Should Smith have been allowed a runner? - Page 2

GIMH · 28-09-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shivfan

That was very unsporting of Strauss to deny Smith a runner, and it's surprising, since it came a couple of days after strauss did the sporting thing, and call back Angelo Mathews....

I was very disappointed in Strauss's actions. There is a lot of inconsistency with his action.

You can't have England benefitting from getting runners when their batsmen get cramp, and then they turn around and deny an opposing batsman that same privilege.

In 2002, Marcus Trescothick developed cramp in his innings, and was allowed a runner by the Aussie captain:

Australian openers flay England to set up comfortable win | England Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Before Strauss takes a preachy attitude over having runners for batsmen with cramps, he needs to be very critical of his own who do the same.

In the Lords final of the C&G a couple of years ago, Ian Bell developed cramp while batting with Nick Knight, and used a runner. Is Strauss now going to tell Bell that such behaviour is unacceptable?

Was Strauss involved in either of those matches?

You know the answer, thanks

vic_orthdox · 28-09-2009, 09:04 AM

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.

vic_orthdox · 28-09-2009, 09:05 AM

andyc a bit stiff here, TTYTT.

BoyBrumby · 28-09-2009, 09:09 AM

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.

SirBloody Idiot · 28-09-2009, 09:11 AM

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.

vic_orthdox · 28-09-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirBloody Idiot

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.

Reckon he'd be moving pretty quickly then anyway, ITBT.

Matt79 · 28-09-2009, 09:12 AM

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.

SirBloody Idiot · 28-09-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Reckon he'd be moving pretty quickly then anyway, ITBT.

Not if there was a pie on offer in his crease.

GingerFurball · 28-09-2009, 09:16 AM

No.

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.

Sanz · 28-09-2009, 09:23 AM

If we are not going to allow runners then what's the point in having this option, this should be scrapped.

Son Of Coco · 28-09-2009, 09:24 AM

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.

shivfan · 28-09-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Was Strauss involved in either of those matches?

You know the answer, thanks

Well, if the England team are conveniently changing their attitude towards requesting a runner for cramp, I hope Strauss conveys that decision to Bell before the tour of South Africa starts!

Matt79 · 28-09-2009, 09:39 AM

A runner would really only help Bell if he was also allowed to bat for him...

shivfan · 28-09-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt79

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.

Actually, it was Strauss himself who said that. We're yet to hear from the umpires themselves what they said on the matter....

Matt79 · 28-09-2009, 09:43 AM

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.

View Poll Results: Should Smith have been allowed a runner?
Yes	33	47.14%
No	34	48.57%
andyc is my favourite CW moderator	3	4.29%
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

28-09-2009, 09:09 AM	#19 (permalink)
BoyBrumby Englishman Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Doing the stance Posts: 42,622	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. __________________ *- As featured in The Independent.* "This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers." - Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads

28-09-2009, 09:24 AM	#26 (permalink)
Son Of Coco Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,059	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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Could Graeme Smith break all captaincy records?	Richard	Cricket Chat	42	01-01-2008 07:22 AM
Teams of players all sharing a name.	pskov	Cricket Chat	41	07-06-2007 09:59 PM
The Smith and Vaughan Saga	Scaly piscine	Cricket Chat	8	15-10-2005 06:16 AM
Hinds and Smith in confrontation	Richard	Cricket Chat	61	09-05-2005 12:53 PM
JME01-Succesion Game	Jamee999	General	115	06-11-2004 02:30 PM

28-09-2009, 09:04 AM	#17 (permalink)
vic_orthdox Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 24,363	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.

28-09-2009, 09:05 AM	#18 (permalink)
vic_orthdox Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 24,363	andyc a bit stiff here, TTYTT.

28-09-2009, 09:11 AM	#20 (permalink)
SirBloody Idiot Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Moving the hole in the o-zone layer Posts: 8,442	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.

28-09-2009, 09:16 AM	#24 (permalink)
GingerFurball Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Crabs Subbie Posts: 15,426	No. 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.

28-09-2009, 09:23 AM	#25 (permalink)
Sanz Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: USA Posts: 16,228	If we are not going to allow runners then what's the point in having this option, this should be scrapped.

28-09-2009, 09:39 AM	#28 (permalink)
Matt79 Global Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!! Posts: 17,427	A runner would really only help Bell if he was also allowed to bat for him...

28-09-2009, 09:43 AM	#30 (permalink)
Matt79 Global Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!! Posts: 17,427	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)