Bell recall?

[oldie]

Whilst it was the popular decision to make, to recall Bell after he had been given out, was it the correct one.

My interpretation of the laws is that the umpires erred on two fronts. The umpire can only recall a batsmen that has been given out, if he hasn't called "time" or the batsman hasn't yet crossed the boandary rope.

Given that the decision to recall Bell was made in the dressing sheds, then this umpires should be disciplined for incorrectly administering the laws of the game.

What do people think?

[swerveman]

To be honest, I believe Bell was incredibly lucky, and MS Dhoni was incredibly sporting.

Under the circumstances, I think the umpires correctly administered Law 43.

[SUHAS SAPRE]

HI,

Ian Bell was out 'Run Out' and need not required to be called back. He had erred and he should have been give out straightaway after the 3rd umpire confirmed that the fielder did not touch the boundary rope while preventing that close call for boundary. Either batsman can be out 'Run out' if they are out of their crease when the ball is in play. This is the event pertaining to this Law.

The Indian skipper should not have come into the picture. Here there was no question of showing any sportsman spirit. There was no question of withdrawing the decision. Ian Bell should have waited for the 3rd umpire's decision and he should have remained in the crease until the review was referred to the 3rd umpire and when the ball is dead.

An appeal of withdrawal only can be offered if a batsman, who is given out and has not left the field of play, and if umpire has not called 'Time'. There was no question of withdrawal. The umpires have also erred in handling the situation when Ian Bell had to go for Run out.

Suhas Sapre (Baroda 22/08/2011)

[Reggie Duff]

I agree that Bell was incredibly lucky and Dhoni incredibly sporting, but Bell was also incredibly stupid, or had a lapse in concentration. Batsmen are given out with no chance of recall when their stupidity or lapse of concentration results in them being bowled, caught, or run out taking an illadvised run etc, so why is this any different? Law 43 should only be brought into it when the Laws themselves are a bit grey - no grey area involved in this case - Bell was out and that's that. Would England have called Tendulkar back if the roles were reversed? I doubt it. I think inappropriate pressure was applied to the Indian camp and they folded knowing the game was gone anyway. If England had applied this pressure to Michael Clark I'm pretty sure I know what the answer would be - and rightly so.