The atmosphere in the Pavilion, never mind the rest of the ground, was electric at the Tea interval on the third day of the India Test match - the good burghers of Nottingham were sure that cricketing justice was not being done. Hence the booing. Not that a riot was on the cards - but the natives were restless. What we had just witnessed had defied belief. In short when the last ball of the over before Tea was hit towards the boundary the fielder, Kumar, dived over the boundary rope like a dying swallow. Seeing this batsmen, not unreasonably, assumed that a boundary had been hit. Kumar assumed the same. He picked up the ball and tossed it gently towards the wicketkeeper. Meanwhile the batsmen, Bell and Morgan, headed Pavilion-wards for a well-earned Tea. The keeper, Indian Captain MS Dhoni, caught the ball and threw it gently to the bowlers' end where the stumps were broken. Why did Dhoni do this? Well maybe he realised that the Umpires had not signalled a "Four" and that technically the ball was still in play and with the batsmen en route for Tea one of them (Bell) could be deemed to be Run Out. The Umpires then burst into action. Was Bell Run Out? Much radio chat with the third Umpire. Meanwhile Bell and Morgan were barred from returning to the Pavilion by one of the umpiring team! Back at the square the Umpires asked Dhoni if he really wanted to appeal. He said that he did. In the circumstances the Umpires had two options. They could have said to Dhoni that such an appeal was likely to be deemed later not to be in keeping with the "Spirit of Cricket" (unequivocally entrenched in the Laws of the Game). They didn't do this. They took option 2 which was to accept Dhoni's appeal and, inevitably, give Bell out.
There is a real sense of what is natural justice amongst cricket supporters. Instinctively we tend to know right from wrong. And this was wrong. The Umpires and the Indian team were roundly booed as they went to the Pavilion for Tea. It was loud, pointed and not open to misinterpretation. The forcefulness of this reaction no doubt supported the England team as they tried to cope with a gross injustice. Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss elected to go to talk with their opposite numbers Fletcher and Dhoni. And, as the later interview with the honourable and decent Rahul Dravid confirmed, the Indian team thought again and decided to withdraw their appeal. The brief version of what had happened can be summarised as follows:
1. Everything pointed to a four having been scored and the over having being finished – not least Kumar’s relaxed returning of the ball to Dhoni.
2. The breaking of the stumps was almost an afterthought. There was little urgency to it and it seemed little expectation, on the part of the Indians, that a run out had really been effected.
3. Bell and Morgan were already on the way to the Pavilion for Tea when the stump breaking took place. They clearly assumed that it was the end of the Over and the Session.
4. It eventually dawned on the Indians that in fact the ball had still been in play when they broke the stumps and that technically Ian Bell was run out. It was at this point that they appealed.
5. When the appeal happened former England Captain Michael Vaughan’s commentary on television was “[That was] a big mistake by Mahendra Singh Dhoni. I think this is [against] the Spirit of the Game.”
6. The Umpires then asked Dhoni a second time whether he wanted to pursue the appeal. Dhoni said he did. Bell was given out.
7. The Umpires and the Indians were roundly booed off the pitch not only by the majority of the crowd but by I would say a third of the members in the Pavilion where I was sitting.
8. During the Tea interval the Indians discussed the matter and, in the words of Rahul Dravid, they concluded that “If we took the letter of the laws of the game strictly [Bell] was out. But something was not right.”
9. The England Coach and the England Captain asked the Indians to withdraw the appeal which they graciously did. They might have done this anyway without the two Andys’ intervention. Who knows? Dravid’s remarks suggest so.
10. No announcement was made to the crowd and at first the Umpires and the Indian team were booed again. Then Ian Bell emerged and some amongst the members thought that England was playing hardball and refusing to accept the dismissal! Then, slowly, the truth emerged and in time the Indians were applauded for their belated sportsmanship.
Subsequent to this sequence of events the cricket Establishment has sought not only to praise Dhoni but to say that the "Spirit of Cricket" is enhanced by his actions. Well yes - but remember it was Dhoni and his team who created the mess in the first place! As Michael Vaughan correctly put it in real time on commentary the Indians were technically correct to appeal - but that appeal was plainly not in line with the "Spirit of Cricket”.
