Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Agreed. The Indians should never have been put in this position because it's damned if they do or damned if they don't. It is Bell who was careless - naive and maybe innocent but careless nonetheless.
-
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.
Would you have upheld the appeal?
- Thread starter NasserFan207
- Start date
gilbodavid
Cricket Spectator
Bell was not out according to laws of the game!
The Laws state that
"23.1(b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play."
then
"23.4(a) When the ball has become dead under 1 above, the bowler’s end umpire may call and signal Dead ball if it is necessary to inform the players."
23.4a by using the word "may" means that the umpire does not have to show that the ball is dead for it to be dead. No signal of the umpire can counter 23.1b.
23.1b is very clear. If the bowler's umpire acts unequivocally as if the ball is no longer in play, then it is no longer in play. And he may only do so if he is satisfied teat the fielders and batsmen have ceased to regard it as in play. It is clear that the fielders don't have to all agree with this for it to be so - it is the bowling umpire's decision independent of the bowling sides actions.
Therefore when the bowlers umpire turned his back on play and went to hand the jumper to the bowler he was clearly no longer following play. Therefore the ball is dead. The fact that the indians then acted as if the ball was still in play is irrelavent according to 23.1b, because it is solely the umpire's view of play that decides it. And the umpire clearly showed that play had ended and the ball was dead. Looking at Kumar's actins on the boundary and the vast majority of the indian players at this moment shows why the umpire showed in his actions that the ball was dead. Even the bowler took the jumper rather than man the stumps! Once the ball is dead no one can make it undead.
Therefore all the pundits and the umpires were wrong, and Bell was in fact acting correctly according to the law.
The Indians and David Lloyd i think were subconsciously aware of this at some level, but the Umpire's and tv pundits need to have this law explained to them by someone, as it is a fundamental part of the way the game is played. If you've ever played the game, then my explanation of this law explains much of the way the game is played.
The Laws state that
"23.1(b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play."
then
"23.4(a) When the ball has become dead under 1 above, the bowler’s end umpire may call and signal Dead ball if it is necessary to inform the players."
23.4a by using the word "may" means that the umpire does not have to show that the ball is dead for it to be dead. No signal of the umpire can counter 23.1b.
23.1b is very clear. If the bowler's umpire acts unequivocally as if the ball is no longer in play, then it is no longer in play. And he may only do so if he is satisfied teat the fielders and batsmen have ceased to regard it as in play. It is clear that the fielders don't have to all agree with this for it to be so - it is the bowling umpire's decision independent of the bowling sides actions.
Therefore when the bowlers umpire turned his back on play and went to hand the jumper to the bowler he was clearly no longer following play. Therefore the ball is dead. The fact that the indians then acted as if the ball was still in play is irrelavent according to 23.1b, because it is solely the umpire's view of play that decides it. And the umpire clearly showed that play had ended and the ball was dead. Looking at Kumar's actins on the boundary and the vast majority of the indian players at this moment shows why the umpire showed in his actions that the ball was dead. Even the bowler took the jumper rather than man the stumps! Once the ball is dead no one can make it undead.
Therefore all the pundits and the umpires were wrong, and Bell was in fact acting correctly according to the law.
The Indians and David Lloyd i think were subconsciously aware of this at some level, but the Umpire's and tv pundits need to have this law explained to them by someone, as it is a fundamental part of the way the game is played. If you've ever played the game, then my explanation of this law explains much of the way the game is played.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
We have three different threads for this.
All good!
Humblest apology delivered.
I'm going to stay away from hypotheticals from now on, in other news...
Himannv
Hall of Fame Member
Made too much of a fuss in the previous series for my liking. Also he's the captain of India.Probably a non-issue, but I don't know what he did to not deserve respect earlier
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Even if the ball was dead and legally Bell was in, he still is a little ****.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
How the spirit of Sachin Tendulkar gave Ian Bell a reprieve after run-out | Mail Online
OMG, chokedulkar can **** off now.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
get lost.
Fusion
Global Moderator
smash84
The Tiger King
England's coach, Andy Flower, believes his team was right to ask India to rethink their controversial run-out of Ian Bell at Trent Bridge, adding that it would have caused an "international incident" had Sachin Tendulkar been dismissed in a similarly bizarre fashion.
England v India, 2nd Test: Andy Flower denies double standards over run-out reprieve | Cricket News | England v India 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo
England v India, 2nd Test: Andy Flower denies double standards over run-out reprieve | Cricket News | England v India 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo
Jacknife
International Captain
I wouldn't like to think what would have happened if the roles were reversed and it happened in Mumbai.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
When Bell was given "out" at Tea England had a lead of 186 for the loss of 4 wickets. Given that Trott was either not going to bat or a walking wicket, that can be seen as 5 down with a lead of 186. You are crazy if you think Dhoni's decision to call Bell back didn't have an effect on the match, and that England would have definitely won either way.
The fact that Bell was on 100+ and not 15 makes Dhoni's decision to withdraw the appeal even bigger in the context of the match.
It was game on at Tea with Bell "out". I can't see how anyone could think otherwise.
EnglishCricket
Cricket Spectator
That just further heightens the sporting gesture and to a new level.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
It was game on, but India didn't lose it by reprieving Bell, they lost it because their bowlers decided to feed Morgan a diet of pies after tea. You also managed to get rid of Bell 2 overs before the new ball and got rid of Morgan with the 2nd ball of the new ball; after 3 overs England had a lead of just 270 with Prior and the bowlers left.
Yes, Bell being out at tea would have been interesting but India had plenty of opportunities to win the game even with Dhoni's generosity.
Howe_zat
Audio File
Precisely.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Although for it to have made any difference, India would have had to run through England's lower order before the new ball, which seems highly unlikely given who was bowling.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I don't think Jono said that at all.. I guess the intent is that while India did not lose it because of recalling Bell, it was still a pretty big call to make at that time as it could have meant the game would have resumed on a different context altogether... England were not exactly in a winning position when Bell was given out, and I think that is the point.