Were England right to run out Grant Elliott after his collision with Ryan Sidebottom at the Oval?Back to story
Vettori was spot on when he said that the spirit of the game should take precedence. I guess other people who play the game have a different precedence- and that's why this ugly situation ensued. Can you tell me when was the last time an umpire suggested to the fielding team to withdraw an appeal? According to the law the batsman in supposed to be given out, but where is the sportsmanship? It seems as though winning at all costs was the order of the day- that is until someone talked sense in to collingwood's head, and he apoligized. So was the commentators making a big deal about the incident? They were only showing how a supposedly gentleman's game can become so ugly when winning at all costs takes precedence over sportmanship. Poor colly, how he wish he could have that one back all over again.
Posted 22:25 28th June 2008
To look at the incident from a different perspective, and not just as a reason to bash the local lads, the batsman looked where the ball went and then ran towards it. He was with this action deliberately blocking the fielder from getting to the ball thus preventing the possible run out of the other batsman. Could it not be said that the batsman did not fully act in this strange spirit of cricket.
Posted 14:56 28th June 2008
lm not english but watching the game l felt they was poor sportsmanship second game in a row. imagine kids watching the match what lesson does that give win at all costs. Its a shame when people seem to justify bad decisions using an even bad decision done by the kiwi's a couple of years ago. Collingwoods made a mistake and unfortunately it happens to all in the end he apologised which as most honourable of him. Cricket is a gentleman 's sport.
Posted 12:11 27th June 2008
"Paul Collingwood had a chance of immortality yesterday and he made the wrong decision.", "How to destroy your name in one moment " and "a decision he will rue for the rest of hie life". Okay. Maybe I am not the world's most avid fan of cricket, but surely this is going a teensy bit over the top? Collingwood made a high pressure, quick decision, for which he later apologised. Maybe he did do it because he thought it would win him the game, but hey, we're all human. NZ deserved to go on and win, which they did, and the world moves on. Im sure Colly will survive to play again.
Posted 11:15 27th June 2008
In response to Aaron McIntosh, get real! In this age of 21st century sports coverage there are cameras everywhere on everyone. It was obvious that at the end of the game there would be a camera pointing straight at the Kiwi's. As another contributor suggested it was not only Vettori that was using clear foul and abusive language but as Captain he must have an example to set for his country. McCullum v Murali, Pollock v Pietersen, now Colly v Elliott, ho hum, lets move on as it was ok to move on after the first two clashes!
Posted 22:03 26th June 2008
It looked to me that Elliot shouldered Sidebottam in the chest and knocked him over, so stopping Sidebottam getting to the ball and running Elliot out, so I think England were correct to run Elliot out, but then, on reflection, withdraw the appeal, and then if we had still gone on to lose, all the talk would have been on Collingwood's sportsmanship but if we had won, the victory would have been so much sweeter
Posted 16:03 26th June 2008
I think England were right to run Elliott out Sidebottom went for the ball. Think the New Zealanders and Ian Smith (Of Sky) seem to of forgotten what they did to Murali. I thought it was brave of Collingwood to come out and admit he was wrong not many England Captains would of done that. I think people should get of his case he's a good captain and if i had been in his position i would of run him out too.
Posted 13:57 26th June 2008
We play sports to win - Collingwoods decision was based on helping the team to win - Any 'WINNER' would of done the same. This is why everyone is saying the Aussie's would of done the same - because they go out to win, not to be a good sportsman and take part! We arn't 10 anymore in a school playing field, they get paid to do something - win the game! Just a shame we didnt win!!!! either way the right decision was made, we go out to win at any cost! and decisions have to be made with this in mind.
Posted 12:20 26th June 2008
The non-striker callled for an incredibly stupid single, leaving the batsman nowhere to go. Bad luck he collided with the bowler, no worse than the crazy run deserved. Run out on all counts. It amazed me that non of the commentators mentioned the craziness of the run.
Posted 10:21 26th June 2008
Paul Collingwood had a chance of immortality yesterday and he made the wrong decision. He went for a cheap win over long term glory. He deserves all the criticism he gets. And for those who harp out the excuse that 'the Aussies would have done that' it should be pointed out that they would have gone on to win the match. England could not even do that so they got the worst of all worlds... and serve them right. Personally I think that Elliot probably would not have been able to continue anyway and Collingwood could have won on both counts..but he went for the cheap win and lost.
