Idle cricket musing

[Alan Medic]

The poms would be whinging for ever, that's why. All 3 of them.

[Huguenot]

Cheating in sport is well known to be a cultural issue.

There's two core elements - one is whether the end justifies the means, the second is whether cheating only exists if it's observed by a referee or umpire.

I think that the whole concept of sport is about achieving certain objectives after artificially imposing a set of performance restrictions (e.g. only using your feet, or only throwing the ball backwards).

If a sportsman deliberately steps outside these restrictions in order to meet their objectives then for me there is simply no point in sport at all.

Hence there is always a 'spirit' to the rules.

In this case Bell's proposed wicket was outside that 'spirit' and thus cheating.

I know that some nationalities don't believe these rules are important, and that's why they never had an empire - they just couldn't cooperate. ;-)

[Alan Medic]

  Quote

Apart from golf name a sport where this applies. Justice has been done I see. Bell gone!

[Huguenot]

It applies to all sports. It's implemented to a different degree dependent upon your beliefs and cultural background.

Culturally the English get more incensed about unfair play than, for example, the Italians.

It may be Medic that you don't believe as strongly as I do in the spirit of sport. There's nothing likely to change this - it's about belief rather than rationalism.

I don't really understand what pleasure there is in cheating, so I tend to think cheats have a more unhappy life than those who play by the rules. An empty victory is just that.

[maxxi]

  Quote

Any and every sport where gentlemen are present.

  Quote

Cheap shot and the fact so many Indian fielders stepped forward to shake his hand seems to indicate you're alone in thinking it.

[Alan Medic]

I am referring to the fact that most sports are governed by rules which can be applied without the need for recourse to the spirit of the game.

Quote:

Apart from golf name a sport where this applies.

Any and every sport where gentlemen are present.

Like darts?

[Huguenot]

Really? I'd say quite the opposite - most sports are quite reliant on the spirit of the game:

The Hand of God, diving, bribed referees, faking age, bribed judges, shortcuts in marathons, steroids, cocaine, faking gender, watered horses, dodgy fencing foils...where do we start?

You've never seen a foot creep past the oche?

I mean, what about the Spanish paralympic basketball team who faked mental illness? How fcuked up is that?

[Alan Medic]

How you are talking about cheating. You accused the Indians of cheating today. They patently did not. If it wasn't tea there would be no more discussion on the subject. He would have been out.

[maxxi]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

> Any and every sport where gentlemen are present.

>

> Like darts?

Ignoring your slight against noble arrow chuckers I cite the (allbeit fictitious) well know gentleman and all round good egg Bertie Wooster, vis-

"The beefy ?Stilton? Cheesewright has drawn Bertie Wooster as red-hot favourite in the Drones club annual darts tournament ?" - from 'Jeeves and the Feudal Spirit'.

http://www.wodehouse.co.uk/bookprofile.php?rnd=eaKBqO3Z%2FbrkpCb3FbRIdrJsW9KL32kErqrzNl7OOab80hWTKwcS%2BalOBneXdJi2

[maxxi]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How you are talking about cheating. You accused

> the Indians of cheating today. They patently did

> not. If it wasn't tea there would be no more

> discussion on the subject. He would have been out.

If it wasn't tea Bell wouldn't have left his ground so the problem wouldn't have arisen. It was nearly an unpleasant episode but was rescued by the sanity and good sportsmanship of the Indian captain. There was never any question of 'cheating'.

[maxxi]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm just so glad that the tentative suggestion

> with my locall newsagent for a bet on this match

> never made it to a firm handshake.

Don't forget to go into your newsagent's tomorrow morning and let him know how lucky he has been that you didn't shake!

[Huguenot]

Medic, my initial impression was that the fielder had deliberately given the wrong impression that the ball was a bounday by failing to field it for 3 or 4 seconds despite it being at his feet.

Since it is perfectly normal for the state of play of the ball to be signalled by the fielder, this is most unusual behaviour. If the ball was in play he should have been in a hurry to return it to minimise runs/

I then felt that there had been deliberate masking of the return of the ball in order not to draw the batman's attention to it.

The fact that India then took the appeal led me to believe it was deliberate subterfuge and consequently cheating.

There are plenty of unanswered questions about this that won't be addressed by the retraction.

As you saw, on reflection I retracted my view that this was cheating, primarily on the grounds that they retracted the appeal. You cannot cheat to obtaina wicket if you don't take the wicket.

[Loz]

Bell was stupid and was out. It was interesting that all the past English captains on Sky pretty much agreed they'd have taken the wicket. Only Bumble was wittering on about the spirit of the game.

India now lack the cojones that got them to the top of the table.

[Atticus]

Alan, which team do you follow? You seem a little bitter.

[david_carnell]

Today is going marvellously too.

England will declare at lunch or at Bresnan's 100 I would imagine.

