That run out, in nz v england one day, what are your views, whos right/wrong?

Question

That run out, in nz v england one day, what are your views, whos right/wrong?

Answer 1

I think England were 100% correct.

The batsman who faced the delivery could see:

(a) The batsman at the non-strikers end was to his right

(b) The ball was also to his right, therefore Ryan Sidebottom was going to go to his right also to try and run out the batsman coming from behind him.

For me, the batsman who faced the delivery should have been given out for "Obstructing the field" before the bails had even been removed.

Equally, he was not that injured as he ran like mad to get to the other end to avoid being run out.  If we moan at soccer players for faking injury then we should not treat cricket players with sympathy.

The batsman who faced the delivery should have gone to his left and left Sidebottom and the batsman behind him to have their 'race' of a quick single.  Instead, he (at worst) obstructed the field and (at best) seriously ricked the collision that happened.

Furthermore, New Zealand did not have to take the run.

In the last over New Zealand turned down a run for fears of their being a collision - if they could do it in the last over then they could have declined the run then.

To that end, I think it is appalling that everyone has lambasted Paul Collingwood and that he (probably) has been forced to crawl in apology by the authorities, therefore meaning we will probably not know his true opinion on the incident.

Answer 2

Well said Oracle.

Good to see honest people like you here.

Answer 3

I watched it, and looked at it again today.

No one seemed to have noticed that the batsman seemed to run at the ball, and in my opinion actually (accidentally) impeded the bowler from collecting the ball to throw down the other stumps.

I realise he has the right to run in a straight line, but to his left was a clear path straight to the crease (the one he was running to), there by making his ground, and avoiding a collision with the bowler.. who is not a small lad it has to be said.

To be honest I think the batsman knew he was in the wrong and that's why he made the show of calling the trainer.

As an England supporter I was disappointed with the result, especially given the drama of the last over, but that's the game.

Answer 4

The decision to uphold the dismissal was THE CORRECT ONE.  Once the batsman has played the ball, the onus is upon the fielding side to retrieve it to prevent a run (hence the term 'fielding').  If the batsman plays a ball into an area where it is clear a fielder retrieving it would obstruct his route to the non striking end HE SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT THE RUN.  If he does so, and then runs into the fielder who is retrieving the ball it is his own stupid fault and should he fail to gain his ground as a result he d**n well SHOULD be run out....

Answer 5

Blame the umpire. Is it me or are they just getting worse at officiating cricket games.

You had the second one dayer with that 'break' incident now you have this. The umpires are hopeless in not calling a dead ball.

Answer 6

Rather than retype my viewpoint try this:

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...

Answer 7

Mr. Paul Collingwood should not have kept insisting on his appeal, as Benson so wisely suggested.

Justice was served when out of nowhere on the last ball, NZ came out trumps

I would have liked to see, if Paul would have apologized, if he would have won the match ?

Answer 8

Technically the batsman was out , but the umpire did appear to try and direct Collingwood to withdraw the appeal

Unfortunately Collingwood failed to do that even although there was a fair bit of time given to allow this

I don't accept the excuse later on that it was heat of the moment , he made an error of judge met which he admitted later but tried to cover with the lame excuse about heat of the moment

Even with this run out they still couldn't beat a very inexperience New Zealand side , and to top that off got hammered at Lords today . No one denies the England side has quality but time and again the individuals just fail to perform

Answer 9

It is 50-50 normally benefit of doubt go to batsman only.  Umpire decision is final.  But for us it is exiting finish

Answer 10

I'd put this on par with the Murali run out at Christchurch, December 2006. In both cases the captain should've called the batsman back. At least, unlike Fleming, Collingwood later apologised and expressed regret. He did say something about a split-second decision, although that's just rubbish. By the time Elliot was given his marching orders, the physio was at his side administering the magic spray; and it seemed from the body language and expression of the umpire that he was at pains to make sure Collingwood really wanted to go through with the appeal.

The batsman was at no point seriously injured, so I don't think it was a dead ball.

Answer 11

Benson gave Collingwood the opportunity to have the batsman recalled but refused. That says it all! Cricket is no longer the gentleman's game!!!

Answer 12

There is a strong case for saying that Law 38 (Run Out) has been contravened.

The Law states:

(a) Either batsman is out Run out, except as in 2 below, if at any time while the ball is in play

(i) he is out of his ground and

(ii) his wicket is fairly put down by the opposing side

I feel there is a strong case for saying the wicket was put down unfairly, as the batsman, Elliott, was lying prone on the ground following his collision with Sidebottom. In cases such as this, "dead ball" should be signalled, and the delivery retaken.

Answer 13

I have been saying this for years:

If a batsmen and a bowler collide, causing a batsmen to be run out, then the ball should be called dead and rebowled.

Any misappropriation of this rule could be judged by the umpire.

Any batsmen that is knocked to the ground, should not be run out, it preposterous and a blight on our game that such stupidity could ensue.

*gets off soapbox*

It would be nice if common sense reigned the day.

Answer 14

Yep agree with most of the previous answers.  If the batsman and bowler/fielder collide then it should be a dead ball.

But also think Colly should have withdrawn the appeal as wasn't in the "spirit of the laws".

Answer 15

yeh if a batsmen gets run out after an incident like this, then wouldn't it benefit the fielding team too much? in which case, a dirty team would actually be able to prepare strategy to make it happen again... afterall, there are some teams that do whatever it takes to win..

Answer 16

I remember when batsman walked if they touched the ball and were caught behind No one does that anymore You appeal and let the umpire decide I reckon he was out and thats it Unlucky maybe but out