What is it about England and the spirit of cricket. Why do they believe that everyone has to play within this mythical boundary but it doesn't apply to them.
Most Pakistani fans on here will remember when Steve Harmison threw the ball at Inzi in 2005 in his follow through and when Inzi jumped to evade the ball and it hit the stumps the England players appealed for a run out and it was upheld - Darryl Hair was the umpire (no surprises there) - but surely England should have withdrawn the appeal as Inzi was not trying to gain an advantage - unlike yesterday!
There was obviously the Stuart Broad not walking in the test match vs Australia when he knew he clearly nicked it and should have been given out (but this is a different topic and enough has been written about this and I don't want to begin a discussion about the merits of walking).
There was the Ian Bell case when India last toured and the England camp moaned again about a decision when it basically came down to Bell not knowing the rules.
Paul Collingwood appealing against New Zealand following a collision between batsmen and bowler and not withdrawing his appeal when asked by the umpires. Yes, he did say he regretted the incident after the game but in the middle of the pitch during a game when tensions are running high this situation showed how difficult it is to make a decision in a split second.
I'm sure there are countless other examples which fellow readers will come up but why do England always seem to moan about these decisions when it goes against them but are happy to put it down to the 'heat of the moment' when one of their own transgresses.
It is just sour grapes by England that when they look to step over the line as Cook calls it and get called out by opposing teams then it is unfair but they can do what they like when they like!
Most Pakistani fans on here will remember when Steve Harmison threw the ball at Inzi in 2005 in his follow through and when Inzi jumped to evade the ball and it hit the stumps the England players appealed for a run out and it was upheld - Darryl Hair was the umpire (no surprises there) - but surely England should have withdrawn the appeal as Inzi was not trying to gain an advantage - unlike yesterday!
There was obviously the Stuart Broad not walking in the test match vs Australia when he knew he clearly nicked it and should have been given out (but this is a different topic and enough has been written about this and I don't want to begin a discussion about the merits of walking).
There was the Ian Bell case when India last toured and the England camp moaned again about a decision when it basically came down to Bell not knowing the rules.
Paul Collingwood appealing against New Zealand following a collision between batsmen and bowler and not withdrawing his appeal when asked by the umpires. Yes, he did say he regretted the incident after the game but in the middle of the pitch during a game when tensions are running high this situation showed how difficult it is to make a decision in a split second.
I'm sure there are countless other examples which fellow readers will come up but why do England always seem to moan about these decisions when it goes against them but are happy to put it down to the 'heat of the moment' when one of their own transgresses.
It is just sour grapes by England that when they look to step over the line as Cook calls it and get called out by opposing teams then it is unfair but they can do what they like when they like!
#justsayin #whingers
