Australia upheld the spirit of cricket by not going for a run out appeal on Asad Shafiq

[Major]

When Pakistan started day 5 to chase the unchasable, Asad Shafiq took a single and while he complete a single, he turned back immediately to talk to his partner batsmen.

The guy standing near the stumps(dont remember if it was bowler or Wade) received the ball and he threw it at the stumps. Though he did not appeal and no one else appealed aswell.

If appealed that could had been out. Similar outs have been given before.

Had out been given, a controversy could had been made out of it, but Aussies acted mature and didn't bother with it.

Our players really need to wake up, shafiq could had been run out, and what yasir did at the end(his run out) was really embarrassing aswell

 

[Gilly]

It was Lyon that threw the wicket down.

 

[Major]

It was Lyon that threw the wicket down.

he couldve appealed, and it could had been given out rightly.

 

[Gilly]

he couldve appealed, and it could had been given out rightly.

I agree, players are responsible to make sure that they don't give the opposition any opportunity and Shafiq made a mistake and at this level you should not make these type of mistakes.

 

[badsha001]

Please read the cricket bylaws. There was no run out there, once bowler reach back to his/her runup then ball is automatically dead...

 

[Syed1]

I agree, players are responsible to make sure that they don't give the opposition any opportunity and Shafiq made a mistake and at this level you should not make these type of mistakes.

He touched his bat down and was in no way making an attempt to go for another run. What is the minimum time needed to touch the bat and go talk to your partner? Is there any ICC ruling on this?

It's not Shafiq's fault that the only way Lyon can dismiss him is through childish methods. Glad that Lyon realized that he needs to man up and try and get his wicket through cricketing means.

 

[Major]

Please read the cricket bylaws. There was no run out there, once bowler reach back to his/her runup then ball is automatically dead...

THere is a way a batsmen is suppose to reach his ground. You can't turn back sttraight away.

Go watch Paksitan vs Bangladesh 2010 Asia Cup, where Umar Amin was given out.

 

[Major]

He touched his bat down and was in no way making an attempt to go for another run. What is the minimum time needed to touch the bat and go talk to your partner? Is there any ICC ruling on this?

It's not Shafiq's fault that the only way Lyon can dismiss him is through childish methods. Glad that Lyon realized that he needs to man up and try and get his wicket through cricketing means.

this is not childish. this is well within the rules. THe player needs to be smart in what he does.

Umar Amin got out in a similar fashion in asia cup

 

[Syed1]

this is not childish. this is well within the rules. THe player needs to be smart in what he does.

Umar Amin got out in a similar fashion in asia cup

So tell me how long does he have to wait at the non-striking/striking end before he is allowed to go talk to his partner. 5 seconds? 10 seconds? 2 minutes?

Tell me I want to know what is in the bylaws. I'm sure it is in there in great detail.

 

[badsha001]

Please read the Law 43 "use Common Sense"... asad shafiq didn't have the intention to go for another run therefore there was nothing Australia could do.

Bangladesh umpires the less said about them better it is... no wonder they are not part of icc elite panel

 

[Major]

Please read the Law 43 "use Common Sense"... asad shafiq didn't have the intention to go for another run therefore there was nothing Australia could do.

Bangladesh umpires the less said about them better it is... no wonder they are not part of icc elite panel

the umpire who signaled the decision to third umpire was Bruce Oxenford, i'm 99% sure he ain't bengali.
The third umpire was Ranmore Martinesz, a Sri Lankan.
Billy Doctrove was at leg, not a single Bengali umpire or match referee, so don't know what you are on about


http://www.espncricinfo.com/asia2010/engine/current/match/455235.html

 

[Gilly]

He touched his bat down and was in no way making an attempt to go for another run. What is the minimum time needed to touch the bat and go talk to your partner? Is there any ICC ruling on this?

It's not Shafiq's fault that the only way Lyon can dismiss him is through childish methods. Glad that Lyon realized that he needs to man up and try and get his wicket through cricketing means.

