By Benjamin Conkey
June 26th 2008 @ 3:56pm
Loading ...Cricket tackling another controversy
Who says cricket is a non-contact sport? Not only can you be hit by a cricket ball, but it appears it is now okay to shoulder charge a batsman and then run them out.
It happened in another controversial cricket history moment involving England and New Zealand in their fourth one-day international at the Oval overnight.
With the game in the balance New Zealand batsman Grant Elliott defended a ball at his feet, set off for a quick run. He’d only gone a couple of steps before the booming figure of England’s Ryan Sidebottom collided with the tall Kiwi. Sidebottom’s Sideshow Bob hair went flying as well as legs, arms and then bails.
The decision by Paul Collingwood to run out Elliott was one thing, but England’s decision to maintain their appeal was another. According to law 42 (5) ‘it is unfair for any member of the fielding side, by word or action, wilfully to attempt to distract or to obstruct either batsman after the striker has received the ball.’ It goes on to say that neither batsman can be dismissed and the umpire should immediately call a dead ball.
If this fails, which it did the responsibility lies with the captains in making sure that play is conducted in the correct spirit. The England team should have immediately dropped their appeal.
If Grant Elliott had shoulder charged Sidebottom in attempting to pick up the ball he would be out for obstructing the field. Commonsense should indicate that Elliott was obstructed by the field and therefore not out.
In the end New Zealand won in a frantic last over, with England ironically missing an easy run-out chance on the last ball. Just imagine if New Zealand had lost? Kiwi commentator Ian Smith immediately compared the incident to the infamous Australia-New Zealand underarm match in 1981.
What do you think? Was England right or wrong to appeal? How much responsibility rests with the umpires?
Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.
Former Test cricketers, Geoff Lawson and Stuart MacGill, write exclusively for The Roar Mondays and Wednesdays respectively.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(33)
Lenny said | June 26th 2008 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Great post, Benjamin. For mine, Collingwood had plenty of time to reflect on the right course of action as Elliott was injured as the video shows. He thought about it, but stil run him out. Poor form.
The only good thing: at least there are some crickets who care about one day cricket. I’d almost prefer this (though it’s poor form) over the ‘who-gives-a-toss’ attitude too often shown in the short form of the game.
Searly said | June 26th 2008 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
I disagree. Sidebottom was clearly going for the ball and tried to pull out when he realised he would collide with the batsman. He was definitely not obstructing the batsman “wilfully” and hence Law 42(5), as quoted in the article, does not apply.
Running between the wickets requires a number of factors to be taken into account, including the bowler’s ability and right to run towards the ball to field it after delivery. The batsman (perhaps understandably in the frantic final overs of a one-dayer) failed to adequately consider all of the factors and was run-out as a result.
Now, that’s not to say that it wouldn’t have been ‘right’ or ‘in the right spirit’ for Collingwood to call him back, but it definitely wasn’t ‘wrong’ for him to accept the umpire’s technically correct verdict.
Lenny said | June 26th 2008 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
Searly, with respect, the issue is that Law 42 (5) would mean the umpires would HAVE to say not out. I don’t think it’s debatable that in law he was out.
It’s the same as Mankadding a guy; or the under-arm incident. These are (were) within the bounds of the Law, but were poor cricketing decisions and showed a lack of judgment for the spirit of the game.
Anyone who’s played cricket knows that sometime you collide with the bowler when running down the pitch. In this case, the bowler flew at the batsman; he couldn’t have avoided the collision (if he could-have…he would-have).
Cricket’s a wonderful game because of the various conventions it upholds (clapping when a player reaches a ton; not Mankadding; not playing on when the ball diverts off a batsman’s bat during a run-out, and so on).
Collingwood ignored a convention and the game suffers as a result.
ohtani's jacket said | June 26th 2008 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
Typical overreaction. Ian Smith is an embarrassment & the Black Caps seem to have forgotten when they ran Murali out. Cricket loves its controversies, but this’ll be forgotten like the Inzamam sit-in.
Ian Noble said | June 26th 2008 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
Under the circumstances perhaps the umpires should have called a dead ball. Collingwood asked Sidebottom whether he was going for the ball and he replied yes and Collingwood immediate reaction was to uphold the appeal.
