| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Bob Martin
Professional
United Kingdom
2178 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2011 : 09:59:12
|
| What you think of the Bell run out fiasco. Should Dhoni have been allowed under the Laws to withdraw his appeal or is it a fact that once the heirarchies get involved the Laws don't count for very much. No matter what the BCCI, ECB and ICC say on how wonderful the gesture was, once Bell was given out and he had left the field of play, under Law 27.8 he should not have been reinstated. IMHO, if the idea is play within the spirit of the game, then part of that spirit should surely be to abide by the Laws. |
|
|
Tykemania
Admin
United Kingdom
10867 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 12:56:11
|
Bob;
Incorrect - teh laws allow for the batsman to be reinstated before the next delivery - he left the field of play for a scheduled interval and was indeed so reinstated before the next delivery was bowled.
As for thoughts on the issue, Bell was stupid to leave his ground but - and I think this was rather undersold on the highlights I saw - he did so because Kumar gave him every reason to think the ball had gone, sitting on the ground behind the rope for almost eight seconds before standing and lobbing it in. I'm not suggesting that Kumar was guilty of gamesmanship - I think he thought it had gone for four too to be honest - but in those circumstances I think there were good grounds to consider the ball dead pending a video review of the boundary given that no run was being attempted. That makes the decision to call him back the right one - though Dhoni should not have appealed if you ask me because it made it look as though his player had been trying to trick Bell out.
Had they not withdrawn the appeal I think there may have been a riot... |
 |
|
|
Bob Martin
Professional
United Kingdom
2178 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 14:03:32
|
He was leaving the field because he'd been given out.
Extract from Law 27 copied from the Lords' website..
quote:
8. Withdrawal of an appeal
The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only if he obtains the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls. He must do so before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. If such consent is given, the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke his decision and recall the batsman.
I can find no provision within the Laws which suggests anything other than this categoric statement. I'll stand corrected if you can point me in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Skipper
Amateur
Australia
107 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 14:44:21
|
| He was still on the field when tea was called, I assume it wouldn't be classed as "field of play" untill the game resumed. The rule of common sense can't always be written in black and white. |
|
|
|
Bob Martin
Professional
United Kingdom
2178 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2011 : 15:26:15
|
| Whether or not the "field of play" ceases to be such just because there is a meal break is a debatable point and rather tenuous. Of course there are occasions when umpires use common sense and this they did at the time of the incident when they asked Dhoni if he wanted to withdraw the appeal (which, incidentally they are not obliged to do) Once Dhoni had confirmed that he was not withdrawing the appeal, then the umpires had no option to apply the letter of the Law and Bell was rightly given out and left the field of play. That should have been the end of the matter, just as it would have been had it or something similar happened at any other time in the match. Now the powers that be get involved and they shouldn't have done. It was a matter between the Indian team in the person of Dhoni and the umpires. Once the powers that be were involved, it put the umpires in an awkward position in that they had little option but to accept the retrospective withdrawal and allow Bell to continue. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Bell's run out
