|
|
Post by Acumen on Jun 25, 2008 20:20:57 GMT
Did anyone see the crash between Elliott and Sidebottom today (25jun08)? Is there a movie clip somewhere on the web? There is some comment at news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7474301.stmI am told it left both of them lying on the ground with Elliott stunned. If so, should the umpire have called "Dead Ball" sooner? What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Jun 25, 2008 21:23:36 GMT
I didn't see it, and I haven't seen a video available, yet. The narrative on Cricinfo says: "A fourth followed in the most controversial manner. With 26 needed from 39 balls, Kyle Mills called Grant Elliott for a sharp single. As Elliott bolted out of the blocks he collided with Sidebottom, rugby style, and fell flat to the ground. Bell threw the ball to Kevin Pietersen, who broke the stumps, but England did not withdraw their appeal despite the umpire, Mark Benson, offering Collingwood the chance to think again. A peeved Elliott hobbled off for 24." Even if Mark Benson didn't call "Dead Ball", it seems he certainly did what he could to give Collingwood the chance to do the decent thing. There's a picture here: www.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/91400/91483.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 25, 2008 23:20:48 GMT
Well if Benson wanted to call 'dead-ball' he'd have to have done it within 1.5 seconds of the collision - as the wicket had been broken by then! I don't think he should have called 'dead-ball' anyway because although there was a collision, neither player was injured. I would like to think that if I were officiating in that situation I'd have done everything I could to see the appeal revoked (without influencing the captain of course!). I can't find the incident online but no doubt somebody will put it up on YouTube soon. In the meantime, if you want to see the dramatic last over and brief commentry on that incident then you'll find it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7bR4zgrIm0 |
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jun 26, 2008 6:14:50 GMT
It is now on www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLDbfAFZSuQIt does appear Elliott got up immediately so there was no justification for the umpire to call Dead Ball as the Law stands. No doubt the legislators will have another tinker - how could they word it more clearly and fairly? It is not so long ago (was it 2000?) that they allowed the fielding captain to withdraw an appeal - prior to that there was no discretion www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7bR4zgrIm0 shows the final over - there seems to be a lot of criticism about not backing up to prevent the second run off the last ball. However NZ only needed one run to win becasue the scores would have been level but had lost less wickets. |
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jun 26, 2008 11:22:20 GMT
My view is this:
a) there was no time, or reason probably for dead ball to have been called prior to the wicket being broken. If dead ball was called after the wicket was broken it would hav emade no difference, any appeal would have to be upheld all other things being equal.
b) If batsman and bowler had avoided each other, the ball fielded and the wicket broken would Elliot have had time to get back? If not then the appeal was fair.
c) Was the collision accidental? I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 26, 2008 12:26:38 GMT
Acumen,
Having fewer wickets lost is not taken into consideration in ODI cricket - 1 run would have resulted in a tie.
Thabks for the link though; it was very poor form of Collingwood though he did apologise.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 27, 2008 13:12:37 GMT
I didn't see the incident but I'm more concerned with Collingwood's failure to keep within the spirit of cricket. Surely Mark Benson's action in asking him whether he wished to withdraw the appeal was a big enough hint to someone who's lauded on the ECB website as one of the first to sign up to the 'One Game' Code of Conduct which requires cricketers to: It is at least arguable that he didn't live up to these expectations. Sure he apologised - but only well after the damage had been done and the door had been slammed in his face. |
|