Lyon had every right to run him out, A tip for you its not Lyon who is being childish here.

Law 38

1. Out Run out

(a) Either batsman is out Run out, except as in 2 below, if, at any time while the ball is in play,

(i) he is out of his ground
and (ii) his wicket is fairly put down by the action of a fielder.

(b) (a) above shall apply even though No ball has been called, except in the circumstances of 2(b)(ii) below, and whether or not a run is being attempted.


2. Batsman not Run out

Notwithstanding 1 above,

(a) A batsman is not out Run out if

(i) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down.

Note also the provisions of Law 29.1(b) (When out of his ground).

(ii) the ball has not subsequently been touched by a fielder, after the bowler has entered his delivery stride, before the wicket is put down.

 

[Hawkeye]

Major, don't do this. )

It wasn't a run out, and even if it was, they had NO friggin idea it was. There was no "spirit of cricket".

 

[Major]

x 1000


1. Umar Amin wasn't going to talk to his partner

2. His feet/bat were in the air when the throw came in

3. The bowler wasn't at the top of his mark (if the bowler is at the top of his mark then the ball is considered dead which was the case with Lyon)



Learn cricketing rules before trying to implicate someone

so you are saying if amin went to talk to his partner then the ball would had been dead?

Amin touched his ground same way Shafiq did.

even collingwood got out like this, where he was in his creese, then left it to talk to his partner and the keeper threw the bal at the stumps. out given.

 

[Major]

Major, don't do this. )

It wasn't a run out, and even if it was, they had NO friggin idea it was. There was no "spirit of cricket".

they had. If they had no idea, Lyon would had never thrown the ball at the stumps

 

[Gilly]

Was Yasir going for a run when Smith ran him out.

 

[Major]

Lyon had every right to run him out, A tip for you its not Lyon who is being childish here.

exactly.

Its funny how some posters here go around telling others to learn the runs and facepalming.....

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

I think this kind of a situation usually pertains to Law 22 or Law 23 which is the dead ball law (I am not too sure which one is it) in the MCC laws of cricket.

Usually it is at the discretion of the Umpire to decide whether the ball is in play after taking note of either the fielding side or the batting side consider it to have ceased to exist in play.....

Can someone go the Lords MCC website and see Law 22 or Law 23 for dead ball and confirm this please !!

 

[Syed1]

Was Yasir going for a run when Smith ran him out.

Was the ball dead when Yasir was wondering down the pitch?

 

[Major]

another interesting one, the Ian bell one.

it was given out by the umpire, but i think DHoni called him back

 

[Abdullah719]

Lyon had every right to run him out, A tip for you its not Lyon who is being childish here.

Ian Chappell was saying that because Lyon was at the top of his mark, the ball was dead. If he was waiting to collect the ball near the stumps, it would've been different.

Not sure if that's accurate as per the rules.

 

[Syed1]

so you are saying if amin went to talk to his partner then the ball would had been dead?

Amin touched his ground same way Shafiq did.

even collingwood got out like this, where he was in his creese, then left it to talk to his partner and the keeper threw the bal at the stumps. out given.

There is a difference between bowler being at the stumps and bowler being at the top of the mark.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

BTW there is no 'Spirit of Cricket' or anything of that sort that's been penned down !! Also if we're really talking about 'Spirit of Cricket' then why were Starc (One of Australian Team's main component) sledging Amir during the course of the game ???

Isn't 'Spirit of Cricket' disturbed by such actions ??

 

[Syed1]

These are the kind of discussions when you get people who have never in their lives played cricket themselves, commenting on cricket.

 

[Gilly]

I think this kind of a situation usually pertains to Law 22 or Law 23 which is the dead ball law (I am not too sure which one is it) in the MCC laws of cricket.

Usually it is at the discretion of the Umpire to decide whether the ball is in play after taking note of either the fielding side or the batting side consider it to have ceased to exist in play.....

Can someone go the Lords MCC website and see Law 22 or Law 23 for dead ball and confirm this please !!

