vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Reckon he'd be moving pretty quickly then anyway, ITBT.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Should Smith have been allowed a runner?
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Matt79
Global Moderator
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
Cricketer Of The Year
Not if there was a pie on offer in his crease.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
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
Banned
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!
shivfan
Banned
Actually, it was Strauss himself who said that. We're yet to hear from the umpires themselves what they said on the matter....
Matt79
Global Moderator
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.
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.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
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
Global Moderator
The fitter you are, the more likely you are going to push yourself to a point of exhaustion.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
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
Global Moderator
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.
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
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Deserve more than one vote. Popularity should be at its highest now, before you have to make any decisions.
Hey GIMH.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
Last edited:
Agent TBY
International Captain
My vote counts for a lot more than just one, tbf.Deserve more than one vote. Popularity should be at its highest now, before you have to make any decisions.
Hey GIMH.