Posted 10:06 26th June 2008
Collingwood displayed poor sportsmanship,a decision he will rue for the rest of hie life.Whether or not Elliot was in the wrong or not,matters little in keeping within the spirit of the game.Shame on Englands captain
Posted 09:38 26th June 2008
England were wrong, Collingwood made the wrong call. The umpires should have called a dead ball immediately on the grounds of a player may have sustained injury or possible foul play by Sidebottom. Elliott in my opinion did nothing wrong. Why does English sport always seem to be involved in some sort of controversy and making excuses? There are bigger issues than we have just witnessed - central contracts some players are just not performing, coaches also, not only cricket, but soccer and rugby also. I support England but am becoming increasingly frustrated at our players attitudes and underperformances. You need more than just to turn up , we need consistency. I watched Esses v Susses T20 the other night and it was a pleasure I wqas smiling nearly as much as Napier watching his pleasure spread around the crowd and watching public includfing Susses who I believe enjoyed that display. Where is that enthusiasm in yhe international game, Ambrose looks like a rabbit caught in a cars headlights. Enough said.
Posted 09:02 26th June 2008
I agree with you Phil. As a total neutral (being a South African fan), Vettori's actions were appalling. At least Collingwood was man enough to go into the NZ dressing room after the game and admit he made a mistake. I think allot of other international captains might have made the same decision in the heat of the battle. If anything it was Vettorri and a few of the other New Zealand players that brought the game into disrepute today!
Posted 22:42 25th June 2008
Where to start... Well I'm glad that there's some balance to the debate here for one. Officially it wasn't a dead-ball since Sidebottom's actions weren't deliberate nor either played seriously injured, so the only way Elliot wouldn't have to walk is if Collingwood called him back. Should he have done so? Probably, but similar incidents have been played out before and it's usually clear as mud (SkySports mentioned Chappell vs NZ, SA vs Pietersen and NZ vs Muralitharan; I always think about the numerous times batsmen have "unintentionally" blocked fielders or even the ball with their bat on run-out opportunities). Additionally, people who've unequivocally called Colly a disgrace or slurred him are out of order; especially given his sincere, honest and frank interview afterwards, but also considering the responsibilities he shoulders captaining an international team, a team he's meant to lead to victiory but that is under pressure, intermittent in form, and with massive monetary concerns in the near future. Distasteful the Stanford series may be, but who'd want to be the losing captain for that when it comes to talking to your dressing room of players? Colly did the honorable thing coming out and talking afterwards, and as the Sky team highlighted, it's a GOOD precedent to be setting in these troubled times; and after the poor show at the immediate climax of the match I'm glad the two captains could shake hands. At the end of the day I can see -exactly- where Collingwood was coming from at the moment of the incident, especially since he asked Benson whether Sidebottom went straight for the ball, and I can -definitely- see other captains making the same decision in those circumstances. As Vettori mentioned, it's easy to comment when it's not oneself in the hotseat. 2 final points: 1) Taut with tension game, and good for 50 overs cricket! 2) Wish the SkySpots guys offered a little more support to Colly.
Posted 21:25 25th June 2008
How can anybody criticise Daniel Vettori's reaction? yes you could lip read but Vettori would not have known the camera was on him and a particular time, emotion is emotion, you can't just hide it when you feel like it, England were wrong in my opinion but it does show an aggressive nature in the side which Australia have shown us the way in that respect, the thing that bugs me the most is England lost the match to an overthrow, now that is an absolute disgrace!
Posted 21:12 25th June 2008
Terrible Collingwood decision but repaired the damage by apologising for his actions, although may have been different if NZ had lost. Mr Vettori after his reaction was not a model cricket player either but each team apologised and lets just get on with it. I am just glad NZ won as I feel they were the better side and because of the run out decision they never deserved to loose. The real problem is this "incident" has just blinded us to many England problems.
Posted 20:50 25th June 2008
When Shaun Pollock kicked Kevin Pietersen's bat out of his hand (an avoidable acccident in my view) the Sky team thought this was ok. It was an accident, so hard luck Kevin. Why the big fuss now? There is no way NZ would have considered for a moment not taking advantage of a similar situation (remember their run out of Murrili).
Posted 20:25 25th June 2008
Paul Collngwood made the wrong decision in a split second I am sure he knows that, although I just wonder what the press would have said had he made the opposite decision probably they would have criticised him. I think back to the Aussie / India Test series where there were frequent 'abuses' of the spirit of the game I think this incident should be regarded as a one off, both England and New Zealand almost always play in the spirit of the game they might not be No 1 in terms of cricket and that maybe because they usually play fair and long may that be. Lets not beat up Collie because for once he behaved like an Aussie!
Posted 20:16 25th June 2008
Collingwood was quite right to uphold the appeal for the run out, sidebottom went for the ball and you could say elliott ran accross him. I am disappointed that Collingwood has appologised that he made a mistake I don't think there was any mistake made. Next time shall us English stand by and not try to win a game?
Posted 19:30 25th June 2008
i have seen the run out and its controversey but is it not disimilar to the run out of kevin pietersen in the twenty20 world cup.. yet nothing was brought up about that.
Posted 19:26 25th June 2008