Speaker: Play by Discretion
56 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Simon G,
From reading a bit on the Guardian blogs over the last 24 hours, one of the main reasons English are condemning Collingwood is that they perceive themselves as the Moral Guardians of the Spirit of the Game. They’ve obviously got over Bodyline.
As for the Styris sun-out; are you being serious? There were always 2 runs there, and Styris never stretched out.
Whether he’s capable of stretching out might be a moot point though I guess.
-
I'm wondering WWTAD?
As noted earlier, even Brett Lee, one of the most competitive players in the Australian cricket team, has shown more sportsmanship that Collingwood did (but I still think Collingwood did the right thing later which is relevant).
But, I still think we should avoid overplaying the victim's role. Sure, Chapple did do the dirty (something he's repeatedly apologised for since) but NZ cricketers are no angles and we won - I just hope they flog the Poms in the last game so we can forget about the test series.
By the way, here's some of the best commentary of a cricket match I've ever heard. It's the last over of the day in the match that saved Steve Waugh's captaincy in the 2002/03 season
-
@Grant
Professional cricket has less and less room for the notion of "the spirit of the game". If there were any spirit in the game then people would be motivated by it. Instead the only motivation left is what can be gained for oneself. The spirit of the game is constantly being legislated away. With each new penalty for over rates or behaviour or something equally ridiculous the freedom of expression that any sport thrives on is being turned into another set of rules by which we must conduct ourselves.
There are perfectly good reasons to stipulate over-rates, some of them relevant off the field. Paying crowds have a right to see a decent amount of cricket played, and the broadcasters who put so much money into the game need it to run roughly to schedule.
Collingwood acted correctly and Vettori is crying like a little baby.
He doesn't think he acted correctly, and it seems that no one with any stature in the game does. Boycott, for one, was emphatic that Collingwood's refusal to call Elliot back ran against the preamble to the laws of the game, added in 2000 and covering, yes, the spirit of the game.
The unique character of cricket in this respect is demonstrated by the fact that a captain can call back a player who has been adjudged out. Is there another international sport that provides for this kind of thing?
Easily evidenced by the fact that he bases his reaction on the outcome. If there is injustice then it deserves addressing regardless of the result and New Zealand's approach to the game, where they constantly push the letter of the law and further erode the spirit, is only helping to destroy tradition, fair-play, gentlemanly conduct and any respect they might have earned.
Drawing a long bow, anyone? Vettori merely observed that the fact that they'd won after all made it easier to shake hands and move on. That's a perfectly logical statement, and I can't see how it relates to your splenetic outburst above.
-
"Paying crowds have a right to see a decent amount of cricket played, "
Echoes of W G Grace "They came to see me bat, not to see you umpire".
-
What with the way most professional sport appears to be increasingly aimed at a pot bellied yob with an IQ equalling his shoe size and the attention span of a goldfish, I would sob uncontrollably if ALL vestige of Corinthian standards were to vanish from the only game were even a vestige remains.
Anyway, the British media say Vettori used "rude Anglo-Saxon" and both sides apologised for their respective bad behaviour, which give me renewed hope for the greatest game of them all when it is not played by the descendants of base Irish convicts. -
Funny Boycott's name should come up ~ I have it on good authority his brief tenure as a TVNZ visiting commentator, a while back, ended when he behaved like a boorish old git (perhaps even worse) towards some young women in the TVNZ OB crew.
-
How can you fire Boycott for being a "boorish old git". That's like firing a plumber for installing pipework and taps. Boycott was a boorish old git while he was playing for Yorkshire under 14's and hasn't changed since.
Still, he's only a cricket commentator. In NZ he'd be an MP, or mayor of some hick town.
-
In NZ he'd be an MP, or mayor of some hick town.
Like Wanganui perhaps?
-
Or he’d be a Wellington City Councillor with a Sunday morning sports show where he makes silly homophobic jokes about Parnell in the weather forecast.
Except Boycott’s funnier than that.
-
But this looked to me like Sidebottom running where he shouldn't have been, and not watching the batsman, who surely had right of way given that the ball was no where near the bowler.
I understand the general rule to be that the batsman does not have right of way in this situation.