However it was the wrong decision but my main concern is that as the sums available to individuals and teams increase particularly in 20/20, it is not time for the umpires to play a more proactive role. There will be incidents on the field of play where decisions will be made in the heat of the moment, which may tarnish the “spirit of cricket” because of the need to win at all costs. I would like to see the independent umpires together if neccessary with the match referee, adjudicate immediately upon such incidents.
Midfielder said | June 26th 2008 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
This should have been umpire’s call IMO use the third umpire if needed but wrong call and Collingwood will have to live with it forever
cosmos forever said | June 26th 2008 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
There was nothing immediate about this at all - it was at least 2 minutes between when the collision occurred and Collingwood confirmed he wanted the appeal to stand. Just like Greg Chappell years before he decided to stick to the law and not the spirit in an effort to end the game in a victory,
Good luck living with that…
david said | June 26th 2008 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
This is well covered by the rules and they are quite clear.
The kiwis are just whinging babies. Jesus im sick of their ‘victim’ seeking status. The really offensive behaviour was refusing to shake hands!
sportym said | June 27th 2008 @ 12:06am | Report comment
I think that was the best tackle by and English player on a Kiwi in the past month……get Sidebottom into the English rugby team!!!!
As for Collingwood, yeah he has plenty of time to make the decision, while elliot was getting treated, the umpire asked collingwood to reconsider his decision (in other words the official was trying to hint that he should not uphold the appeal) . If it counts for anything, the english team is even getting a bashing from their own press over this incident over here in the UK.
And David, its called sportsmanship mate, it kinda goes two ways………
david said | June 27th 2008 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Look its simple. It is either within the rules or not.
If it is in the rules and you dont like it - change the rules. Otherwise stop whinging.
Jerry said | June 27th 2008 @ 8:42am | Report comment
David - yeah, it’s within the rules. That’s the bottom line in pretty much all sports these days. Realistically the only major sport that retains true sportsmanship is Golf and it’s a bit sad that the “me-first, win at all costs” has pretty much taken over elsewhere. Unfortunately, while cricket does retain some sense of sportsmanship, it’s pretty much anything goes these days.
I do wonder why, given that you seem to think sportsmanship is irrelevant, you think they should have shaken his hand following the game, though?
Benny R said | June 27th 2008 @ 9:05am | Report comment
David with the attitude you are displaying you could never call yourself a sportsman, perhaps a “competitor” is a much better fit.
Jameswm said | June 27th 2008 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Isn’t anyone else realising that the aussie ricketers are actually pretty good sports?
Look what harbajhan and Sreesanth did to each other.
Suleiman Benn stuck out his foot to trip Brad Haddin over.
The Aussies are lampooned in the media for celebrating an extraordinary test win too hard.
Sheesh, give me a break.
david said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Call me what you like but I believe and play within the rules. I believe in sportsmanship but not when it means your unsportsmanlike to be playing within the rules.
Well said Jameswm! Given the bucket of shit poured all over the Australian Team last summer you would think the dimwitted media would be able to recall and contrast the different standards of behaviour we are witnessing.
There is a myth that cricket has been a noble sport over the years. Nothing could be further than the truth. IT has never been like that except for rare instances. Go look at the history books if you dont believe me.
Jerry said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
David, there’s nothing particularly sportsmanlike in simply playing within the rules of the sport - that’s just called “not cheating”.
Sportsmanship goes far beyond simply “not cheating” just as being a genuinely good human being requires more than simply “not breaking the law”.
david said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Actually playing within the rules is sportsmanlike behaviour by definition.
Jerry said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Also James - to be fair, the Australians have had been criticised for more than just celebrating too hard - the double standards they ishowed when complaining about Monkey-gate were far more of an issue to most people. Add to that the idea that on the few instances when things do seem to be going against them, they often come up with a whinge of their own (eg Ponting’s complaints about sub fielders in the Ashes).
But to be fair, the simple fact is they cop more cause they’re the best. They’re held to a higher standard cause they play at a higher standard and other countries and the media can’t find fault in their play so they fault other things. It happens to the All Blacks too, and the Aussie cricketers are even more successful as they win all the time and win the big ones time after time.
