Ian Bell run-out incident rings a bell [video]

Here is another instance of sportsmanship in cricket. In the Bombay (now Mumbai) Test of February 1980, England's Ian Botham and Bob Taylor added 171 runs for the 4th wicket. However, their stand could have ended at 85 when umpire H Rao upheld an appeal against Taylor for caught behind off Kapil Dev. Taylor protested but the umpire was unmoved. But again good sportsmanship prevailed. India's captain GR Viswanath who was fielding at first slip was certain that there was no contact between ball and bat. He pursuaded the umpire to rescind his verdict. He did. England recovered from 5-58 to total 296 and went on to win the Test by 10 wickets. Bravo Vishy!

An interesting trivia. Bell scores 159 in the second innings. India is all out for 158 runs in the second innings. Thus off his own bat Bell defeats by one run!

Fair N unfair incidents happen; some acknowledge and balance both. But some never cannot accept being as unfair guys despite being so nor cope with new situations. Its hard to digest certain things, na? Why always live in the past glory? Things have changed! Yeah it is good that there is a Dhoni, but it took an Ian to bring the best in Dhoni (and the public as well !). I do not care to waste any more time either!

You've already had your 'fair answer' with posters like Russ and the evidence of your own eyes. If you still insist on maintaining your position after all that then there is no point in me or anybody else wasting their time. You have made your mind up and you look for insult and disparity against India where there is none. Thankfully we also have Indians like Dhoni.

To be bitter over others for the team losing? ah then i guess i would have been a more bitter person yrs back than now, and other team fans would be more bitter these days than before! Well, we had been discussin about certain incidents in this game, especially the Ian bell's approach; if u do not have a fair answer to that it is understandable, but i see no reason in you have to have your finger pointed at someone else to make this incident right! Sorry buddy..doesnt go fair! It is nice to see England play great..its long since i saw them so for that matter!

"That was a poor description of the event. No one thought there would be more than 3 run, until the batters saw the fielder was slow to pick up the ball." And the reason Kumar was slow to pick up the ball? Well, it was either gamesmanship (which I highly doubt and would certainly not be within the 'spirit of the game') or he thought it had gone for four, which therefore fits with Russ's description of the law.

While we're talking about ancient history and dodgy run-out appeals, how about Jeff Thomson in the world cup of 1975 against the then minnow nation, both in terms of its cricketing achievements and the stature of its players, Sri Lanka? Although they had been hammered in their first match against the West Indies, the Sri Lankans were putting up a stubborn display against Australia who then decided it was time to send in the heavy artillery of Thomson and Lillee to show the little guys just who was boss. A blizzard of short-pitched deliveries left a series of Sri Lankans battered and bruised. Thomson explained to the press, much in the manner of a policeman claiming that a suspect under interrogation had repeatedly headbutted his fist, that "They were only little fellas. Sure I hit one of them on the head but you couldn't really call it a bouncer." In the finest traditions of "What goes on the pitch stays on the pitch" Thomson also told the press that as the stunned batsman came to he muttered "That's it. I'm out of here" or words to that effect, something which the Sri Lankan adamantly denied. Shortly afterwards, he hit another batsman on the foot with a yorker for the second time and as the poor wretch hobbled out of his crease in agony, Thomson calmly walked down the pitch, threw down the bails and appealed for a runout. It wasn't given but the batsman retired hurt anyway so it was a moot point.

You really need to get over the fact your team is getting spanked, stop being bitter, lose the chip on your shoulder and remember that so far in this match the worst piece of un-gentlemanly play has been Sreesanth’s my friend.

I agree with your comments Behroze. I also wonder what influence (if any) the presence of ex-England coach Duncan Fletcher (as current coach of India) had on proceedings. Not to infer that Dhoni and his team woudn't have arrived at the same decision, but it would be interesting to know the dynamics of that situation. I had to laugh when Shane Warne was asked in commentary what he and the Australian team under the captaincy of Steve Waugh might have done in similar circumstances. There was an inference that the Australians at the height of their world beating powers may not have given a sucker an even break.

NOT attempting a run? That is a lame case presentation. Things are well evident on the videos!

That was a poor description of the event. No one thought there would be more than 3 run, until the batters saw the fielder was slow to pick up the ball. That was when Ian thought there was another run and looked at Morgan and started off. Morgan did show a 'No', Ian still continued and understood the folly only half way thru. It is well an clear from the video. I do not think there needs to be further an 'Uncle Bob's ' description of the incident. Ian did not consider the ball to be dead, nor fielders, neither the umpires.