[mockney piers]

  Quote

To summarise the Bell incident (and while I won't resort to the -gate suffix, you're welcome to present your suggestions): young Ian Ronald left his backdoor unlocked and had his wicket burgled (though, let's be clear, the theft was entirely legitimate within the laws of this particular society); Bell, understandably a bit miffed and doubtless well aware that his insurance would be void, played dumb, with the equivalent of the neighbourhood watch, the two Andys, going round to India's gaff to ask for the swag back. To the delight of all involved, MS Dhoni recognised the breach of civil spirit and duly consented. Thus, sport was the winner. Er, right?

I have to say I disagree there was any cheating. I thought the fielder looked up after his acrobatic save, to see bell and morgan wandering off and assumed tea must have been called, then was beckoned and a rather opportunistic wicket taken. They had a frustrating day and the Bell's wicket was crucial to their chance of a victory, I can't say as I blame them, and was surprised when the decision was reversed.

Mind you I can't help but remember the last time everyone farted on about sportsmanship and the spirit of the game was when a certain Hansie Cronje magnanimously declared early to give England a bit of a chance.... :-/

[Huguenot]

Aha - the incredible and ghostly Marlin Aronstam.

Hansie Cronje's stament in full regarding the declaration....

24. On the fourth day during the rain interruption, a meeting was held between me, Nasser Hussein (the English captain), Dr Ali Bacher, the match umpires and the match referee in the library of the Northern Titans. Dr Bacher was anxious to save the game as a spectacle. There was pressure to turn it into a One Day International, but this was apparently not possible because of a clash of sponsors (Test Matches and the One-Day Internationals have different sponsors).

25. Thereafter, on the evening of the fourth day, I received a call on my cellphone. The caller identified himself as Marlin Aronstam. (I am not sure of the spelling) I do not know where he got my cellphone number and I had not previously heard of or spoken to him.

26. We chatted for a while. Marlin said that he was a cricket lover and wanted to see action on the field. He said that my image as a captain was poor and that I was being perceived as a conservative and negative captain. We also spoke about my recent form, which had not been good: I had had two ducks in a row. Marlin urged me to speak to Nasser Hussein, the English captain, about an early declaration to make a contest of it, saying this would be good both for me and for cricket. This is something which is often done, for example, in county cricket in which each side forfeits one innings. It had never before been done in a test match.

27. Marlin revealed that he was involved with NSI, a listed company, which I now know to be involved in sports betting. I did not know this at the time and only became aware of it in April of this year.

28. Marlin said that if we declared and made a game of it he would give R500,000 to a charity of my choice and would also give me a gift. We did not discuss either which charity or what the gift would be. He asked whether we could meet at my hotel, which we did that night. He wanted to call Nassar Hussein, who was in the same hotel, up to my room. I refused because I did not want him to be involved. We spoke about cricket and the Centurion test. I was impressed by his knowledge of cricket. He said a forfeit by each side would be a positive move for cricket. He genuinely sounded as though he wanted to see a cricket contest and I was not asked to influence other players, to perform badly, or to influence the result. Marlin's suggestion seemed to make perfect sense from an entertainment point of view. It was nevertheless wrong for me to have entertained the offer of a gift for doing something in respect of which I was required to make an independent decision as captain.

[Huguenot]

32. After the game Marlin visited me at the Sandton Sun, where we staying, and gave me a leather jacket and R50,000 in two cash amounts (R30,000 and R20,000) on consecutive days. I believed this to be the gift he had spoken of. He said it was in consideration of me giving him information in the future, but did not specify what this information would be. The R500,000 which had been promised to a charity of my choice did not materialise and was never mentioned again.

[Loz]

Sportsmanship would have been better served by India offering to recall Bell, but England gracefully declining.

This could open up a real can of worms. Imagine, say, Harbijan Singh's LBW (off Broad during his hat trick) had been the last ball before tea. It would have been obvious on the replays in the dressing room that Harbie got a big inside edge - should he be recalled?

A lot of recall incidents have been revisited since the Bell incident, but this is the only one where I would have recalled the batsman. Running out a batsman when he's been (unintentionally) knocked down really wasn't on.

[Alan Medic]

Atticus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan, which team do you follow? You seem a little

> bitter.

I don't follow either. If I seem bitter it because of all the nonsense written about the spirit of the game as if England are the only ones who seem to know what it is. Try this for size...........

The Jellybean Incident

[Huguenot]

"nonsense written about the spirit of the game as if England are the only ones who seem to know what it is"

Sp far as I can tell Medic, you're the only one who's made that assertion. Does that mean you accept you're talking nonsense?

[Atticus]

What then, Alan, does that have to do with the heritage of some of 'our' players?

[Loz]

Well, if England want to be really sporting, they'll give India a third innings. Just to make a game of it. Or bring Cook and Prior on to bowl Or something.

[maxxi]

The way things are going Cook would probably get a hat trick too!

Good fielding move for Cook's catch and good bowling by Bresnan means there's a dilemma for next test - do you drop Bresnan after a fine performance or bring Tremlett back and - with the batting strong and deep - drop Trott?

[Alan Medic]

Atticus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What then, Alan, does that have to do with the

> heritage of some of 'our' players?

Eh...............nothing I suppose. Why?