Would you have upheld the appeal?

[Fred Titmuss]

I've seen the incident several times now and the only player that appears to give a damn during the incident is the bloke that whips the bails off. Kumars throw from the boundary edge was an half-arsed affair that was taken by Dhoni, who was walking off, at short cover and another Indian player was picking up the helmets behind where Dhoni usually stands when keeping wicket. To all intents and purposes the game had ended for tea and had Dhoni thrown the ball to the umpire rather than the fielder that took the bails off this incident wouldn't have been up for discussion. Technically Bell was out but imho, as Bell and Morgan weren't trying to pull a fast one or attempting to sneak an extra run, any appeal made by any Indian player at that time shows him up to be a pretty poor excuse for a human being and that goes for any Indian player that went along with the appeal and let it stand, ie, the Indian captain.

God knows what went on during the tea interval but I'd love to know who instigated the reversal. Whoever it was I'm just glad common sense prevailed.

 

[SteveNZ]

2. Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.

Rauf deemed it settled. He called time. Ball dead.

There's really no point having this argument with you, as you'd likely be going the other way in it if it was roles reversed. It's easier to see as a neutral.

 

[Cevno]

2. Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.

Rauf deemed it settled. He called time. Ball dead

If he did then you are right and fair enough.

But he believed he didn't,obviously and hence Bell was given out.

 

[Jacknife]

Ball wasn't dead though.

2. Call of Time
The bowler’s end umpire shall call Time when the ball is dead on the cessation of play before any interval or interruption and at the conclusion of the match.

Law 16 (Start of play; cessation of play) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's
Law 23 (Dead ball) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's

I believe the umpires and the match referee were sure the correct decision was made according to the rules. And Bell said that too himself.

What would you be saying if it had happened to Tendulkar or Dravid? I'm not sure you would be saying all that you have done.

 

[Riggins]

Whilst unintentional, Kumar's body language/fielding was genius.

Should have been out for sure.

 

[Redbacks]

God knows what went on during the tea interval but I'd love to know who instigated the reversal. Whoever it was I'm just glad common sense prevailed.

Strauss and Flower made an appeal to the Indian dressing room. The Indian team then, we have been told, made a unanimous decision to rescind the run out.

 

[Cevno]

What would you be saying if it had happened to Tendulkar or Dravid? I'm not sure you would be saying all that you have done.

I wouldn't have had a problem with it if England had dismissed them under the same set of circumstances as it was their own fault.

Similar to as i have no problem with the incident Dravid was referring to in West Indies wrt the Laxman stumping. Which was a brilliant stumping.

But now that Dhoni has set the precedent, i would hope all the other captains reciprocate. But if they don't then Dhoni was wrong to do this and was being naive. Obviously there is no way of assuring you for sure unless a carbon copy of the incident occurs the other way round.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I would definitely call the batsman back in similar circumstances if I was the captain. But then, I am a stickler for the Spirit of the Game and there's a bit less on the line in Hutt Valley cricket.

 

[Jacknife]

I wouldn't have had a problem with it if England had dismissed them under the same set of circumstances as it was their own fault.

Similar to as i have no problem with the incident Dravid was referring to in West Indies wrt the Laxman stumping. Which was a brilliant stumping.

But now that Dhoni has set the precedent, i would hope all the other captains reciprocate. But if they don't then Dhoni was wrong to do this and was being naive.

I think it's one thing that the team learnt after the NZ incident, is, it isn't worth the backlash and the crappy feeling that you haven't got the wicket in the correct manner. Colly still says it's one of his biggest regrets, was not retracting his appeal that day. That's why I think Strauss, didn't have to think about it for too long, to let Matthews stay at the crease in the Champions Trophy .
At the end of the day, you treat people and teams the same way as you want to be treated.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Tea wasn't called before the bails were taken off though. He hands over the sweater to him afterwards and hasn't removed the bails yet which is the official signal.

And the appeal was to the square leg umpire and any of the fielders could have appealed,i beleieve. Even the ones standing near him.

If the umpire has called 'Over', rightly or wrongly that ensures that the ball is dead. Nothing can happen after the call of 'Over'. I've seen premature 'Over' calls before where an innocuous throw is coming in to the keeper, the Umpire calls over and the keeper misses it and the batsmen have tried to go for overthrows. No dice. The bails have nothing to do with it.

 

[Cevno]

Fair enough. But the umpires would have given him not out if that was the case.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Fair enough. But the umpires would have given him not out if that was the case.

Should have. It's these unusual and rare events that are the most difficult for Umpires to get right; and ones that they quite often get wrong.

I have to admit, I haven't seen the footage in enough detail to know what happened, but if over was called, then it can't (in theory) be out.

 

[Cevno]

Should have. It's these unusual and rare events that are the most difficult for Umpires to get right; and ones that they quite often get wrong.

I have to admit, I haven't seen the footage in enough detail to know what happened, but if over was called, then it can't (in theory) be out.

The umpires believed the over wasn't called though and hence gave him out?

Has there been anything to the contrary?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The umpires believed the over wasn't called though and hence gave him out?

Well, if over hasn't been called then it clearly can be out. The umpire then has the option, if he feels that the dismissal wasn't in the Spirit of the Game, to ask the fielding Captain whether he wants the appeal to stand. Given the tea break came up, I guess it gave Dhoni plenty of time to consider this. If it happened in open play, it would be much more difficult to retract the appeal.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I wouldn't have appealed in the first place.

 

[Redbacks]

If it happened in open play, it would be much more difficult to retract the appeal.

But Bell wouldn't have acted the same way had it not been the last ball before tea. Cevno seems to be on tilt and polemical. Bell 'thought' he heard over but was obviously wrong as Rauf himself would have not allowed the dismissal had he called over.

 

[Cevno]

But Bell wouldn't have acted the same way had it not been the last ball before tea.

He could have been going to talk with the non striker after the end of the over or it could have been Drinks break if we are talking about Hypothesis.

Bell 'thought' he heard over but was obviously wrong as Rauf himself would have not allowed the dismissal had he called over.

That was my point. But SteveNZ was the one who brought this up In a hypothetical sense.

 

[NasserFan207]

Not sure why people are debating the particulars of when time was called, Bell was clearly out otherwise the decision wouldn't have been given. Its not the issue really

 

[SteveNZ]

Not sure why people are debating the particulars of when time was called, Bell was clearly out otherwise the decision wouldn't have been given. Its not the issue really

They're debating it because if time was called before an appeal was made, or before the bails were lifted, it's not out. Then it becomes an umpiring error, not a human error. It's not the main issue per se, but it's certainly an issue.

 

[Fred Titmuss]

Strauss and Flower made an appeal to the Indian dressing room. The Indian team then, we have been told, made a unanimous decision to rescind the run out.

Indeed, Strauss and Flower did visit the Indian dressing room but the general vibe from Dravids post-match interview suggests that the wheels were already in motion. Whether it be the Indian management, senior player(s) or general ground swell of opinion amongst the majority of the Indian team, something within the Indian camp instigated their change of mind. Without it, no amount of grovelling by Strauss and Flower would have forced the change.

Interestingly enough the highlights have just finished on Sky and according to the laws of the game a decision can only be reversed on the field of play. In other words the umpires have taken matters into their own hands and okayed something they have no jurisdiction over. Whether that be right or wrong I'm glad they did.