Would you have upheld the appeal?

[zaremba]

Yes because Bell would have claimed the 4th run had Morgan ran and completed it and because i am not sure many other captains would reciprocate the gesture.
No use being the nice guy if you are not sure that would be repaid as Shastri says. And it would have been a lesson for batsman to not be caught sleeping like Atherton said.

Lol at your persistence in pretending that Bell was attempting a run.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Somebody said in the match thread that in football you play to the whistle. I totally agree with this and still think now Bell was out and should have stayed out. Not only did Dhoni let England walk the ball into the net to equalise by allowing Bell back in he gifted us another couple of goals with the joke bowling straight after tea which Morgan took full advantage of.

Dhoni may have won the battle but it has probably cost him the war in the long run and maybe the number 1 spot and his captaincy as I doubt this will go down well in India if they go 2 down.

 

[dfx-]

The reason he's turned is because the pavilion is in that direction and Bell thinks it's tea.

And that's his mistake and that's why he is out. And if we're now overturning decisions because of mistakes from batsmen, well..

 

[Cevno]

Somebody said in the match thread that in football you play to the whistle. I totally agree with this and still think now Bell was out and should have stayed out. Not only did Dhoni let England walk the ball into the net to equalise by allowing Bell back in he gifted us another couple of goals with the joke bowling straight after tea which Morgan took full advantage of.

Dhoni may have won the battle but it has probably cost him the war in the long run and maybe the number 1 spot and his captaincy as I doubt this will go down well in India if they go 2 down.

Yeah, though this may sound biased(which it may be tbh) the discussion during tea would have got animated somewhat (as Ganguly said too, despite what Dravid says) and affected the Morale afterwards.

 

[honestbharani]

There is mistake and there is being naive.. I think Bell was being the latter.. For some reason, I generally think when people are being naive and/or ignorant, it is better to give them a warning first to see if they can be tighter.. I mean, per the law, he was out but sometimes even laws have to be applied judiciously and that is why it is such a nice gesture from Dhoni and the Indian team...

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, though this may sound biased(which it may be tbh) the discussion during tea would have got animated somewhat (as Ganguly said too, despite what Dravid says) and affected the Morale afterwards.

to be honest, I don't think we would have played any better either ways... We were just not good enough today. End of.

 

[MW1304]

Yeah, though this may sound biased(which it may be tbh) the discussion during tea would have got animated somewhat (as Ganguly said too, despite what Dravid says) and affected the Morale afterwards.

Yeah.. its biased and wrong. Should have and (IMO) did have no effect on the outcome of the day. You got back into it at one stage, getting out Bell, Morgan and Trott in quick succession, but let it slip during the Prior/Bresnan partnership. None of it had anything to do with the Bell run out, it was simply a combination of good batting, sloppy bowling/fielding, and a flatter pitch.

Edit: Also, why are you now listening to what Botham says? I thought it was pretty much agreed that his opinion was meaningless, yet now you are quoting him in a post? Wtf mate.

 

[Cevno]

Edit: Also, why are you now listening to what Botham says? I thought it was pretty much agreed that his opinion was meaningless, yet now you are quoting him in a post? Wtf mate.

Well quoted him because i mentioned the other 7 ex captains already so wanted to add him as number 8 and if he is admitting this along with others then i think majority of the captains would have overturned.

 

[SteveNZ]

Would I have recalled him? I wouldn't have appealed in the first place. I would've pointed out to Bell he should be more careful in future and walked off.

I think someone might've posted a video of Grant Elliot being run out at The Oval in 2008. And who threw the ball to KP to break the stumps on that occasion? Drumroll......Ian Bell. Anyone who got on their high horse at tea, as it seems some did, would do well to keep that little incident in mind.

Also reminds me of the Murali run-out against NZ in 2006. I didn't feel comfortable about it, but there was definitely naivety on behalf of the batsman as well.

 

[Furball]

The Murali incident was slightly different, the square leg umpire in that one was telling Murali to get back in his crease. Today's incident had an element of farce in that no-one really seemed to have a clue what was going on.

 

[Themer]

Would I have recalled him? I wouldn't have appealed in the first place. I would've pointed out to Bell he should be more careful in future and walked off.

I think someone might've posted a video of Grant Elliot being run out at The Oval in 2008. And who threw the ball to KP to break the stumps on that occasion? Drumroll......Ian Bell. Anyone who got on their high horse at tea, as it seems some did, would do well to keep that little incident in mind.

Also reminds me of the Murali run-out against NZ in 2006. I didn't feel comfortable about it, but there was definitely naivety on behalf of the batsman as well.

Don't understand why people are using the Elliot one as leverage in their arguement at all. What does it prove? Nothing as everyone was in agreeance that it was a ****ty decision and one for which Collingwood has apologised.

Likewise if we're going to start posting irrelevant similar incedents to see what others would have done we can just post the Matthews being recalled by Strauss one as counter proof to what is an illogical arguement to start will.

 

[Themer]

As for the would I have uphelp it? No, wouldn't have appealed it in the first place. Was obvious that everyone thought it was tea as seen by the fact that even after Saha had taken the bails off everyone continued to walk off normally until, it would appear Erasmus off camera called out to them to say you might have actually got him out.

As for the "Bell was going for a fourth" theory is utter rubbish not even worth a reply.