Here is the law on dead ball.

(b) The ball shall be considered to be 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.

 

[Major]

BTW there is no 'Spirit of Cricket' or anything of that sort that's been penned down !! Also if we're really talking about 'Spirit of Cricket' then why were Starc (One of Australian Team's main component) sledging Amir during the course of the game ???

Isn't 'Spirit of Cricket' disturbed by such actions ??

sledging is something else, and this is something else. Can't compare the two.

 

[Syed1]

sledging is something else, and this is something else. Can't compare the two.

Hahaha so sledging doesn't come under "Spirit of Cricket"


I'm a fast bowler and I abuse my face off and hurl curses at you, but I do not run you out in a childish manner, hence I'm upholding the 'Spirit of Cricket'


) )

 

[moghul]

Ian Chapel was commenting at that time he made it clear that the ball had reached to the bowler, Lyon and he was at his run up, so ball was dead and there was no question of running Sagifiq out.

 

[Major]

Hahaha so sledging doesn't come under "Spirit of Cricket"


I'm a fast bowler and I abuse my face off and hurl curses at you, but I do not run you out in a childish manner, hence I'm upholding the 'Spirit of Cricket'


) )

you really think that a sport could be played without sledging?

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

sledging is something else, and this is something else. Can't compare the two.

Brother You yourself made a Thread based on this heading:

Australia upheld the spirit of cricket by not going for a run out appeal on Asad Shafiq

The argument based on your thread title revolves around a concept that is at best - IMAGINARY !! Therefore all I am saying that if something like this is being considered and hailed as a great quality of the fairness by the Australian cricketers then why can't that same rationale be used when they are most certainly doing the opposite of 'Spirit of Cricket' ??

 

[Gilly]

Hahaha so sledging doesn't come under "Spirit of Cricket"


I'm a fast bowler and I abuse my face off and hurl curses at you, but I do not run you out in a childish manner, hence I'm upholding the 'Spirit of Cricket'


) )

Hahaha complaing that Starc isn't holding up the "spirit of cricket" with Amir, you wouldent believe how funny that is.

 

[Syed1]

Hahaha complaing that Starc isn't holding up the "spirit of cricket" with Amir, you wouldent believe how funny that is.

I don't believe in this Spirit of Cricket BS. You are there to win it for your nation by all means possible, and if one of those means is to get under the skin of the opposition then so be it.

However, Lyon wasn't upholding the imaginary "Spirit of Cricket" by not running out Shafiq, since there was no run out in the first place.


I think now I've made it easy enough for you to understand.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

These are the kind of discussions when you get people who have never in their lives played cricket themselves, commenting on cricket.

I guess fact checking is really necessary when you bring Laws of the Game into discussion. This is not something like a cricket comparison where you say that X Player is Better than Y Player because of A,B and C reasons. Such train of thoughts usually delve into subjective territory that can be rationalized from a given number of perspectives.

However, the laws of the game are a set standard and they clearly define on things that are allowed and not allowed in cricket. These players have been playing competitive professional cricket for years and years and given how Aussies are absolutely ruthless on field, I guess even there was a 30 percent chance of getting a favorable result there, Smith and Co would have been gunning in the Umpire's ear non stop about it.

Fortunately the laws are pretty clear about these types of things and hence it's pretty evident why no one appealed and the Umpire / players never took that incident seriously.

 

[Major]

Ian Chapel was commenting at that time he made it clear that the ball had reached to the bowler, Lyon and he was at his run up, so ball was dead and there was no question of running Sagifiq out.

you are right, he said something along those lines but i think it was about the keeper, wasn't it.

but law 38 states something else about not run outs

 

[Major]

I don't believe in this Spirit of Cricket BS. You are there to win it for your nation by all means possible, and if one of those means is to get under the skin of the opposition then so be it.

However, Lyon wasn't upholding the imaginary "Spirit of Cricket" by not running out Shafiq, since there was no run out in the first place.


