Cricket tackling another controversy
Roar Guru By Benjamin Conkey, 26 Jun 2008 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, Collingwood, Collingwood Magpies, Cricket, New Zealand, Paul Collingwood, umpires
Related coverage
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.
The Ashes journey begins
The Australian cricket team have left Australia to begin their tour of England, with a mission to reclaim the Ashes.
Australian captain Michael Clarke and his teammates were optimistic about their chances before jetting off.
Click here to hear the thoughts of our Australian cricket team as they left for England.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- AFL, Collingwood, Collingwood Magpies, Cricket, New Zealand, Paul Collingwood, umpires
June 26th 2008 @ 4:00pm
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.
June 26th 2008 @ 4:39pm
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.
June 26th 2008 @ 5:38pm
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.
June 26th 2008 @ 5:44pm
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.
June 26th 2008 @ 8:37pm
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.
June 26th 2008 @ 9:13pm
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
June 26th 2008 @ 9:32pm
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…
June 26th 2008 @ 10:15pm
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!
June 27th 2008 @ 12:06am
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………
June 27th 2008 @ 8:12am
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.