 

[Redbacks]

It was an amazing set of circumstances that led to the incident, none of which you could forsee and definitely without a decent precedent to fall back on. Had it not been Tea, I doubt Bell would have left his crease like he did. I don't agree that Bell was looking for a run, but he did turn with a little bit of intent, hustle a few steps, and then stop as he then believed the play was dead and he was walking off for the break. That was an error.

Kumar made a ridiculous save, flicking the ball onto his leg as he was flying over the rope, yet somehow managing to keep the ball in and not be over the boundary at the same time. I don't think he would have maintained eye contact with the ball the whole time, thus when he gets up to throw the ball back he seems to think it was four, but he was incorrect. That's a subjective error and I don't think the rules work that way. Whatever the Indian team had decided during the break I see no reason Kumar would be blamed for 'deception' as Vaughan seemed to be suggesting on the radio. Or maybe he is a super tricky customer

If you assume Bell was not trying to score another run then spirit of the game is the best way to answer this question as he is out by the rules of the game but there are plausible arguments for either decision to rescind/uphold the decision.

 

[SteveNZ]

The Murali incident was slightly different, the square leg umpire in that one was telling Murali to get back in his crease. Today's incident had an element of farce in that no-one really seemed to have a clue what was going on.

The umpire was? Wasn't aware of that. It was certainly very silly of Murali to quickly touch down when the ball was still clearly live and go down to Sangakkara. However, isn't the law something to do with not attempting a run?

And the Elliot example is being used because it falls under the umbrella of sportsmanship, and whether or not to appeal. I would've thought that was pretty easy to understand.

As for anyone who says Bell is turning for a fourth, and why would he run, pretty laughable.

 

[ankitj]

It was an amazing set of circumstances that led to the incident, none of which you could forsee and definitely without a decent precedent to fall back on. Had it not been Tea, I doubt Bell would have left his crease like he did. I don't agree that Bell was looking for a run, but he did turn with a little bit of intent, hustle a few steps, and then stop as he then believed the play was dead and he was walking off for the break. That was an error.

Kumar made a ridiculous save, flicking the ball onto his leg as he was flying over the rope, yet somehow managing to keep the ball in and not be over the boundary at the same time. I don't think he would have maintained eye contact with the ball the whole time, thus when he gets up to throw the ball back he seems to think it was four, but he was incorrect. That's a subjective error and I don't think the rules work that way. Whatever the Indian team had decided during the break I see no reason Kumar would be blamed for 'deception' as Vaughan seemed to be suggesting on the radio. Or maybe he is a super tricky customer

If you assume Bell was not trying to score another run then spirit of the game is the best way to answer this question as he is out by the rules of the game but there are plausible arguments for either decision to rescind/uphold the decision.

Yes. It's plain hypocrisy to suggest that Praveen was being deliberately deceptive while maintaining that Bell wasn't looking for the 4th run.

 

[SteveNZ]

If you assume Bell was not trying to score another run then spirit of the game is the best way to answer this question as he is out by the rules of the game but there are plausible arguments for either decision to rescind/uphold the decision.

Absolutely, there are arguments either way. Clearly that's the case as a lot of people on here agree with the final decision that was made, but a lot of people on the SKY coverage went the other way.

For some, they'd compare it to playing to the whistle in football/rugby whatever. And that's probably a fair argument. To me, the body language exuded by Kumar is seen on amateur fields around the world and it indicates a boundary. That's always been the way I've taken it. But in no way would I suggest Kumar was purposefully trying to be deceitful.

 

[Cevno]

Yes. It's plain hypocrisy to suggest that Praveen was being deliberately deceptive while maintaining that Bell wasn't looking for the 4th run.

AWTA. If Kumar was faking that then he may have a future in Bollywood. And Bell thought of a run for a while and thus accelerated before thinking it was four after looking at Praveen.

Btw, what would happen say if a fielder fakes a midfield and then runs the batsman out and the batsman runs as a result ? Fair game?

 

[keeper]

It was an amazing set of circumstances that led to the incident, none of which you could forsee and definitely without a decent precedent to fall back on. Had it not been Tea, I doubt Bell would have left his crease like he did. I don't agree that Bell was looking for a run, but he did turn with a little bit of intent, hustle a few steps, and then stop as he then believed the play was dead and he was walking off for the break. That was an error.

Kumar made a ridiculous save, flicking the ball onto his leg as he was flying over the rope, yet somehow managing to keep the ball in and not be over the boundary at the same time. I don't think he would have maintained eye contact with the ball the whole time, thus when he gets up to throw the ball back he seems to think it was four, but he was incorrect. That's a subjective error and I don't think the rules work that way. Whatever the Indian team had decided during the break I see no reason Kumar would be blamed for 'deception' as Vaughan seemed to be suggesting on the radio. Or maybe he is a super tricky customer

If you assume Bell was not trying to score another run then spirit of the game is the best way to answer this question as he is out by the rules of the game but there are plausible arguments for either decision to rescind/uphold the decision.

What a good post.

Very surprised Vaughan or anyone else has said that about Kumar.

 

[Themer]

And Bell thought of a run for a while and thus accelerated before thinking it was four after looking at Praveen.

No. No he didn't. If that's him "accelerating" his top speed must be near 2 mph. It's a fallacious arguement that's making you silly now.

 

[Jarquis]

Praveen genuinely thought it had gone for 4 as shown by the throw IMO. Bell genuinely thought it'd gone for 4 as shown by the fact he gave up running half way though the third run.