I think now I've made it easy enough for you to understand.

the poster posted law no. 38 please read that

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

the poster posted law no. 38 please read that

If I am not too mistaken, He's quoting Law 23 (Dead Ball Law), Law 38 pertains to run out mate !!

 

[Gilly]

I guess fact checking is really necessary when you bring Laws of the Game into discussion. This is not something like a cricket comparison where you say that X Player is Better than Y Player because of A,B and C reasons. Such train of thoughts usually delve into subjective territory that can be rationalized from a given number of perspectives.

However, the laws of the game are a set standard and they clearly define on things that are allowed and not allowed in cricket. These players have been playing competitive professional cricket for years and years and given how Aussies are absolutely ruthless on field, I guess even there was a 30 percent chance of getting a favorable result there, Smith and Co would have been gunning in the Umpire's ear non stop about it.

Fortunately the laws are pretty clear about these types of things and hence it's pretty evident why no one appealed and the Umpire / players never took that incident seriously.

Australian players are far more professional and know the laws of the game, this is taught at junior level.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Australian players are far more professional and know the laws of the game, this is taught at junior level.

My point exactly, hence no appeal from any concerned party nor any hue or cry from administrations from either side about it - Basically a total non issue that wasn't even at the back of my mind until this thread popped up out of no where !!

 

[StarWolf]

I agree, players are responsible to make sure that they don't give the opposition any opportunity and Shafiq made a mistake and at this level you should not make these type of mistakes.

Oh yeah, nice innocent smithy boy didnt walk away when in his words he clearly "smashed it". So much for spirit of cricket.

 

[StarWolf]

My point exactly, hence no appeal from any concerned party nor any hue or cry from administrations from either side about it - Basically a total non issue that wasn't even at the back of my mind until this thread popped up out of no where !!

Had it been a news website and OP its writer - I would have called this thread a "slow news day".

 

[Major]

just read law 23
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-23-dead-ball/

to me none of those laws cover this thus not a dead ball.

because the ball wasn't settled in Lyons hands, he got it, he saw where the batsmen was he hit the wickets.

however, part b of 1 in law 23 could be applied, but then again this contradicts the Umar Amin run out

 

[Gilly]

Oh yeah, nice innocent smithy boy didnt walk away when in his words he clearly "smashed it". So much for spirit of cricket.

Actually Smith was upholding the "spirit of cricket", the umpire did not give Smith out and if Smith had of given himself out then he would have been disputing the umpires decision and that is against the "Spirit of cricket".

 

[Syed1]

the poster posted law no. 38 please read that

You need to do your own research before claiming something that doesn't exist, and piggy-backing on others.

This is what the ICC says about dead ball. In fact it is the VERY FIRST POINT IN THE LAW FOR DEAD BALL.





Now if you read further down the list, it says:




By standing at the top of the mark Lyon accepted the fact that the ball is dead, by turning around to talk to his partner Shafiq accepted the ball is dead, by casually putting the bails back on the umpire accepted the ball is dead.



The ball was dead, just like your thread is now.

 

[Major]

You need to do your own research before claiming something that doesn't exist, and piggy-backing on others.

This is what the ICC says about dead ball. In fact it is the VERY FIRST POINT IN THE LAW FOR DEAD BALL.

View attachment 71678



Now if you read further down the list, it says:

View attachment 71679


By standing at the top of the mark Lyon accepted the fact that the ball is dead, by turning around to talk to his partner Shafiq accepted the ball is dead, by casually putting the bails back on the umpire accepted the ball is dead.



The ball was dead, just like your thread is now.

if Lyon is hitting the stumps, then obviously the ball hasn't been settled in his hands.

(B) could be applied, but then again, Umar Amin also ceased in the above in a kind of similar fashion, but the fielder/bowler in both cases dislodge the wickets.

only difference here is that there was no appeal

 

[nitrous]

Why is that all weird things happen with pakistan cricket?