So to sum up. Technically Ian Bell was run out. But to pursue this offended natural justice as well as undoubtedly the "Spirit of the Game”. Dhoni, initially, pursued the appeal and the Umpires complied. They did not need to do this! Remember again the "Spirit of Cricket" is in the Laws and the Umpires would have been within their rights to advise Dhoni that his appeal conflicted with this Spirit. But this didn't happen. It was only when they were sitting in their dressing room having been booed from the field of play the enormity of the error that they had made dawned on Dhoni and his team that they saw sense (as Rahul Dravid pointed out).
The willingness of MS Dhoni to appeal in circumstances that were clearly suspect and unique was regrettable. The smiles on the faces of his colleagues as they went into Tea were reprehensible. That they subsequently, under some pressure, recanted is commendable. But let's cut out the bullshit. This whole problem came about because the "Spirit of Cricket" was initially, and in the heat of the moment, far from the mind of the Indian Captain. And it didn't feature with the Umpires either. Cricket's spirit has been rescued by England's Flower and Strauss and by India's Fletcher and Dhoni's reconsideration and welcome retreat.
The final (possibly!) coda to this affair was when the Test Match Special team of commentators and summarisers elected to give MS Dhoni the “Brian Johnston Champagne Moment” award for his withdrawal of the appeal. I found this so stomach-churningly obsequious that I “Tweeted” immediately from the ground “BJ Champagne moment choice is sentimental, craven, establishment-pleasing nonsense. Really bad.” On cool reflection I stand by this 100%. It was a match full of genuine champagne moments on the field of play – not least the brilliant third ball of Stuart Broad’s hat trick. That MS Dhoni had the wit and the sensitivity to reverse his appeal was commendable – but in truth I think that he had little choice but to do this if the match and the rest of the series was to progress smoothly. I was right among the cricket fans at Trent Bridge and at Tea they were incensed by what had happened and in unforgiving mood.
The day after these events the establishment closed ranks and the message in the media was disturbingly consistent – Ian Bell was dozy, naïve, careless or worse. MS Dhoni was a hero. The umpires were blameless. Yes, as I have shown, Bell and to an extent Morgan were a bit sloppy but the former had been batting through two sessions under considerable pressure and with the game in the balance. He played magnificently and was certainly entitled to his Tea! He saw Karma dive over the boundary and saw the subsequent body language of Karma and the rest and understandably felt there was no suggestion that a “play” of any sort was on. The Indians initially thought so too and when they appealed a quick word from the umpires to the effect that this was not a very good idea in the Spirit of the Game would certainly have sufficed. The umpires did not do this and this was very bad judgment on their part. It really was!
And Dhoni and the Indian team’s belated retraction of their appeal sullies the good record of Test Match Special – it was no champagne moment! No Way!
13 comments:
It is also in the nature and Spirit of the Game that when we are in error, and reconcile ourselves to that error with humility and make amends, then there is something larger than the game that takes place...a sense of Justice and Peace in a moment of intensity that makes all those touched by it grateful. A crowd incensed eventually applauded in what seemed to me appreciation.
Describing it in terms of a champagne moment seems insignificant in comparison to the feeling that justice in the Spirit of the Law and the Game has prevailed. The giving of “the champagne moment” is perhaps a reflection of unconditional forgiveness brought into play in the joy of the moment.
To carry on lambasting seems a touch ungrateful, perhaps being perceived as from someone unforgiving from the highest mountain peak's view of perfection? Unless, of course, there is amongst us those who have never made any mistakes in our lives?
OK, so Dhoni made an error of judgement and maybe the Indian Team and possibly the Umpires and even the England batsmen made mistakes, yet, it seems to me it takes even greater courage to admit to it graciously, as seen through Rahul Dravid's interview and thereby the Indian Team have set an example that thunders through this great game.
JL Thank you for your comment. Your points are well made and thoughtful and I take note!