Jerry said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
David - actually, no it’s not. There are two definitions of sportsman - one is a person who engages in sport, the second is a person who exhibits qualities of fairness, courtesy etc. To be the first you don’t need to play within the rules and to be the second you’d have to do a fair amount more.
According to your definition Douglas Jardine and Greg Chappell were both being sportsmanlike.
david said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Racism is NOT a double standard. The Australians were well within their rights to complain about repeat racist remarks. The Indians demonstrated their sportsmanlike behaviour by throwing a temper tantrum, asking for the removal of an umpire, lying to a judge and threatening to go home. Who demonstrated the sporting behaviour?
david said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Like I said, if you dont like the rules, stop bitching and change them.
david said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
And yes it is - by playing within the rules you are being sportsmanlike. That is its very definition!
cosmos forever said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Think you might be having a conversation with yourself here now David, everyone else is probably off whinging somewhere being victims…
Jerry said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
David - do I have to draw a venn diagram?
Playing within the rules is required to be sportsmanlike. However, it’s not all that’s required - it takes significantly more than that. If you honestly believe Jardine’s “leg theory” or Chappell underarm delivery were sportsmanlike (both were within the rules at the time) then you obviously got difficulty understanding complex concepts.
Jerry said | June 27th 2008 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Also David in answer to this bit…”Who demonstrated the sporting behaviour?”
My answer is neither. India were far worse than Australia, agreed, but Symonds didn’t exactly cover himself in roses. Let’s not forget that the idiot Harbajan when he made the racist remark did so in response to an unprovoked episode of abuse from Symonds. It doesn’t excuse the racism, but neither does it mean Symonds and Australia are paragons of virtue.
david said | June 27th 2008 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Australia and New Zealand are the only countries who have this weird belief. The rest of the world does not suscribe to it although perhaps the English did at one stage. After our defeat to Italy in the football world cup, I spoke to many Italians in Kaiserslautern about whether it was unsportsmanlike to win by diving. They answered simply that it was up to the referee to adjudicate the rules of the game. This is an attitude shared by the rest of the world as far as i can tell.
In India (where i spend half my time) they are fascinated by this concept. They really cant understand why you should not use any device you can to win a game. What they do know is that they can play on the Australian sense of fair play and use it to their advantage. We of course in our naive values are accordingly played like a fiddle on a friday night.
Sportsmanlike behaviour is a myth at test cricket level. It has never existed excepted in the minds of the masses. Players have constantly tested the boundaries of the rules and notions of what players should and shouldnt do have waxed and waned. One thing has been constant - there are rules to the game. If you can call someone following the rules unsportsmanlike - then where do you stop. Perhaps I can call someone a criminal despite their being a law abiding citizen. Whose to say what should and shouldnt be done? Why have rules at all?
Jerry said | June 27th 2008 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
David - it’s not like calling someone a criminal if they haven’t broken the law. The sports equivalent of “criminal” is “cheat” - “unsportsmanlike” is not a synonym of “cheat” (though “cheat” would be a subset of “unsportsmanlike”). It does not follow that if you’re not a cheat you are sportsmanlike. I think you do need that venn diagram.
Consider this - it’s not illegal to let someone drown. If I am walking along beside a river and see a complete stranger drowning, I’m under no obligation to try and save them - even if it would be extremely easy for me to do so. So I let them drown? Am I a criminal? No. Am I a good person? Definitely not.
Less extreme examples would be a person who uses the fine print in a contract to get one over on an unsuspecting person. They may not be breaking the law, but they may be behaving in a way that most of society would view as immoral.
Simply obeying the law doesn’t mean you are a good person. Simply playing within the rules of a sport doesn’t mean you are a good sport.
Jameswm said | June 27th 2008 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Guys - I’ve played and watched a lot of cricket over my time. And there IS an element of sportsmanship in the game, or should be.
Mankadding is the perfect example, another is appealing when a batsman picks up a dead ball to toss it to a fielder. You are within your rights and the rules to appeal and the umpire has no option but to dismiss the batsman, but it is very unsporting behaviour.
It’s in the same vein.
