Cricket India in the spirit or not?

[Tiger]

In the end common sense prevailed but it was all avoidable if Dhoni hadn't flicked the bail off in the first place. Well played to India for withdrawing the appeal and well played England for what seemed an improbable and unlikely comeback.

 

[nomadpaul]

Don't think it was Dhoni that whipped off the bails ? Mukund was the Indian player that did......and i'm all for good sportsmanship but in all honesty , Bell was legally out and would have had only himself to blame!!! The old adage of 'playing to the whistle' springs to mind !

 

[Dodger]

Bell was oot...end of.

 

[Paul_Stewart]

This was right for so many reasons. The essence of sportsmanship finally over-writes "win at all costs" that is so prevalent in sports today.

Rahul Dravid said that every player on the team was behind the decision to re-instate Ian Bell and this will actually turn out to be a very great day for sport.

 

[drawboy]

I'm sorry but I agree with other posters. He was out fair and square, it was clear to see on the replay the ball was stopped short of the boundry, he should have stayed in his crease until the umpire gave him permission to leave the field.
What would Englands stance have been if it was the other way around? I know we would kicked up a right fuss. Out is out.

 

[jammag]

Bell wasnt out, if the umpire turns to give the items back to the bowler that is effectively him declaring the end of the over. Also he can only be run out if he was going for the run, which he was not. Interesting to see that they didnt actually tell bell until moments before play was due to start

 

[Tiger]

Interested to get your views especially as so often on here we hear comments like "the rules are the rules are the rules". Under the rules of cricket he was out but it would have been totally farcical if that decision had stood and it would have soured the rest of the series. Lessons learnt all round methinks

 

[Jabba]

Bell made a schoolboy error and he was out. We all applaud the rules of golf, even when they over rule commonsense, yet some people applaud this farce ?

I remember when there were no neutral umpires and we dreaded playing in India/Pakistan because we always got a rough ride from the umpires, imo this was as bad as any of the things we used to complain about.

 

[Yerman]

In the end common sense prevailed but it was all avoidable if Dhoni hadn't flicked the bail off in the first place. Well played to India for withdrawing the appeal and well played England for what seemed an improbable and unlikely comeback.

+1

 

[Farneyman]

Out. As a non cricketer I cant see how he could accept that he wasnt out. He made the mistake so should stand by it.

Whats other rules can you play to suit yourself!

 

[Bigfoot]

In the same situation , I (as an umpire in a junior game) gave a player not out because he was not attempting a run.

Bell was not attempting a run, so I think the umpire could have used that but reality Bell was in control. He needed to be sure the ball was dead and then there is no problem. He was confused by the fielder being unsure of where the ball was and taking his time. I'm sure Kumar thought the ball had gone for four - it hadn't and so we had another incident in a superb test match.

India showed great sportsmanship though.

 

[bladeplayer]

This was right for so many reasons. The essence of sportsmanship finally over-writes "win at all costs" that is so prevalent in sports today.

Rahul Dravid said that every player on the team was behind the decision to re-instate Ian Bell and this will actually turn out to be a very great day for sport.

Surprisngly tho Paul there was no sign of FAIR play when broads 2nd (i think) ball of his hatrick was clearly edge of bat first , im all for fairness & honesty but only when its a two way street..

 

[Tiger]

I'm not sure but Bell has said he didn't hear the Umpire say 'over'. But assumed by the umpire's actions that it was dead. At the end of the day Bell should have waited until the ball was dead and is an absolute tool. That said it would be similar to running a batsman out for leaving his crease when you run up to bowl without warning them first. The rule is that you don't have to warn the batsman but within the spirit of the game it is a well respected convention.

It was clear that Bell believed the ball had gone for four, to be fair most of the Indian team did as well. Having played a fair amount of cricket I think the term spirit of the game is a fallacy. Sledging batsmen, over appealing to pressure umpires and challenging umpire's decisions...

