Hooper inside edges to Boucher....
ball bounces..Hooper turns and looks at keeper (lying in fotal
position cradling ball like it was a fair catch)
Hooper walks.
This happened before the incident you described. It was not an
isolated sporting gesture...it was an attempt to return a favour. SA
arent a sporting team by default ...which wouldnt hurt them because
they would still be winning anyway. Quite sad.
After all had this incident happened with 7/8 wickets down Boucher
would possibly have called back Hooper...but of course this gesture
now has less esxpense attached to it...(though Hoops would quite
gladly give it away anyway).
Kenny
> 70.5 Kallis to Jacobs, one run, pushes for one, running, falls over
> Kallis, and is run out at the keepers end Given out
> Cronje rushes to Orchard and hasRose called back
> 70.6 Kallis to Rose, no run
--
Jackie Hewitt
Courtney Walsh's Biggest Fan
See my tribute to Courtney
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jackieh/courtney_walsh.html
Some Umpires doubtless would, although in my view the most they could
do if the Captain did not seek to withdraw the appeal is fix their
sternest and most piercing stare upon the offending Captain for
a significant amount of time before raising his finger. The Umpires
are constrained to follow the Laws except in the case of unfair
play.
Of course, if a Fieldsman *deliberately* interferes with a Batsman
the Umpires shall intervene under Law 42.7, calling "dead ball" to
preclude any runout, and awarding the incomplete run to the Batsmen.
However, if a Fieldsman *accidentally* interferes with a Batsman
and as a result there is a valid appeal for Run Out, the letter
of the Laws says that is just an unlucky break. Unlucky breaks
are not unfair play, and therefore the Umpire has no authority
to intervene.
Note, however, Law 42.1: "The Captains are responsible at all
times for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit of
the game as well as within the Laws." It is not the responsibility
of the Umpires to enforce the Spirit of the Game only the Laws.
However, Law 42.1 does require the Captains to be mindful of the
Spirit of the Game, and so by an old-fashioned view of the
Spirit of the Game, Cronje did no more than his obvious
duty under Law 42.1.
Old-fashioned attitudes towards the Spirit of the Game being
what they are nowadays, Cronje's action of course merits
special notice. I would very much hate to see the Captains'
duties under Law 42.1 to devolve upon the Umpire, either
by Law change or by seeking to remedy a gap in practice.
If the Umpires are given the job of enforcing the Spirit of
the Game, (1) The Captains will no longer do so, and (2) The
Umpires will find themselves receiving even more charges of
partisanship as they void Laws in order to enforce their
own sense of the Spirit of the Game.
But, bravo, Cronje!
Take it easy,
--
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
I can't speak for UNC-CH, and UNC-CH can't speak for me.
It's better for both of us.
> > 70.5 Kallis to Jacobs, one run, pushes for one, running, falls over
> > Kallis, and is run out at the keepers end Given out
> > Cronje rushes to Orchard and hasRose called back
> > 70.6 Kallis to Rose, no run
> Well I thought too that it was good sportsmanship. If the run out had
> been claimed, then it could have set a dangerous precedent for
> obstruncing the batsman- though one would hope that the umpires might
> step in.
I can only guess that, in this instance, the collision was deemed to be
accidental and the fielding side was quite within their rights to run the
batsman out. That they chose not to do so (or rather they chose to withdraw
the appeal at least) is probably commendable.
Drewy
As soon as I saw the replay of hooper's dismissal, I observed that the ball
had contacted the ground. Cozier and his fellow commentators missed this
altogether until they saw the replay in which they zoomed in on the ball.
Viewing on TV, I could not tell what discourse took place between the
particpants but according to the commentators, hooper asked Boucher if he
caught the ball, Boucher said yes, and Hooper walked.
Obviously Boucher could not have been sure as to whether he had made the
catch and should have communicated this to the umpires, who would then have
referred it to the 3rd umpire, whereby justice would have been done.
However, Hooper should not have walked. You would have thought that Steve
Waugh claiming to have caught the ball in a similar situation would have
taught the Windians that in this day and age you simply can no longer trust
your opponent to be honest and truthfull. This incident is becoming quite
common, highlighted by replays which are providing conclusive evidence of
wrong-doings. I also recall Chanders being dismissed on a bump-ball in the
most recent series against england. Clive Lloyd dismissed the incident as
"one of those things" which perhaps says more about the WI desire for victory
than anything else.