 

[Major]

Why is that all weird things happen with pakistan cricket?

Because of the way things are taught in Pakistan Cricket. Education level and all comes into play.

In Canada sports were taught to us properly at school, they taught us rules as assignments. Here in Pakistan, sports is a word that doesn't exist in School curriculum. The sports we learn here is at clubs, and most clubs operate here by giving you the ball and bat and just do your net session of 3 rounds every day and go home.

Thus, later on our bad knowledge of the game gets exposed at international levels

 

[Gilly]

Why is that all weird things happen with pakistan cricket?

Sometimes it can be due to local rules. Players can play domestic cricket that has some rules that are slightly different to the rules that apply in international matches. If they are not made aware of the differences it can lead to controversy. It really is up to the team management to make sure all players are fully conversant with all the laws and regulations of international cricket when they are selected.

 

[Pete Rose]

It was marginal reckless by shafiq and the umpire spoke to him about it

 

[anindo]

It would have been similar to the Ian Bell run out against India in 2011. Bell simply assumed that the ball was dead and started trudging off to the pavilion thinking it was Lunch while in fact the fielder had not even completed the throw. The umpires correctly ruled him run out before England hoodwinked Dhoni into withdrawing the appeal.

 

[muqarrab]

Bowler was already at his mark.

 

[Major]

It was marginal reckless by shafiq and the umpire spoke to him about it

Umpires spoke to him?

So i think that suggests that it could had been given out on appeal

 

[Syed1]

I didnt get what you were trying to say.

That happens when one is trying to fabricate shoddy logic not based on facts.


It was a dead ball, no two ways about it.

 

[Gilly]

Bowler was already at his mark.

So if the batsman hits the ball and the bowler can return to his mark before it gets to the boundry it will be a dead ball and the runs wont count.

 

[Syed1]

So if the batsman hits the ball and the bowler can return to his mark before it gets to the boundry it will be a dead ball and the runs wont count.

Ball is dead when the ball hits the boundary. That is also in the rules.

 

[Pete Rose]

Umpires spoke to him?

So i think that suggests that it could had been given out on appeal

Yes

 

[StarWolf]

I have a question for you [MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION]. Why is there a case of selective spirit of cricket? Why didnt Smith walked away when in his own words he "smashed the ball". I believe this is more of a case of aussies feeling they dont have a strong case than spirit of cricket. I think you are giving far too much credit to the opposition especially one who are known to be ruthless when it comes to going for the win.

 

[Major]

I have a question for you [MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION]. Why is there a case of selective spirit of cricket? Why didnt Smith walked away when in his own words he "smashed the ball". I believe this is more of a case of aussies feeling they dont have a strong case than spirit of cricket. I think you are giving far too much credit to the opposition especially one who are known to be ruthless when it comes to going for the win.

Pakistan never appealed for it, same way how Australia didn't appeal here.

Difference is Pakistan didn't know, while here Lyon offcourse knew but they didn't go for the appeal because it could had created a problem here.

Had they appealed, it would had been rightly given out.

 

[Gilly]

I have a question for you [MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION]. Why is there a case of selective spirit of cricket? Why didnt Smith walked away when in his own words he "smashed the ball". I believe this is more of a case of aussies feeling they dont have a strong case than spirit of cricket. I think you are giving far too much credit to the opposition especially one who are known to be ruthless when it comes to going for the win.

I think the problem here is you are hung up on the "spirit of cricket", Smith didn't walk because the opposition didn't appeal and the umpire didn't give it out. When Lyon threw down the stumps he could have appealed and the umpire would have been obliged under the rules to give it out. He didn't appeal because he realised that the batsman wasn't trying to make a run and even though under the rules was out it probably wasn't the right thing to do so he didn't appeal.

Australia play the game hard and are known to fight to the very end and not give up, they don't give an inch and they don't expect to be given an inch that's just the way they are taught to play. Its easy to see that you don't like the way they play and that's fine, but its due to this attitude that beating them is special because you know that you have earned it and its not given.

