game; however, I am sure that it's the kind of call that I'd prefer to be in the remit of the umps and therefore have clear guidelines and/or legislation laid down.
Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"The committee discussed the issue of illegal bowling actions, and believed that there are a number of bowlers currently employing suspect actions in international cricket, and that the ICC's reporting and testing procedures are not adequately scrutinising these bowlers."
- Even the ICC's own official press release thinks things must change
If it was anyone but Smith I'd say it was a pretty dog act. But in the case of Graeme Smith, I wouldn't let the smarmy **** have a runner if he was on fire.
From what I read, the umps said they were inclined to refuse Smith the runner, but were happy to leave it up to Strauss. That's that's accurate, that's pretty ****ty from the umpires. It's their job to uphold the rules, not the opposition captain, whose got a massive conflict of interest. If I was a captain, and the umpires came to me in a big match and say "Fat Gray wants a runner, and by the rules we aren't sure he should be allowed one, but if you're willing to let the rules slide on this one, we'll let him do it", I'd be saying "no" as well.
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
Ask Ian Healy why Smith shouldn't have been allowed a runner.
If Smith's cramping up because he spent 50 overs in the field, and then 40+ overs batting, frankly he's got issues with his conditioning that he needs to sort out.
If we are not going to allow runners then what's the point in having this option, this should be scrapped.
No, I think Strauss did the right thing.
Pity it doesn't apply when Flintoff comes into the match injured and then spends time off the field between spells getting treated though. I wouldn't have been upset if Ponting had suggested some of the English bowlers either stay on the field or stay in the pavilion.
"What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
A runner would really only help Bell if he was also allowed to bat for him...
There was meant to be an "if" as in "if that's accurate" in there. Looks like I typed "that that's accurate" instead. I blame global warming for my lapse.
Yeah, Strauss might have been making that up, although you'd think that would be a risky thing to do given there's nothing stopping the umpires coming out and contradicting you if you simply make up things they've supposedly said. Given that, I guess there was some kind of conversation pretty close to what Strauss is describing. It's not like ICC umpires making stuff up on the fly and getting it wrong is unknown.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)