The big screen at the ground had showed numerous replays of the incident
showing that Boucher had cheated prior to the Rose "run-out" incident.
Indeed some sections of the crowd had already started heckling Boucher.
In these circumstances, and given that Hooper's dismissal had eliminated
whatever slim chance remained of a WI victory, Cronje probably had little
choice but to withdraw whatever appeal had been made. It probably shows
how little honor is left in the game when we think it so wonderful that
a captain does what he is duty-bound to do.
This incident did mar what was another good victory by SA, and another inept
batting performance by the WI. We saw glimpes of Lara's greatness (and
Chander's too) but an absolutely fantastic catch by Gibbs broke open the
partnership and the match.
Kurt
> >70.5 Kallis to Jacobs, one run, pushes for one, running, falls over
> > Kallis, and is run out at the keepers end Given out
> > Cronje rushes to Orchard and hasRose called back
> > 70.6 Kallis to Rose, no run
> Hear this sporting sequence...
> Hooper inside edges to Boucher....
> ball bounces..Hooper turns and looks at keeper (lying in fotal
> position cradling ball like it was a fair catch)
> Hooper walks.
> This happened before the incident you described. It was not an
> isolated sporting gesture...it was an attempt to return a favour. SA
> arent a sporting team by default ...which wouldnt hurt them because
> they would still be winning anyway. Quite sad.
> After all had this incident happened with 7/8 wickets down Boucher
> would possibly have called back Hooper...but of course this gesture
> now has less esxpense attached to it...(though Hoops would quite
> gladly give it away anyway).
> Kenny
>Obviously Boucher could not have been sure as to whether he had made the
>catch and should have communicated this to the umpires, who would then have
>referred it to the 3rd umpire, whereby justice would have been done.
Scott
As for the storm in Perth regarding Slater's "run-out" I reckon the
3rd umpire got it spot on. There was, IMHO, no way you could be
certain of where the bat was grounded when the bails were removed.
--
Cheers
Iain
-----------------------------------------------
The University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK.
-----------------------------------------------
>> This has started to annoy me, has the job description for the 3rd Umpire been
>> increased to include scrutiny of close boundaries and the bounced catches. I
>> thought their only job was to rule on issues relating to the crease i.e.
>> stumpings and runouts. Mind you if your the ACB you have a recurrent problem
>> with this and still do nothing about it. BTW what was the shit storm in
> Perth
>> WRT the first grade umpire stuffing up or at least not giving the benefit of
>> some doubt to a batsman.
>In recent test and first class games that I've seen the Umpires are
>allowed to ask the 3rd umpire for clarification of catches taken low
>to the ground and close boundaries.
>As for the storm in Perth regarding Slater's "run-out" I reckon the
>3rd umpire got it spot on. There was, IMHO, no way you could be
>certain of where the bat was grounded when the bails were removed.
Scott
<megasnip>
> Wrong groung that was Sydney! I think from memory it involved a first
class
> unpire making a decision, I'm not sure. As for the Slater "dismissal"
you
> take what you're given, he may have been lucky he may not have been. I
think
> the 3rd Umpire did a fair job in Sydney he was at least consistent across
> (I think) 4 or 5 run outs/stumpings - he gave the benefit of the doubt.
If you mean Simon ONLY umpires first class cricket and has never done a
Test that is also true but will soon change. He is on the Australian
International panel of umpires. Expect him to do a Test in Australia next
summer. He will be umpiring the ODIs that are about to start.
Drewy
[snip]
:This has started to annoy me, has the job description for the 3rd Umpire been
:increased to include scrutiny of close boundaries and the bounced catches. I
Yes their duties now officially include those 2 things. With catches they
can only rule on whether they carried or not.
--
Ian Galbraith
"To say that these men paid their shillings to watch twenty-two hirelings
kick a ball is merely to say that a violin is wood and catgut, that
Hamlet is so much paper and ink. For a shilling the Bruddersford United
AFC offered you conflict and art." - J.B. Priestley
1. Sportsmanship (Was Sledging)
3. sportsmanship and gamesmanship.
6. Sportsmanship or Stupidity from Cronjie
7. A question about runners, runouts, and sportsmanship
8. Good sportsmanship between Aus & Paki
9. Sportsmanship is not dead...
10. Saucy Jack's back - The Death of Sportsmanship?
11. a nice bit of sportsmanship
12. Is this sportsmanship or stupidity?
13. Kallis [Ganguly's catch] - poor sportsmanship