Sidebottom may not have been as near to the ball as the batsman (who was practically standing on it), but he was one of the best placed to move to the ball.
Of course if either player had deliberately impeded the other, then there would be grounds for intervention by the umpires without any consultation with the captain: the batsman could be given out for obstructing the field, or the fieldsman could be reprimanded and the batsman (if run out as a result) recalled. However neither player did anything wrong. Accidents happen, and several players had opportunity to rise above the laws and take the moral high ground. Bell could have held onto the ball. Pieterson could have refrained from breaking the stumps. Collingwood could have withdrawn the appeal. -
Mystery Morrison? I always thought that the Laidlaw Sunday show was shite.
-
I'm glad it's not just me who thinks Mystery is absolutely god-Awful on Radio Live at the weekends. His attempts to analyse the weaknessses in sports he clearly nows fuck-all about are just embarrassing.
-
Sidebottom fully ran into Elliot - he knew what he was doing, and his claim he was 'going for the ball', gave Collingwood a great excuse to pass the buck.
Let's just move on. In comparrision to the underam, this is about as interesting as Dennis Conner walking out on Paul Holmes.
OTOH, best thing about Geoff Boycott is that he inspired a dressing room mutiny on an NZ tour, with his team sending Ian Botham out with instructions to deliberately run him out. While Boycott was captain. Now *that* is the spirit of cricket.
-
Paul, I actually think he knows his sport OK (better than Lose for example)
But it’s when he tries to be funny, like the repetitive Parnell “jokes” that I change to Rhema or something.
And the incessant “PC Brigade / rope sandal wearers / tree-hugger comments are inane beyond belief.
-
OTOH, best thing about Geoff Boycott is that he inspired a dressing room mutiny on an NZ tour, with his team sending Ian Botham out with instructions to deliberately run him out. While Boycott was captain. Now *that* is the spirit of cricket.
Indeed.
-
W G Grace "They came to see me bat, not to see you umpire"
I heard a rather different version of that story, with the following elements:
A Yorkshire charity match, at which Grace had attracted a record crowd;
Grace caught out of his crease and stumped in his first over;
and a local umpire who, responding to the resulting appeal, shouted "Not out!" -- and then added, to the keeper, in tones of low menace: "Thaa great blithering blockhead, thinkst thaa them's all come to see thee stump?" -
Russell:
There are perfectly good reasons to stipulate over-rates, some of them relevant off the field. Paying crowds have a right to see a decent amount of cricket played, and the broadcasters who put so much money into the game need it to run roughly to schedule.
I understand the reasoning for laws regarding over rates. However if players were inspired by the spirit of the game then there would be no need.
The more laws one introduces the more inventive players will become at breaking them which only leads to the necessity for more laws. What is needed is a simple set of instructions (the playing conditions) and then a fierce judicial process.
I use the word fierce to mean that any breach of the playing conditions should be met with immediate and sensible penalties. The player should be removed from the game or censured according to a set of guidelines. I believe there is such a system in place. Where it fails is that it is an attempt to judge intent. Cricketers should not be charged by what an official thinks they were trying to do. They should be charged with what they actually do.
So for over rates I think it is perfectly reasonable to penalise a captain for being tardy (though a little inane). The problem is this law was introduced to counter bad intentions. And it encroaches on every captain's freedom to express himself. Every time we see an intention and then try to legislate against it our freedom to play the game is hampered.
To simplify things a bit: More rules = Less freedom :)
He doesn't think he acted correctly, and it seems that no one with any stature in the game does. Boycott, for one, was emphatic that Collingwood's refusal to call Elliot back ran against the preamble to the laws of the game, added in 2000 and covering, yes, the spirit of the game.
It makes not an ounce of difference what Colligwood or any other punter says is right or wrong. All that matters is how his actions stand up against the laws of the game. He acted within those laws.
The unique character of cricket in this respect is demonstrated by the fact that a captain can call back a player who has been adjudged out. Is there another international sport that provides for this kind of thing?
Yeah. In soccer the opposing captain can call a guy over and then headbutt him. ...
... hmmm .. not quite what you were thinking, huh ... ?
