Should Smith have been allowed a runner?

[GIMH]

This was brushed over in the match thread, but since then Strauss has come out and defended his decision to deny Smith a runner, saying, "you don't get a runner for cramps, full stop." ("You shouldn't get a runner for cramps, full stop" - Strauss | Cricket News | ICC Champions Trophy, 2009 | Cricinfo.com)

Smith claims that plenty of batsmen have had runners when suffering from cramps in the past and that inconsistency is the main problem here. Some of also pointed that Owais Shah was off the field at the time, although as I understand it the runner and substitute fielder rulings are different from each other.

Any thoughts?

[BoyBrumby]

Strauss tried moving onto the moral highground with the Mathews run-out, but obviously didn't like the view.

Nah, seriously, I dunno. I think runners are, at best, a necessary evil and for issues of fatigue (which cramping could be said to fall under) there's maybe a case to deny the batsman one as he's not actually injured. Seems a bit mean-spirited tho.

[Athlai]

Should be allowed a runner if you cramp up, spirit of the game etc.

[pasag]

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

[Matt79]

Cramping isn't an injury, it's a conditioning issue. To quote Ian Healy, you don't get a runner for being a fat *******, nor should you get one for lacking the fitness required. Maybe it was an extreme level of fitness required in this instance, but one of the things that makes someone a exceptional champion.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by pasag

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.

[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.

[silentstriker]

I'm actually iffy on this. Fatigue is part of cricket, you score a lot of runs, and you'll get tired. How you handle it is part of the game. I can see both sides, but I wouldn't be against a law saying runners are only for injuries.

A fast bowler can't do anything if he is tired - it's just tough luck......

[Faisal1985]

Just goes on to show that Cricket Web has an 8:5 ratio of Brits:Proteas.............

I can't believe Strauss did that after being so generous to Anglo...........that was purely a pathetic thing to do on Strauss's end............

....STRAUSS HAS HARDLY PLAYED AN INNINGS LIKE THAT FOR ENGLAND HOW WOULD HE KNOW WHAT SMITH WAS FEELING AT THAT TIME!.....

[andyc]

Originally Posted by Faisal1985

Just goes on to show that Cricket Web has an 8:5 ratio of Brits:Proteas.............

I can't believe Strauss did that after being so generous to Anglo...........that was purely a pathetic thing to do on Strauss's end............

....STRAUSS HAS HARDLY PLAYED AN INNINGS LIKE THAT FOR ENGLAND HOW WOULD HE KNOW WHAT SMITH WAS FEELING AT THAT TIME!.....

Most of the people who have voted in the poll aren't English or South African, ftr. I wouldn't really call it pathetic myself, more just a bit unsportsmanlike. Without looking it up, doesn't the rule on runners say that the batsman has to have sustained the injury within the match, ie. not have had the injury when the game started? It's not like Smith came in to the game already cramping, it was something that started happening during the course of his innings. Is cramping necessarily related to fitness? Just from my experience, there were plenty of fit guys I've played soccer with who would cramp up, while more portly players would carry on no problem.

[vic_orthdox]

I'm definitely in the "No" category. At first I was umm-ing and ahh-ing, but then realised that there is no way, if I were in the bowling team, that I'd be happy to let someone get a runner for cramp.

[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?

[Johnners]

Yeah gree with Andy's last sentence, have seen plenty of "fit" guys cramp up. Seems a bit harsh to deny him one, especially given it's a pretty big disadvantage runnings between wickets for the batting team as soon as the runner is out there (imo).

That being said, can't really speak from experience sooo....probably gives one a different perspective.

[Stapel]

It shouldn't be Strauss' decicsion. Why aren't he laws clear on when a batsman can have a runner and when not?

[Naumaan]

well i have seen many batsmen were allowed runner
but if u r not bias, then i think Strauss did the rite thing
he wanted to win it, if Smith was allowed a runner like AB DEVILLIARS, that cheating for me
which really showed he wanted to gain some advantage, by the way i'm not saying he wasn't cramping