• 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?

Should Smith have been allowed a runner?


  • Total voters
    70

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
That's not quite the same as admittind that he had no sense of sportsmanship though
Is that what I said? I'll have to go back and re-read my post.

Hmmm, I don't think I was indicating that Collingwood had said "I have no sense of sportmanship', but rather that he admitted he shouldn't have let him walk. Apologies if it was a confusing sentence though.
 
Last edited:

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
No excuse, you underarm-bowling convict
Let's not turn this into some sort of uncouth slanging match you crooked-toothed, soap-dodging, inappropriately short skirt wearing, high heel carrying, deep fried mars bar eating, Vitamin D avoiding, fashion challenged, illegitimate Chav bastard! :ph34r:

(Note: I completely lost track of where the hyphens should go after the first couple of attempts)
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
crooked-toothed, soap-dodging, inappropriately short skirt wearing, high heel carrying, deep fried mars bar eating, Vitamin D avoiding, fashion challenged, illegitimate Chav bastard!
:-O There's no need to bring my mother in to this.
 

Isura

U19 Vice-Captain
The runner is one the dumbest rules in cricket. You can't run, you can't bat. As simple as that. It might have made sense when cricket was a leisurely gentlemen's game. But it has no place in international cricket.
 

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
in fact it's quite possible to draw the conclusion that he did so deliberately
:laugh:

You can't be serious! Why on earth would a batsman deliberately run towards a collision rather than complete a run? That makes utterly no sense. So, no, it's not "quite possible" to draw such a conclusion - unless you're, say, Scaly.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
:laugh:

You can't be serious! Why on earth would a batsman deliberately run towards a collision rather than complete a run? That makes utterly no sense. So, no, it's not "quite possible" to draw such a conclusion - unless you're, say, Scaly.
It makes sense for a batsman who realises that he's not going to make it to safety. If you can't get home, get in the fielder's way. Ever seen a batsman deliberately get in the way of the throw? Same sort of thing. Elliott knew that there was a pretty high chance of being run out, and his change of direction was an act of desperation.

Anyhow even if I'm wrong about that (and I don't expect many of the Kiwis here to agree with me), the fact remains that the bowler has the right of way, and it's the batsman's job to get out of the road. So the batsman has little cause for complaint if there's a collision.
 
Last edited:

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
It makes sense for a batsman who realises that he's not going to make it to safety. If you can't get home, get in the fielder's way. Ever seen a batsman deliberately get in the way of the throw? Same sort of thing. Elliott knew that there was a pretty high chance of being run out, and his change of direction was an act of desperation.

Anyhow even if I'm wrong about that (and I don't expect many of the Kiwis here to agree with me), the fact remains that the bowler has the right of way, and it's the batsman's job to get out of the road. So the batsman has little cause for complaint if there's a collision.
If I remember it correctly from the replay the other day the batsman tried to avoid the players coming in for the ball and the bowler. Missed a couple but not all of them.

If Elliott can think quick enough to take off for a run, sum up the situation and assume that he won't make it and the fielder will hit the stumps, and then engineer a collison he's a genius.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
If I remember it correctly from the replay the other day the batsman tried to avoid the players coming in for the ball and the bowler. Missed a couple but not all of them.

If Elliott can think quick enough to take off for a run, sum up the situation and assume that he won't make it and the fielder will hit the stumps, and then engineer a collison he's a genius.
I couldn't find the clip when I looked for it yesterday but my recollection is different. Perhaps someone will dig it out for us - and if it shows I'm wrong then I will eat a big fat slice of humble pie (being wrong about matters cricketing is a constant state of being for me :().

I think you underestimate the ability of batsmen to "sum up the situation" almost instantaneously. When the bowler is delivering the ball the batsman often has much less than a second in which to assess the flight of the ball, to decide on a stroke and to execute it; they then are often able to decide in a split second whether to take a run once they've hit the ball. It probably takes something in the order of 3 seconds to complete a run, and a batsman who's not going to make it can be fully aware of that fact at a pretty early stage. That's why batsmen change direction to get in the way of the throw, which happens all the time. As for engineering a collision, it's not rocket science - you just aim for the area where the ball and/or fielder is heading. It doesn't take a genius.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
I couldn't find the clip when I looked for it yesterday but my recollection is different. Perhaps someone will dig it out for us - and if it shows I'm wrong then I will eat a big fat slice of humble pie (being wrong about matters cricketing is a constant state of being for me :().

I think you underestimate the ability of batsmen to "sum up the situation" almost instantaneously. When the bowler is delivering the ball the batsman often has much less than a second in which to assess the flight of the ball, to decide on a stroke and to execute it; they then are often able to decide in a split second whether to take a run once they've hit the ball. It probably takes something in the order of 3 seconds to complete a run, and a batsman who's not going to make it can be fully aware of that fact at a pretty early stage. That's why batsmen change direction to get in the way of the throw, which happens all the time. As for engineering a collision, it's not rocket science - you just aim for the area where the ball and/or fielder is heading. It doesn't take a genius.
It'd be very unusual for a batsman to back himself for the collision rather than trying to run the line of the throw. If he'd have stayed upright then the fielder would have been shying at the stumps while slightly off balance rather than lobbing it back over the stumps at the bowler's end.

When I saw the video the other night nothing suggested to me that he'd tried to run into anyone.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
I found it

It shows that Elliott had much less time to react than I'd remembered.

Only the bowler is involved - the other fielders aren't really involved.

Elliott doesn't change direction, but it's fair to say that he does set off at a strange angle across the bowler's path and with the result that he gets between the bowler and the ball.

I'm still not 100% convinced, but I admit, it doesn't look particularly deliberate.

[contemplates humble pie]
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
I found it

It shows that Elliott had much less time to react than I'd remembered.

Only the bowler is involved - the other fielders aren't really involved.

Elliott doesn't change direction, but it's fair to say that he does set off at a strange angle across the bowler's path and with the result that he gets between the bowler and the ball.

I'm still not 100% convinced, but I admit, it doesn't look particularly deliberate.

[contemplates humble pie]
Great, I was looking for it to watch it again too.

What I thought was another fielder the other night at first glance is the other NZ batsman. He doesn't set off at a strange angle, but it's evident he sees Sidebottom coming and is limited to how wide he can go due to the other batsman coming through. His only other option is to go the other side of Sidebottom and run down the middle of the pitch. Given it would take him changing angle completely as well as going against the batsman's first instinct to get off the pitch that was never going to happen.

The commentators seem fairly certain it wasn't a great thing to do.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Remember now why I thought England were completely in the wrong after the incident.

Also, Elliot probably wouldn't have been out if the collision hadn't occured- Sidebottom still had to hit the stumps, there was no one there to break them if he missed.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Remember now why I thought England were completely in the wrong after the incident.

Also, Elliot probably wouldn't have been out if the collision hadn't occured- Sidebottom still had to hit the stumps, there was no one there to break them if he missed.
This is the central impossibility at the heart of your argument
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Having watched that footage again, I don't think you can blame Elliot one bit.

a) He did nothing wrong
b) There was no guarantee he would have been out had he not collided with Sidebottom.

But what I will always remember from that incident is Benson putting his arms around Collingwood. :lol:
 

Top