Should Smith have been allowed a runner?

[Uppercut]

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.

That's just Healy being ignorant. Cramp is far more complex than "if you're unfit you get it, if you're fit you don't". I'm as unfit as they come at the moment but I never, ever get cramps as a result of fatigue. Likewise at school I knew rugby players who spent their entire lives doing cardio and weights every day but who regularly cramped up 60-odd minutes into a game.

If Mickey Arthur and Smith's waistline are to be believed, the guy's fitter than he's ever been. Yet he's scored massive double centuries with a massive belly and there's been no sign of cramp whatsoever. There's no way you can make a statement like "if he was conditioned properly it wouldn't have happened." Cramp doesn't necessarily work like that.

[vic_orthdox]

The fitter you are, the more likely you are going to push yourself to a point of exhaustion.

[Jono]

Did someone actually quote Ian Healy as an authority? Lol.

Anyway, Strauss should have had no say in it at all.

[Uppercut]

The fitter you are, the more likely you are going to push yourself to a point of exhaustion.

That's true, and I should probably note that "Smith should have been allowed a runner" isn't the necessary conclusion to be drawn from my post on the intricacies of cramp. But that doesn't make "Smith only got cramp cos he's a fatty" remotely valid as a reasoning for not allowing a runner.

[vic_orthdox]

From my experience, what the umpires did there is actually a common occurrence. They'll say that, under the rules you are under no obligation, but the option is there for you to let them have the runner.

Have to say though that in my experience, most batsmen have just sucked it up when its cramp, call for a physio or someone to help out, and never even asked for one.

[andyc]

andyc a bit stiff here, TTYTT.

[vic_orthdox]

Deserve more than one vote. Popularity should be at its highest now, before you have to make any decisions.

Hey GIMH.

[Uppercut]

From my experience, what the umpires did there is actually a common occurrence. They'll say that, under the rules you are under no obligation, but the option is there for you to let them have the runner.

Have to say though that in my experience, most batsmen have just sucked it up when its cramp, call for a physio or someone to help out, and never even asked for one.

The thing is, you generally don't want a runner. It's extremely awkward and regularly results in a run-out, particularly towards the end of the game when all kinds of singles and twos are being attempted. When Smith says he wants a runner in a situation like that, I'm inclined to think he must have been in fairly bad pain to think there was any kind of advantage that could be gained from having one.

None of this matters from a laws-of-cricket perspective, but it's why I think Strauss allowing a runner would have been a lot more... within the spirit.

[Agent TBY]

Deserve more than one vote. Popularity should be at its highest now, before you have to make any decisions.

Hey GIMH.

My vote counts for a lot more than just one, tbf.

[andyc]

Haha, probably the first time I've ever not looked at a poll and voted before actually posting.

[Fusion]

No and wouldn't be totally against getting rid of runners full stop.

Nor substitute fieldsmen tbh. Allow them, but with the proviso that if you go off the field and are replaced with a sub, you can't bowl again that innings.

AWTA. Injuries, and having to deal with them, is part of any sport. I don't see why Cricket allows for runners. If someone is not fit to play, then they should not play. If you are injured, then you should retire hurt and should not be able to come back in the game.

[Uppercut]

Most sports do have some kind of substitution rule to allow for injuries tbh.

[GIMH]

Deserve more than one vote. Popularity should be at its highest now, before you have to make any decisions.

Hey GIMH.

TBF I didn't vote for that option, guilty til proven innocent in my book. Let's have a manly hug Jack.

[Fusion]

Most sports do have some kind of substitution rule to allow for injuries tbh.

Yes, but the substitution generally means the injured player is off the field though. Cricket is the only major sport I can think of where the main object of the opposition is allowed to play on with a runner. If a batsman can’t run, then either he should retire hurt or play on without a runner if need be.

[Uppercut]

Would you rather he were allowed to be substituted off for a reserve batsman? That's what happens in a lot of other sports.