And Collingwood has realised he did the wrong thing and apologised profusely.
TembaVJ said | June 27th 2008 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
And now England is captained by a South African…. never thought id see the day, long live the reverse sweep!
david said | June 27th 2008 @ 5:48pm | Report comment
Obeying a law does mean youre a good person. By definition.
Look Jerry I understand what youre saying. Here is your venn diagram - the two sets of behaviour (legal and un-sportsmanlike conduct) overlap making it possible to behave within the rules but still demonstrate unsportsmanlike conduct. Ok. Here is mine. The legal set of behaviour is a complete subset of the larger set of sporting behaviour. Ok. This is why I believe my belief system to be superior - mine does not overrule an objective set of rules with subjective notions of behaviour. Get it!? Why is that superior? Because that is the foundation of all valid and scientific legal systems. Under your system any notion of sporting behaviour can displace objective (and typically democratically derived) rules…
sportym said | June 28th 2008 @ 1:52am | Report comment
David, you seem to have a very good grasp of rules, though lack the basics of what sportmansship means in sport. Maybe a lawyer?
In case you have not realised, Sporting rules are basic…..cause sports are suppose to be entertaining, there is so much they do not cover. The spirit in which the game is played is sportsmanship, u trip someone over, sure they get the penalty, but you should also offer to help them up.
Do you even undertand the concept of why players shake each others hands at the end of a game? In a fair contest when you shake each others hands you acknowledge the contest you just took part, lose or win its a sign of respect.
Looking mightly loonely in your corner mate, still reading the rule book???. Last time i checked the Olypmic spirit was not a set of rules. And boy does FIFA have it all wrong with thier Fair Play attitude, they should stop being whinners and jsut play by the rules! And everyone should just harden up eh?
glenn said | June 29th 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
being a former player & umpire the vision i witnessed from the england/new zealand one dayer was a discrace.it just proves to me the spirit of the game has vanished from this great game.paul collingwood will no doubt take the full brunt of the media & public furore,but in my opinion the actions of ian bell & that moron pieterson should cop as much if not more flack than their skipper.both players had the first opportunity to difuse the situation.firstly bell who had ball in hand through good spirit didn’t have to throw it,& pieterson on receiving the ball at the stumps didn’t have to remove the bails.unfortunately for collingwood he had to have the final say in this debacle.under the laws the umpire is powerless to do anything but if i had been officiating i would have strongly advised collingwood not to appeal.
Jerry said | June 29th 2008 @ 11:59am | Report comment
David - Here’s the thing, you’ve got my idea of the venn diagram wrong. In fact, whwn you say “the legal set of behaviour is a complete subset of the larger set of sporting behaviour” I agree wholeheartedly.
But what that also means is that the term “sporting behaviour” involves OTHER behaviour than simply obeying the rules. In fact, it involves MORE than simply obeying the rules. Someone who is a sportsman obeys the rules of the sport, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who obeys the rules of the sport is a sportsman. It requires courtesy towards the opponents for instance. It would mean a lack of “gamesmanship” the grey areas such as sledging that, while not illegal, are not what the vast majority of people would call sportsmanlike.
And on this point “Obeying a law does mean youre a good person. By definition.” - well, I’m starting to think you have some screwed up dictionary cause you seem to have a funny definition of the word “definition”. Here’s a challenge - find me a dictionariy definition of the word “sportsman” or “sportsmanlike” that ONLY requires “obeying the rules of a sport”. You won’t be able to cause that’s not the correct definition of the words.
Adultery, insulting people, being a hypocrite, expressing racist sentiments - all legal behaviours, but not what anyone would call the behaviour of a “good person”.
Jerry said | June 29th 2008 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
Sportym - Funnily enough, I am a lawyer - which is probably why I like these sort of genre discussions on the meanings of words.
David - one more thing, it’s impossible to have a definition of sportsmanlike that removes subjectivity. It’s a subjective concept - that’s why I used the analogy of obeying the law/being a good person. It can be objectively assessed whether someone obeys the law or plays within the rules of a sport. Being a good person or being a good sport is something that by its very nature will always be subjective - if you try and remove that aspect you’re essentially trying to change what the words mean.