Cricket is odd......Bell should be out surely? I still don't understand why you have to appeal to find out if the umpire thinks something is out or not?!?
Bell was out, and rightly given out. But as a gentleman's game, an umpire can only make a decision on appeal (see the laws), and that appeal was withdrawn (which is the captain's right to do). The Spirit Of Cricket is something that the game tries to uphold, the opposite of how the FA has let standards drift in football over the years in terms of respect for referees, dissent, gamesmanship, etc, all of which are "just not cricket dear chap!".
Cricket is odd......Bell should be out surely? I still don't understand why you have to appeal to find out if the umpire thinks something is out or not?!?
because you have to. I think everyone has taken part or heard of a game in colts cricket when you're a kid, the bowler gets the batsman absolutely plumb, yet the only one appealing is the fielder at point, who makes a very muted "hows that?".
Bell was out, and rightly given out. But as a gentleman's game, an umpire can only make a decision on appeal (see the laws), and that appeal was withdrawn (which is the captain's right to do). The Spirit Of Cricket is something that the game tries to uphold, the opposite of how the FA has let standards drift in football over the years in terms of respect for referees, dissent, gamesmanship, etc, all of which are "just not cricket dear chap!".
The captain does not have the right to withdraw an appeal. If anyone on the fielding side appeals and the umpire correctly gives it out, the decision cannot later be overturned. So, in the case of Bell/Dhoni, he was out, they appealed, the umpire gave him out, and that should have been the end of the matter. During the break, Dhoni conisidered that it didn't "feel" right, so had a word with the umpires. They agreed to allow the decision not to stand. Although, technically, they should not have been allowed to do so.
Cricket is odd......Bell should be out surely? I still don't understand why you have to appeal to find out if the umpire thinks something is out or not?!?
because you have to. I think everyone has taken part or heard of a game in colts cricket when you're a kid, the bowler gets the batsman absolutely plumb, yet the only one appealing is the fielder at point, who makes a very muted "hows that?".
I get that you have to......I just think it's weird that you have to.......
Bell was out, and rightly given out. But as a gentleman's game, an umpire can only make a decision on appeal (see the laws), and that appeal was withdrawn (which is the captain's right to do). The Spirit Of Cricket is something that the game tries to uphold, the opposite of how the FA has let standards drift in football over the years in terms of respect for referees, dissent, gamesmanship, etc, all of which are "just not cricket dear chap!".
The captain does not have the right to withdraw an appeal. If anyone on the fielding side appeals and the umpire correctly gives it out, the decision cannot later be overturned. So, in the case of Bell/Dhoni, he was out, they appealed, the umpire gave him out, and that should have been the end of the matter. During the break, Dhoni conisidered that it didn't "feel" right, so had a word with the umpires. They agreed to allow the decision not to stand. Although, technically, they should not have been allowed to do so.
Law 27.8 The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only with the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls and before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. Etc.
So, you are wrong on that respect but you are right that technically, they should not have been allowed to do so as Bell left the field of play.
Bell was out, and rightly given out. But as a gentleman's game, an umpire can only make a decision on appeal (see the laws), and that appeal was withdrawn (which is the captain's right to do). The Spirit Of Cricket is something that the game tries to uphold, the opposite of how the FA has let standards drift in football over the years in terms of respect for referees, dissent, gamesmanship, etc, all of which are "just not cricket dear chap!".
The captain does not have the right to withdraw an appeal. If anyone on the fielding side appeals and the umpire correctly gives it out, the decision cannot later be overturned. So, in the case of Bell/Dhoni, he was out, they appealed, the umpire gave him out, and that should have been the end of the matter. During the break, Dhoni conisidered that it didn't "feel" right, so had a word with the umpires. They agreed to allow the decision not to stand. Although, technically, they should not have been allowed to do so.
Law 27.8 The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only with the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls and before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. Etc.
So, you are wrong on that respect but you are right that technically, they should not have been allowed to do so as Bell left the field of play.
bit of a grey area though as they then all left the field of play for tea.
In football you play to the whistle. In cricket you should play to the umpire's signal.
The Aussies did nothing wrong. In fact, had the two been batsmen been watching, they would have seen the fielder chase the ball to the boundary and turn and throw in one motion. He hadn't given up on the ball so why did the batsmen? Because they switched off!
Comments
The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only with the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls and before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. Etc.
So, you are wrong on that respect but you are right that technically, they should not have been allowed to do so as Bell left the field of play.
The Aussies did nothing wrong. In fact, had the two been batsmen been watching, they would have seen the fielder chase the ball to the boundary and turn and throw in one motion. He hadn't given up on the ball so why did the batsmen? Because they switched off!