Muralitharan's runout
Charlie Austin's bulletin from CricInfo...
...Sangakkara glanced a single to bring up his century.But as Sangakkara started to raise his hands aloft in celebration, Muralitharan had a brainstorm, tapping his bat into the crease and then leaving it again to congratulate Sangakkara while the ball was still live. Brian Jerling, the square leg umpire, motioned to Muralitharan that over had not been called, but it was too late and Brendon McCullum whipped off the bails. Muralitharan may justifiably claim that the dismissal was not within the spirit of the game, but it was within the letter of the law and, for a cricketer of his immense experience, it was a moment of unpardonable madness.
Now lets be honest here. It was unsportsman-like of New Zealand. Screw the letter of the law. In situations like these, the entire world is willing to shove the 'letter'. Murali was clearly not running the second run and had already made his ground. I was shocked to see it unfold on tv. And after you make your ground, you're bloody safe. Its common sense, after all. It was the end of the over and the leg umpire was already walking towards to the crease. Sangakarra had just made such an important century, shuffling around with the tail and it was plain to see the New Zealanders were desperate to get the last wicket.
The umpire had no choice but to give it out. He has to follow the rules. There is no fault there but if he had let it pass, it wouldn't be such an issue either.
New Zealand should not have appealed. McCullum is a bastard.
3 comments:
It's a very grey area but, on balance, I think New Zealand were wrong.
The fault lies entirely with Murali and no one else.
He placed his bat, turned, and left his crease. Once that happens, he is no longer safe. He is starting a second run. It is not up to the New Zealanders to guess what is in his mind: maybe he was walking the few paces to see if his partner was interested in a second run. Either way, he was the one in the wrong (coming from a cheating chucker, its little wonder though, is it?)
The umpire made the correct decision, and the New Zealand players did exactly what they should do. I would be disappointed with my cricket team if they did not take the wicket.
Tim - thanks for the comment.
Anonymous - Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your point of view.
Though in principle I agree with you, there is some amount of sportsmanship sprit that I still associate with competetive cricket. That line, however fine it may be, was crossed by the New Zealanders.
As far as your comment about Murali chucking goes, I disagree with you.
The naked eye can only show so much. Looking at his action, it is controversial.
But one must look carefully into the rules of cricket, to the definition of a 'chuck' and rely on science. After all, wasn't it proven a few years back that Glen McGrath's elbow bends more than Murali's
Science has cleared Murali every single time, and I put my faith and trust in that scientific method. The process has banned several players, but has also allowed sensational bowlers like Murali to play.
Players like Murali come once in a lifetime. His action has been cleared by the ICC, the Australian laboratories, and for me, that's the official word.
Post a Comment