 

[StarWolf]

Pakistan never appealed for it, same way how Australia didn't appeal here.

Difference is Pakistan didn't know, while here Lyon offcourse knew but they didn't go for the appeal because it could had created a problem here.

Had they appealed, it would had been rightly given out.

No, Pakistan is not in the question here. No one appreciated or moaned regarding their cricket of spirit. I am talking about Australia. Why be so selective in your spirit of cricket? One on hand you refuse to walk away and on the other you dont appeal for someone's wicket. How?

 

[StarWolf]

I think the problem here is you are hung up on the "spirit of cricket", Smith didn't walk because the opposition didn't appeal and the umpire didn't give it out. When Lyon threw down the stumps he could have appealed and the umpire would have been obliged under the rules to give it out. He didn't appeal because he realised that the batsman wasn't trying to make a run and even though under the rules was out it probably wasn't the right thing to do so he didn't appeal.

Australia play the game hard and are known to fight to the very end and not give up, they don't give an inch and they don't expect to be given an inch that's just the way they are taught to play. Its easy to see that you don't like the way they play and that's fine, but its due to this attitude that beating them is special because you know that you have earned it and its not given.

Look, i dont have any issues with Australia's ruthlessness. I appreciate it. I am just saying that call a spade a spade then. There is no point of harping around about spirit of cricket which the said poster has been doing. Doing such acts goes against the nature of an australian cricketer. Ricky ponting was famous for not walking away. Adam Gilchrist on the other hand was an anomaly. Smithy is a nice boy and my personal favorite aussie cricketer. If this is really spirit of cricket than maybe Smith is in the Gilchrist mold than Ponting.

 

[MMHS]

That was dumb even by PAK standard for Asad to walk back like that with ball still not dead while that would have been mean, even by Greg Chappel's standard, had Lyon appealed for the run-out & Smith confirmed the Umpires that he was serious.

Technically, that was out - had Aussies gone for it, Umpires would have asked Smith if he was serious or not. Upon his confirmation, they were bound to give that Out.

 

[Gilly]

Look, i dont have any issues with Australia's ruthlessness. I appreciate it. I am just saying that call a spade a spade then. There is no point of harping around about spirit of cricket which the said poster has been doing. Doing such acts goes against the nature of an australian cricketer. Ricky ponting was famous for not walking away. Adam Gilchrist on the other hand was an anomaly. Smithy is a nice boy and my personal favorite aussie cricketer. If this is really spirit of cricket than maybe Smith is in the Gilchrist mold than Ponting.

I have been watching cricket for many years and every team at times do things we consider within the spirit of cricket and they also do things we consider outside the spirit of cricket. That's because the spirit of cricket is not written or described anywhere and changes depending on perception. Everyone has different opinions on what it entails and it can be construed in many different ways. The nature of the Australian cricketer is to know and understand the rules of the game and they are what you play by.

 

[Buffet]

Asad would have been out.

 

[Major]

No, Pakistan is not in the question here. No one appreciated or moaned regarding their cricket of spirit. I am talking about Australia. Why be so selective in your spirit of cricket? One on hand you refuse to walk away and on the other you dont appeal for someone's wicket. How?

1) There is a reason why an Umpire is standing there. A players is in his rights to stand ground, as its the umpires job to get his decision right.

2) Pakistani players never appealed. Out could only be given if there is an appeal by the players

 

[sa]

Please read the cricket bylaws. There was no run out there, once bowler reach back to his/her runup then ball is automatically dead...

Thanks for telling the rules to ppl. it was mentioned in the commentary as well. Do people know the laws of cricket or they think everything is gully cricket? On side note, May Yasir thought the same that no one will hit the wicket because its gully cricket for him

 

[FreePalestine]

Was Yasir going for a run when Smith ran him out.

yes, he was 'looking' for a run, or at least pretending to and hoping to run of the ricochet. Mistimed it slightly though.

 

[waleed88]

Any video of that episode?