While I agree with much of what you have written, I do not believe that there is a moment when an umpire can turn down an appeal purely because it offends the Spirit of Cricket. Much more to the point here is that they would have been totally correct in turning it down because the ball was dead under the Laws. Specifically,the Laws stipulate that ' the ball shall be considered dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.' Now, in my view, any boundary fielder acting in a manner that indicates that he believes the ball to have crossed the line renders the ball dead. Kumar, for sure, did think it had hit the rope. If it were not so, a fielder could feign a boundary then hurl the ball in for a run out.
The cameras, of course, add to the complexity when they are available but Bell reasonably considered the ball dead. There is a body of informed opinion that supports this interpretation. There is, as so often, a body of semi-informed opinion boasting a thousand Test caps between them that seems to have missed the point.
I can’t think who the gesticulating fellow is in the photo, but let’s hope when the wheel turns, England remember how fortunate they were.
I watched on TV, and I think Bell was a very lucky chap. His saviour was it was the last ball before tea. That gave time for minds to consider more calmly than in the middle. Further, his defence, if he has one, is that he was plainly not trying to score a run. However, watching closely on TV, my view is he made a catastrophic error, and decided when in ‘no man’s land’ to bluff it out.
Half way down the pitch, Morgan was gesticulating quite clearly to get back to his crease. Bell looked round, hesitated, and kept going, bluffing in my view, and hoping the Indians would do nothing. But they did.
Next, the cameras had him at the pavilion gate where he said ‘he called ‘Over’. He said ‘Over’. That was untrue – to put it kindly. More bluffing.
Of course, it would have been a terrible way to lose one’s wicket, but he was out, and the bluffing failed to disguise the facts.
Had it been Ponting or Clarke at Adelaide, in a second Test, with Australia with a big lead, and England desperate for a wicket, would Strauss have withdrawn the appeal? I certainly hope not. Put that way round, the commentators would have been lauding the new, tough, street-wise England team, no longer the toffs and patsies of old.
I think India made a most handsome and generous gesture. I hope we have the chance to repay them soon.
But how incompetent of the authorities not to make an announcement. Suppose as the Indians appeared after tea, someone had thrown a beer or sandwich at Dhoni or one of the team. How embarrassing would that have been?
We may never know what happened in the dressing rooms, but on the rack in Adelaide, I doubt England would have withdrawn their appeal. Further, I don’t think the Aussies would expect us to either.
Just another view................
Hindsight is wonderful and the tea break allowed the opportunity to create the right 'spin' to justify or give seeming credibility to the unjustifiable. To my mind there were two batsmen, Morgan who, from his actions, was very well aware of the situation and Bell who wasn't.
The first thing drummed into you at prep school is to be mindful of being in your crease until the ball is dead. The umpires hadn't called over, Bell was out of his ground, Morgan clearly sent him back, the wicket was broken, India appealed, Bell is out. Bad luck, but end of story.
I feel more embarrassed that England and the partisan crown put pressure on a touring side in those circumstances. More like a football crowd.
There are lots of 'bad luck' scenarios in cricket. e.g. Batsman on 99 at non strikers end - backs up modestly after the ball is delivered, the ball is firmly driven back and unintentionally deflected onto the stumps by the bowler - non striker run out - bad luck. Have you ever heard of the appeal being withdrawn in such circumstances?
The Spirit of the Game would have been far better served by following the Laws and recognising the authority of the umpires rather than surrendering to the opinions of the 'mob'.
The whole point is that the umpire did NOT call dead ball because he was talking to the 3rd umpire on his radio. Had enough of this twaddle and your gratuitous insults...my speech at Lord's being among them. Correct your blog on this issue - the bails were not removed from the bowler's end - and please stop. Apologise! To whom? Everyone who has played any cricket at a serious level would have acted as the Indians did on the field and many would not have withdrawn their appeal.
You have got it so wrong it is ridiculous. Who do you want me to apologise to? And look at Rauf as he is handing the sweater. His left hand is on his belt walkie talkie and he is talking to Bowden. He could not call dead ball because he, like everyone else, did not know if it was 4. But the demands of technology now means there is a hiatus while that is established, be it first ball of the day or the last ball before tea.
