Should Smith have been allowed a runner?

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Kyle

It was unsporting. It is the same law, so Shah should not have been allowed a substitute fielder, he clearly had no injury. England are one of the most prolific abusers of the substitute fielder.England now have a series in South Africa. You can bet if there's a runner needed by England, there'll be an argument.

Yeah I agree with this, it's farcical. You'd almost think the poor dears are incapable of staying on the field for an hour stretch at times. They're better than they were though.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Yeah I agree with this, it's farcical. You'd almost think the poor dears are incapable of staying on the field for an hour stretch at times. They're better than they were though.

Back in 05 they had to continually leave the field in order to get a fresh supply of mints.

Everyone knows that.

[Black_Warrior]

Cramps can happen to any player at any time...it has very little to do with pre match fitness level of the player..Most batsmen do get a runner..That certainly was unfair to deny Smith a runner at that stage of the game. I am sure Strauss would have no problems if South Africa were 100 runs short!

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

Wasn't being entirely serious.

However, particularly in the middle to latter stages of an ODI, running between the wickets is a hugely important part of batting. If you're not fit enough to run, then IMO you're not fit enough to bat. Either man up and bat and run through the pain, or get your arse off the field.

[Sanz]

I am kind of confused here reading the law in this regard :-

Law 2 (Substitutes and runners; batsman or fielder leaving the field; batsman retiring; batsman commencing innings) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's


(ii) a runner when batting.
Any injury or illness that occurs at any time after the nomination of the players until the conclusion of the match shall be allowable, irrespective of whether play is in progress or not.
(b) The umpires shall have discretion, for other wholly acceptable reasons, to allow a substitute for a fielder, or a runner for a batsman, at the start of the match or at any subsequent time.
(c) A player wishing to change his shirt, boots, etc. must leave the field to do so. No substitute shall be allowed for him.
2. Objection to substitutes
The opposing captain shall have no right of objection to any player acting as a substitute on the field, nor as to where the substitute shall field. However, no substitute shall act as wicket-keeper. See 3 below.
3. Restrictions on the role of substitutes
A substitute shall not be allowed to bat or bowl nor to act as wicket-keeper or as captain on the field of play.

---------------------

the above doesn't say anywhere that the opposing captain has the powers to deny the request for a runner.

[JBH001]

This was my point earlier about umpires foisting the responsibility onto Strauss.

Although, partly it may also be, that informally fielding captains have begun to give permission in cases where the umpires were uncertain.

Again, I think Strauss is being hard done by.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Wasn't being entirely serious.

However, particularly in the middle to latter stages of an ODI, running between the wickets is a hugely important part of batting. If you're not fit enough to run, then IMO you're not fit enough to bat. Either man up and bat and run through the pain, or get your arse off the field.

Yeah agree with this, by all means retire hurt and if you have to get some treatment in the changerooms and come back out later that's fine. You don't have a right to a runner because you cramp up though.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by Burgey

I'm interested in this, as many years ago a fellow played at our club for a team at a reasonable level who had polio as a child, and as such could hardly walk. He batted at 11 and stood at slip (when he fielded). I don't think he was ever refused a runner by another team.

I realise this is a very different situation to the one involving either Smith or the fella you're talking about, but I wonder whether it comes down to the level you're playing at when deciding these things.

The other issue was that this particular batsmen was ****ing boring, and a **** of a man to go with it - which made our decision easier.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Yeah. Cramping can be ****ing agony. It's unsporting to ask someone to keep running in extreme pain, and comments like "it's just because he's unfit!!" just seem mean-spirited to me. Having a runner puts you (and the guy at the other end) at a big disadvantage regarding running between the wickets anyway.

No, I'm with Struass on this one, cramping is a conditioning and fitness issue and it has been a consatnt problem with Smith in particular, a lot of times he has played a longish innings he has eventually cramped up, so Strauss was well within his rights to deny him the runner.

Anyways, I just don't like the idea of having a runner, as a batsman if despite an injury if you are willing to stay out there and bat, then you should also try to run your own runs, and if you are not in the condition of doing that, then just come off the field, it should be just as simple as that.

[marc71178]

Just a small point to counter the Strauss attack here, remember Edgbaston this year?

He could've easily refused to let Manou play - yes it would've a harsh call, but there'd have been nothing that anyone could've done about it if he'd said no.

OK, not strictly speaking the same as a runner here as in that case, Haddin was actually injured, but if events prior to that in the series can be used to attack him, surely this can be used to defend him?

Unfortunately this furore is beginning to overshadow what actually happened on Sunday (in terms of SA failing yet again when the expectation was on) - and the margin of victory does suggest to me that it was an irrelevant point.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Just a small point to counter the Strauss attack here, remember Edgbaston this year?

He could've easily refused to let Manou play - yes it would've a harsh call, but there'd have been nothing that anyone could've done about it if he'd said no.

OK, not strictly speaking the same as a runner here as in that case, Haddin was actually injured, but if events prior to that in the series can be used to attack him, surely this can be used to defend him?

Unfortunately this furore is beginning to overshadow what actually happened on Sunday (in terms of SA failing yet again when the expectation was on) - and the margin of victory does suggest to me that it was an irrelevant point.

I don't think there is any need to count Strauss' good and bad deeds here, the thing is Strauss was well within his rights to deny Smith a runner there and I'm glad he did that, because its high time that this topic was discussed within the ICC, and I hope they scrap the use of runners completely from the game.

[shivfan]

Just for the record, I thought Strauss was extremely sporting when he called Angelo Mathews back the crease, and deserves all the kudos coming his way for upholding the spirit of the game in the match against Sri Lanka....

However, the opposite has happened here, and Strauss deserves any criticism coming his way. Especially since England batsmen have used runners for batsmen who've suffered from cramp this decade, including Trescothick and Bell, as far as I can remember. There is also a columnist on the BBC who recalls an ODI last year in India when Shah and Prior developed cramps and used Bell as a runner.

So, this sudden change of attitude by Strauss towards using a runner for cramp is a bit disingenuous, and it will be interesting to see how long he and his team maintain that stance....

[DIRK-NANNES]

ICC backs Strauss in runner controversy | Cricket News | ICC Champions Trophy, 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Take that 'yes' people

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by DIRK-NANNES

ICC backs Strauss in runner controversy | Cricket News | ICC Champions Trophy, 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Take that 'yes' people

Being backed by the ICC doesn't add to an individual's credibility.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by pup11

Anyways, I just don't like the idea of having a runner, as a batsman if despite an injury if you are willing to stay out there and bat, then you should also try to run your own runs, and if you are not in the condition of doing that, then just come off the field, it should be just as simple as that.

Yeah I agree, Smith does have a choice and he wasn't asked to continue in agony. His other option is to retire hurt. He obviously thought it was important for him to be there at that stage and so he didn't want to do that. If I was him I'd be cursing the cramp for coming when it did, not Strauss.