Should Smith have been allowed a runner?

[Uppercut]

Got a point there, actually, I wasn't aware of that ODI. There's something not right about Strauss taking a runner when he gets cramps then refusing to allow one for another player later on the grounds that "you shouldn't get a runner for cramps, full stop". That's balls, I'm losing respect for the England captain here.

 

[Streetwise]

Yea wouldn't want to take the hypocrite title from Ricky Ponting.

Oh boy I didnt mean to upset you scaly Piscine, we all know that you English are soooooooo much better than those convicts. In the future when posting I'll do my best to point out something bad about Ponting so I dont hurt your feelings again.

 

[pup11]

Got a point there, actually, I wasn't aware of that ODI. There's something not right about Strauss taking a runner when he gets cramps then refusing to allow one for another player later on the grounds that "you shouldn't get a runner for cramps, full stop". That's balls, I'm losing respect for the England captain here.

Haha, Engalnd have always bend the rules to favour themselves, and I don't see why they should be criticised for that, you might dislike what they are doing, but they are not breaking any laws of the games as such.

Ponting is constantly called a hypocrite, but he has always emphasised on playing the game in the right spirit, but most opposition sides have bluntly refused proposals he has made to develop mutual trust between the sides, and if in such scenario if Ponting also follows lead some of his opposition counter-parts, he gets flogged.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yea wouldn't want to take the hypocrite title from Ricky Ponting.

Collingwood must be a contender. Doesn't call a guy back after he's knocked over taking a single and then run out and then pleads to be allowed to stay when he wanders out of his ground.

If I was Vettori I would have said nothing, pointed him towards the pavilion and then when he was on his way duly informed him that he could **** himself on his way back if he so desired.

As for Ponting, England seem to have managed to pull off quite a few ordinary acts on the field the past few years and come away apparently scott free. I'm all for Smith not having a runner for cramp. But if England are going to make a stand on the substitute rule then they need to have a look at what they've been doing in the field the past 3 or 4 years.

 

[Uppercut]

Colly's stated that he massively regretted the decision he made over the Elliot run-out. Vettori would have been a massive hypocrite if he'd withheld the appeal after criticising Colly so heavily in the aftermath of that incident.

 

[GIMH]

Collingwood must be a contender. Doesn't call a guy back after he's knocked over taking a single and then run out and then pleads to be allowed to stay when he wanders out of his ground.

If I was Vettori I would have said nothing, pointed him towards the pavilion and then when he was on his way duly informed him that he could **** himself on his way back if he so desired.

As for Ponting, England seem to have managed to pull off quite a few ordinary acts on the field the past few years and come away apparently scott free. I'm all for Smith not having a runner for cramp. But if England are going to make a stand on the substitute rule then they need to have a look at what they've been doing in the field the past 3 or 4 years.

When I saw a replay it looked to me as if over was called before the stumps went down so that really would have been silly. And as Will said, he's stated he made a mistake last year.

 

[Son Of Coco]

When I saw a replay it looked to me as if over was called before the stumps went down so that really would have been silly. And as Will said, he's stated he made a mistake last year.

He's English, there's no such thing as 'Over was called before the stumps went down' What was the issue then if this was the case? Surely the umpires wouldn't give him out if over has been called, thus there'd be no need for Vettori to intervene.

And obviously it would be silly for Vettori to have done that. I would enjoy it immensely if it was me though.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Colly's stated that he massively regretted the decision he made over the Elliot run-out. Vettori would have been a massive hypocrite if he'd withheld the appeal after criticising Colly so heavily in the aftermath of that incident.

That's nice of him, did he not see Elliot get taken out at the time?

It is good of him to apologise. And NZ won so in the end so I guess there was no real harm done. Except to Colly's reputation at the time. But again, he's English so...his reputation will never be at 100%

 

[GIMH]

Harper wasn't sure when he had called over. cricinfo said that the replays pointed towards over being called before the stumps fell, and the replays I saw suggested the same, but some have disputed this.

Vettori appealing for Colly's dismissal and allowing him to walk would have been akin to him getting Mills to bowl the final ball underarm tbh.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Harper wasn't sure when he had called over. cricinfo said that the replays pointed towards over being called before the stumps fell, and the replays I saw suggested the same, but some have disputed this.

Vettori appealing for Colly's dismissal and allowing him to walk would have been akin to him getting Mills to bowl the final ball underarm tbh.

Would have liked to have seen both happen as a neutral viewer

The look of shock on Collingwood's face was pretty funny. I'm pretty sure "Have I just ****ed up!?" shot into his mind pretty quickly.

 

[Briony]

So what? He also then retired hurt from the cramps that game, so maybe Smith should've done that if it was so bad?

I don't think the conditions were as bad the other night that half the players were suffering from cramps, unlike that game.

As I said earlier, this has proved quite convenient for SA as it seems to have overshadowed them making yet another pathetic showing when it really counted - when in effect it is a complete non-event.

But if he 'retires hurt' isn't it then officially an injury hence can warrant a runner?

 

[GIMH]

Would have liked to have seen both happen as a neutral viewer

 

[Streetwise]

If it had been Ponting who used a runner when he cramped and then refused Smith a runner there would be 30 pages calling him a hypochrite and going against the spirit of the game. Can you imagine the outrage if that were the case.

 

[marc71178]

But if he 'retires hurt' isn't it then officially an injury hence can warrant a runner?

Not necessarily, no.

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

 

[Scaly piscine]

Collingwood must be a contender. Doesn't call a guy back after he's knocked over taking a single and then run out and then pleads to be allowed to stay when he wanders out of his ground.

If I was Vettori I would have said nothing, pointed him towards the pavilion and then when he was on his way duly informed him that he could **** himself on his way back if he so desired.

As for Ponting, England seem to have managed to pull off quite a few ordinary acts on the field the past few years and come away apparently scott free. I'm all for Smith not having a runner for cramp. But if England are going to make a stand on the substitute rule then they need to have a look at what they've been doing in the field the past 3 or 4 years.

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.

 

[Streetwise]

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]

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]

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]

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.