Do you think Laxman think he knicked it in this test?

They're using it for knicks, not for LBW's which, incidently, would have saved Harbajan Singh and stropped Stuart Broad getting a hattrick, and also given Kumar a couple more wickets.

Except there was nothing wrong with the Collingwood/Sidebottom incident. The idiot batsman stood there after hitting the ball looking at it for ages before deciding to set off on a suicidal run. Go watch the video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87m2d6cV4F0&feature=related. There is no way in HELL the striker would have made it to the non-strikers end. The collision with Sidebottom occured about 2-3 meters outside the popping crease. It was a stupid run and if the batsman had actually set off for the single straight away there wouldnt have been a collision and he would have been out anyway.

How can you be run out when not attempting a run? See the Dean Jones incident against the West Indies. Case closed. Thank you.

Point taken, Behroze. I hate on-field controversies and this would have been among the worst. Bell played a brilliant knock. The weird part about the underarm delivery in 1981 was that it was bowled to avoid a tie. NZ tailender McKechnie needed to hit a 6 to tie the match. Greg Chappell told me recently that he regrets that decision now. Our common friend Bruce Edgar was at the other end, 100 odd not out. But nobody remembers him. They only remember Greg and Trevor Chappell. Moral of the story? Bad is remembered more than good. Dhoni has learnt something. Fortunately he had 15 minutes to right a wrong.

So it doesn't hit him in the head. And because everyone else is looking at the ball. It isn't going to be left on the field is it? Even when the ball is dead, it is still central to what is happening. At the pace Bell was running he'd be out by miles with a proper throw. On the other hand, it is hardly uncommon for a batsman to jog to catch up to their partner before exiting the field together.

With respect to my learned friend, Kersi, there was a small detail you left out in your otherwise accurate report. You mention "Full praises to India’s skipper MS Dhoni for recalling Bell to resume his splendid innings". Uh-uh. Dhoni was asked by the on-field umpires whether he wished to withdraw his appeal and he said an emphatic "No". It wasn't until during the break, Strauss and Flower went to the Indian dressing room to ask MS Dhoni if the run-out decision could be overturned for the sake of the good name of cricket. Dhoni conferred with his senior players and agreed to withdraw the appeal. Yes, full praises for Dhoni & his team, but had the Indians not done this they would forever have been labelled bad sports - similar to what happened with the underarm incident so many years ago. No one has forgiven or forgotten that one; and it still remains as one of the worst moments in cricket history where sportsmanship was sacrificed for a win. So, well done MSD - you saved India from great embarrassment; and they can hold their head up high.

Why does Bell keep looking at the ball Russ?

I don't understand the assertions here that Bell started on a fourth. Have none of you played cricket before. Pay close attention to the circumstances at the end of the third run: - Bell sprints through two and a half runs, before walking the last few yards. - He plonks his bat behind the crease, in the manner of a schoolboy asking for wicket leave - He adjusts his box - He jogs very slowly to the other end without calling his partner through. - Pauses, almost at the other end, before walking to Morgan and punching gloves. Do you honestly believe a batsman would set off for a fourth at a slow jog after adjusting his equipment and practically announcing his final run? A movement accompanied, no less, by the Indian fieldsmen retrieving their gear from behind the stumps and beginning to walk off? Furthermore, count the seconds from when Dhoni changes direction to catch the ball. Two and a half. Trent Bridge is a 60m boundary. Do you know how slow you have to throw the ball for it to take 2 1/2 seconds to travel (most of the way) to the stumps. 80km/h. In other words. Kumar picked the ball up (eventually) and literally lobbed it back in to Dhoni. Dhoni too had moved well in from the stumps because the ball was dead and he expected a lob; if it was alive, he'd have stayed at the stumps. And as per law 23b, if the batsmen think the ball is dead, and the fielding side think the ball is dead then it ought to be dead. It doesn't require a call of over. Contra Kersi, I think Rauf did a poor job, because he could easily have deferred any controversy by telling Dhoni that he considered the ball dead - and had substantial grounds to do so, not least because he had already held out the sweater for Sharma. It is akin to a batsman being runout while gardening; the sensible umpire assesses whether the fielding side were still playing, as opposed to taking advantage of circumstance. And if the latter, offers them no opportunity to court controversy.