 

[Tiger]

This was right for so many reasons. The essence of sportsmanship finally over-writes "win at all costs" that is so prevalent in sports today.

Rahul Dravid said that every player on the team was behind the decision to re-instate Ian Bell and this will actually turn out to be a very great day for sport.

Surprisngly tho Paul there was no sign of FAIR play when broads 2nd (i think) ball of his hatrick was clearly edge of bat first , im all for fairness & honesty but only when its a two way street..

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. It is almost impossible to detect whether ball hits bat or pad first when you are bowling and had India not refused the inclusion of the full referral system the decision could have been reversed.

 

[bladeplayer]

This was right for so many reasons. The essence of sportsmanship finally over-writes "win at all costs" that is so prevalent in sports today.

Rahul Dravid said that every player on the team was behind the decision to re-instate Ian Bell and this will actually turn out to be a very great day for sport.

Surprisngly tho Paul there was no sign of FAIR play when broads 2nd (i think) ball of his hatrick was clearly edge of bat first , im all for fairness & honesty but only when its a two way street..

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. It is almost impossible to detect whether ball hits bat or pad first when you are bowling and had India not refused the inclusion of the full referral system the decision could have been reversed.

Not a bother ,having played, but never at anything like a great level would the fielders if not the bowler not have heard both contacts.. mayb all too fast at that level . i wouldnt be sure..

 

[Tiger]

They would have heard both but it would have been nigh on impossible to determined which it hit first. The umpire has the best view on the pitch but as has been proved recently the DRS system helps to make up for occasional human error. Could be that India lose the series on the back of that decision which played a huge role in the momentum shift. Ironically DRS could have helped them

 

[bladeplayer]

They would have heard both but it would have been nigh on impossible to determined which it hit first. The umpire has the best view on the pitch but as has been proved recently the DRS system helps to make up for occasional human error. Could be that India lose the series on the back of that decision which played a huge role in the momentum shift. Ironically DRS could have helped them

What do you think was their reasoning behind not using it ?? seems mad not using anything that makes the calls easier to get right .. serves them right if they loose their no1 spot for not using it with other sports crying out for it .. ie football ..

 

[jammag]

They would have heard both but it would have been nigh on impossible to determined which it hit first. The umpire has the best view on the pitch but as has been proved recently the DRS system helps to make up for occasional human error. Could be that India lose the series on the back of that decision which played a huge role in the momentum shift. Ironically DRS could have helped them

What do you think was their reasoning behind not using it ?? seems mad not using anything that makes the calls easier to get right .. serves them right if they loose their no1 spot for not using it with other sports crying out for it .. ie football ..

Rumour is that is sachin that doesnt want it. I think you will find come a few months everyone will have it due to ICC making them. The way they are playing the spinners show how India have now been left behind as before you could play pad with bat and never be given, now its been shown you can be out most players are playing bat out in front and the Indians are not. This could be there downfall in this series not having this in place.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Some interesting points. It was India who didn't want DRS and so the lbw decision Broad got should have been referred and over-rules but couldn't be and there will always be genuine umpiring mistakes like that which is why reviews were brought in.

I think Bell was naive to assume it was a four but if you look closely the slip fielder behind the keeper had already picked up the helmets etc and was walking back in so I assume he thought the same thing and that it was a four or time had been called. Also, had it not been the last bal before tea where everyone had a chance tosit down and thrash this out, I think Bell would have been give out, rightly so, and play would have continued.

 

[jammydodger]

Also, had it not been the last bal before tea where everyone had a chance tosit down and thrash this out, I think Bell would have been give out, rightly so, and play would have continued.

Had it not been the last ball before tea then Bell wouldnt have been walking off to the pavilion for a well earned crumpet. He would have just stayed at his end of the pitch and waited for 3rd umpires ruling on the 4 or not 4 carry on. It is a totally irrelevant argument that a lot of people seem to be missing