Thursday, 26 June 2008

Ah, controversy!

Please feel free to abuse Paul Collingwood in the comments section.

In the immediate aftermath of The Oval match it seems that Collingwood is being a good deal of leeway by New Zealanders for the fact that he has apologised for running Grant Elliott out while the batsman lay dazed on the ground. But, how much of our generosity is the result of post-victory euphoria? If we had lost, you can bet your bottom dollar that right now I would be busy converting office stationary into an effigy of Collingwood and constructing a bonfire on Willis Street (probably outside the gym next door, just to piss off all the smokers who stand outside it - honestly, where are their health priorities?). And I imagine that I would not be the only one bristling with righteous indignation.

At the time Collingwood decided to uphold the run-out appeal, Ian Smith compared the event to the infamous under-arm moment. But he was premature. If we had lost the match I am sure he would have been right and Collingwood would have been reviled as Greg Chappell still is today. But we won. And that means Collingwood's moment of madness will hardly be remembered in six month's time, let alone 25 years. And for this reason, the England captain should be extremely grateful that his team choked, wobbled, shot themselves in the foot and lost the match.

11 comments:

The Atheist said...

Paul Collingwood is the only ginger wank stain I have ever seen.

Marshmallow said...

There have been a lot of comparisons between this incident and the Murali incident, though I really like this response from one of the readers on the Herald site:

I seem to remember a distincly different reaction from the umpire in the Murali incident, as murali left his crease the umpire implored him to get back and then had no hesitation in sending him on his way, in this incident the umpire looked disgraced at the England team and urged them to reconsider.

I think Elliot would have made his ground 9 times out of ten if he had not collided, therefore the England team should have given him the benefit of the doubt.

There are constant cases where a player is injured out of his ground either through leg injury or being hit by the delivery and I have never seen a team attempt a runout, disgraceful.

Jrod said...

Lucky no one was run out going to congratulate their team mate making a hundred.

Fanatics said...

As a Yank who just got into this game during a visit to NZ in February (when ENG was in country, coincidentally) - I have a question about all this. The commentators were saying Collingwood could have appealed the decision to the TV umpire but refused.

Now, if you know the decision would be overturned against you, why would you appeal? And why wasn't NZ given that opportunity?

Ben said...

Fanatics: In cricket, 'appeal' means to ask the umpire whether the batsman was out, or rather, to implore the umpire to give the batsman out. In this case, the umpire was effectively asking Collingwood "Do you really want the batsman to be out for this?" If Collingwood insisted on appealing, then the umpire had no option but to give Elliot out.

There is currently no facility for either side to appeal against an umpire's decision or to ask that the TV umpire be involved.

Does that make any sense?

Anonymous said...

Great game. Right result. But on the controversy, and it pains me to say it, NZ lost the moral high ground for about the next two decades over the Murali incident.

Danny Vettori was there I think, Macca too, and I seem to recall the Black Caps being quite bemused when people suggested it was a matter of sportsmanship...

But I'm still glad we smashed em. I've always believed in Mills.

Hi to the MikeOnCricket team - Sam

Fanatics said...

Ben: I think so. I was thinking "appeal" as in a video challenge like we have in American football. I'm slowly getting the nuances of the game. As a baseball fan, it's not that far a leap.

BTW - did you see where Collingwood is facing a two-game suspension? Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

free bets said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Leg Break said...

Anon,

The Murali incident was the fielding side taking advantage of the batsman’s stupidity.

In this case it was the fielding side taking advantage of an unfortunate accident.

A subtle distinction, perhaps, but in the unwritten spirit of the game, it’s a significant one.

Where NZ lost the moral high ground, however, was in the embarrassingly petulant display on the balcony.

Ben said...

Leg Break: The petulance might have been a bit ugly, but don't forget that most of the emotion you saw on the balcony was excitement at having won by the narrowest margin after an agonisingly tense final over.

Leg Break said...

Ben,

It started before then end apparently. From the Guardian OBO coverage, just after incident happened:

“On the balcony New Zealand are disgusted, and Scott Styris is spitting curses at all and sundry.”


Imagine what a hideous sight that must have been...