Ian Bell's "controversial" dismissal

[THECORBYLOON]

In the Laws of Cricket, Law 27 (Appeals) states

“8. Withdrawal of an appeal
The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only if he obtains the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls. He must do so before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. If such consent is given, the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke his decision and recall the batsman.

9. Umpire’s decision
An umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire’s decision, once made, is final.”

As Ian Bell had left the field of play, under what grounds was Bell allowed to play on?

[Rancher]

The preamble to the Laws of Cricket empower the umpires to intervene in any cases in which they judge actions of the players to be unfair. As it was clear that (a) Ian Bell left his ground because he was under the impression that the ball was no longer in play; (b) Bell's misapprehension was partly (mainly?) because of the actions of the fielding side, some of whom also appeared to be under the impression that the ball was no longer in play and (c) Bell was not attempting to take another run (and neither was his partner), shouldn't the on-field umpires have ruled it was unfair to run him out in the circumstances. If they had taken the initiative in this way it would have avoided a lot of unpleasantness.

[DTCwordfan]

and that is where Cricket gains, the spirit of being sportsmen.

Sunil Gavaskar summed it up on Star (may be reported on Sky), "There is a phrase, 'It's not Cricket,' that may have been lost over time. What has happened to day refreshes that saying, thank goodness."

Or words close to that effect and, you know what, he is right.
Would this have happened in soccer, No. Unfortunately rugby, perhaps not. Golf, I suspect, yes.

[DTCwordfan]

do you remember when the Aussies bowled one along the ground on the last ball to avoid the six runs.

Funny how the one day/limited overs game is far more "cynical"....

[DTCwordfan]

that was it, you have sparked my memory...I think it was Ian....I may be wrong.

[jno]

Greg was the captain; the bowler was the other Chappell, Trevor.

A more recent instance was an England-NZ match in which the England bowler collided (accidentally) with the NZ batsman and knocked him over, and a teammate ran him out. Interestingly, England refused to withdraw their appeal in this case. The spirit of cricket should only be displayed by teams playing against Engalnd, it seems.

To answer the OP: the business of the England captain knocking on the Indian dressing room door to ask the Indian captain to think again seems unpleasant and somewhat intimidating to me.

[chrissa1]

I wholeheartedly agree with you DT. I was going to say so myself if you hadn't beaten me to it. Sportsmanship.... never found in football but I think in top flight Rugby Union it is though.

[DTCwordfan]

think of the legal hostility England could have provided, never mind the crowd.

Gardening of the pitch for example, hiding of the ball as to potential misuse; things could have turned very sour - and in terms of sportsmanship, remember the English got a hell of a lot of credit for going to play the Chennai test after the Mumbai horrific incident...........

[DTCwordfan]

which we lost by the way....but summed up the sportsmanship in cricket, albeit two very different incidents.

The old adage is that things like luck cancel themselves out over time....

[DTCwordfan]

well Chrissa, that was the immense shame of the Harlequins "Blood Bank" scandal.....but then cricket, if you read the history of the sport, has never been devoid of scandal - never mind the Pakistanis, Hans Crojne - it goes way back into the 19thC...........

[chrissa1]

Oops, forgot about that one DT. I was really thinking about Test Rugby. I remember seeing a very close England try that if it had been football, the player would have claimed as "legal" but the Rugby player conceded straightaway that it wasn't a try.