It might be inconvenient as far as that blog, and your concerted attempt to denigrate a welcome piece of sportsmanship is concerned, but the only person on the field who thought the ball was dead was Bell. True, Kumar gave the impression that he thought the ball probably had hit the boundary, as I reported at the time. But neither the umpires nor the Indian team ceased to regard the ball as being in play. Rauf was busy checking that detail with the 3rd umpire at the time. Dohni collected the throw and threw the ball to Makund at the wicket. Therefore he did not consider it to be out of play. And neither did Makund who broke the wicket. As was widely reported at the time, Bell was correctly given out and was very fortunate to be reprieved.
I am happy to give Jonathan Agnew the opportunity to explain his views above and I leave it to others to judge the rights and wrongs of this issue.
For the record I regard Aggers as not only one of the best commentators on the game of cricket there has ever been (and truly in the tradition of Brian Johnston) but a charming and decent man. I seek no feud and hope that we can be reconciled!
I am 100% in agreement with this article - the sole one to view the matter totally objectively. It is the umpires who got it wrong.
MP Thank you for your support. I have received many similiar comments form others.
I side with JAS and Aggers on this. Bell made a mistake, the ball was live and he was correctly run out. What I wonder would Bell and Morgan have done had the throw in been a wild one and missed the stumps and the fielders. I warrant they would then have run a couple of overthrows.
I did not like Strauss and Flower going to the Indian Dressing Room either. If the Indians were to have retracted their appeal it would have been far better had this not been done under pressure.
Cricket should take a leaf out of golf's book. Golfers generally police themselves. The bottom line is that if a Rule is transgressed, however tiny the transgression eg a ball moving ever so slightly at address, a penalty is called. Ignorance, sloppiness and 'sorry guv she slipped' is never an acceptable excuse.
The Spirit of Cricket (which is not, so far as I know, part of the Laws of Cricket, it is the Preamble to the Laws) requires first and foremost that the Umpires decision is respected. The Umpires gave Bell out, the England players should have respected that decision.
Had Bell not been so clearly in the wrong, the one person who might have taken action in my view should have been the ICC Match Referee. At the Tea interval he could have had a quiet word with Dhoni, told him that he was quite within his rights if he preferred to stick to his appeal but suggested that he might like to re-consider in the Spirit of Cricket. But I would want such an approach to be strictly informal and not be officially acknowledged.
After much thought I find that the whole incident leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Bell was out, and should have remained out, to remind him in future not to be slipshod and careless (despite a simply wonderful innings), and his graceless remarks in his later interview do him no favours either. I would have been most content to see him shoulder arms to the first ball he subsequently faced. The most distasteful aspect of the event is the visit of Strauss and Flower to the Indian dressing room - most unbecoming.
However, I would contrast this with what is everyday and by any measure extremely unsporting behaviour on the football field which goes by quite unremarked by anyone (routine fouling, taking free kicks/throw-ins further up the pitch than the infringement, regularly arguing with the referee etc.) In the end, I think, history will relate that good sportsmanship won the day, and cricket's position as a game played in a fair and sporting manner will be maintained.
Paddy, putting aside the vexatious rights and wrongs of the umpiring decisions and Bell's lacksidasical and, dare I say it, somewhat disingenuous approach to the situation, there are two aspects of this sorry tale that are palpably wrong, which you didn't cover in your initial blog although other contributors have to some extent made reference to them.
Namely that it was reprehensible for an England Coach and Captain to visit the Indian dressing room to discuss/request a withdrawal of an appeal; and secondly, why on earth wasn't there a PA announcement that the Indians had withdrawn their appeal before they set foot back on the field of play prior to the resumption.
No one, least of all the Sky TV commentators, who were drawing viewers attention to the sarcastic applause by the England skipper as Dhoni led his team back on to the field after tea, were aware of what had transpired during the tea interval. It must have seemed very strange to the Indian team that they were roundly booed after making a sporting gesture by withdrawing their appeal.
Being booed is an unpleasant thing at the best of times and Dhoni and his team deserved a little curtesy from their host nation after thinking things through during the tea break and reaching a sporting decision on their own.
Post a Comment