No, perhaps you're right :)
Drawing a long bow, anyone? Vettori merely observed that the fact that they'd won after all made it easier to shake hands and move on. That's a perfectly logical statement, and I can't see how it relates to your splenetic outburst above.
I see. So you think that the outcome affected Vettori's reaction? Gee, Russell, it would be a lot easier for us all if you'd just say, "I agree" if you want to agree with me ...
-
According to Law 42 (Fair and unfair play), 5. Deliberate distraction or obstruction of batsman, Collingwood acted within the rules
-
WH,
It's interesting that there has been so much agreement that the spirit of the game required Collingwood to withdraw the appeal or recall the batsman. The whole idea that you are expected to adhere to higher standards of conduct that the game's laws technically require adds to cricket's charm, even if it is more honoured in the breach than the observance (ball tampering, sledging, walking etc).
Presumably the spirit of the game also called for New Zealand to not throw its toys in objecting to Collingwood's decision, but I can't muster much negative feeling about decisions made in the heat of the contest. On two separate feeds the commentators (Ian Smith and this South African guy) noted that being known as the captain who made the decision would be punishment in itself.
-
I'm inclined to agree, WH. For example the stigma of being a chucker is enough to make most people get the act of bowling with a straight arm correct. The law says "don't chuck" and if an umpire calls you then it causes a lot of embarrassment and the bowler goes and takes a good long look at himself. End. Of. Story.
Instead we have Vettori making a fool of himself and a bunch of law makers lining up to pen the next bit of legislation.
Elliot got run out. Deal with it.
PS. What did you mean by:
even if it is more honoured in the breach than the observance (ball tampering, sledging, walking etc).
?
-
The unique character of cricket in this respect is demonstrated by the fact that a captain can call back a player who has been adjudged out. Is there another international sport that provides for this kind of thing?
In American football you are asked if you want to accept or decline each penalty against your opposition. Though the penalty is usually only declined if play was more advantageous anyway.
In regular football (soccer) isn't there some kind of "code" about throwing the ball back in to the opposition if one of their team is injured?
-
I also don't understand the Vettori-bashing.
Isn't that what we want in our sports captains? Some passion for the game and their team. I would've been more concerned if he had just sat back and sulked or just shrugged it off.
Maybe all his f-bombs fired up the team to win? (or scared them into winning)
-
Yes, Hadyn, in football it is now standard practice to kick the ball out of play when an opponent is injured. After the injury has been dealt with, the team taking the throw-in will return the ball to the team who kicked it out.
This is not dissimilar to the Oval run-out: player injured, game stops. Effectively, dead ball. In football there have been a few isolated cases of players ignoring the convention and continuing, even scoring, while an opponent is injured. The laws do not prevent this, but the "spirit of the game" (yes, in football!) means that it very rarely happens, and if it does, the "guilty" player takes his place in the hall of shame.
BTW (and anecdotal evidence only), it often seems that this code of honour applies in the top professional games more than in the park kickabouts. Are cameras more influential than salaries?
(oh, and it goes without saying that there are plenty of things in football that are anything but honourable - it's just that this isn't one of them)
-
Sidebottom may not have been as near to the ball as the batsman (who was practically standing on it), but he was one of the best placed to move to the ball.
Actually having seen it again on the sports new last night, I don't have a problem with what Sidebottom did. The ball was right there, and he was probably the closest fielder. There was no indication that he deliberately got in Elliot's way, just that he was going for the ball.
-
WH,
I also don't understand the Vettori-bashing.
I don't want to second guess Vettori, or suggest that he wasn't justified in being angry. Declining to shake hands at the end of the game certainly suggested that he was rather annoyed by Collingwood's decision. I'm glad that captains were able to eventually resolve the situation amicably. (As I write this NZ has posted 266/5, scoring 96 from the last 10 overs.) I suppose what fires one player up can leave another cold and put a third on tilt.
even if it is more honoured in the breach than the observance (ball tampering, sledging, walking etc)
I was just saying that cricket has not always been played in accordance with the spirit, that people disagree as to what the spirit requires, and that many people think its better to go for the doctor and win than play in the spirit and lose.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.