England v India, 2nd npower Test, Trent Bridge, 3rd day July 31, 2011

Teams agree right decision was made

120

England's Sunday centurion Ian Bell admitted to making a "naive" error he hoped he would never repeat after he was - temporarily - run out just before tea. He also mentioned a similar incident in the past, when unusual circumstances had led to the dismissal of an opposition player, although on that occasion England had chosen not to reverse their decision.

Bell was asked whether England would have taken a similar decision to India's, recalling a dismissed batsman, and said: "It's difficult to say. I think the right decision was made. We have been in a position before where something happened in an ODI, and I think we all put our hands up and made the wrong decision."

Bell was referring to an incident during an ODI at The Oval against New Zealand in 2008 when Grant Elliott was out of his ground after being knocked over by the bowler Ryan Sidebottom and was run out. The umpires asked England captain Paul Collingwood whether he wanted to withdraw the appeal and Collingwood had refused.

"I think the right decisions were made today in the spirit of the game," said Bell. "I would've thought that both teams would have done exactly the same. Again its difficult to say what we would have done, if we were out in the middle. Would we have gone for an out decision straight away? I don't know, probably not. But like I said, we just move on and learn a lesson."

India, who spent the tea break discussing whether to recall Bell, also fell back on a previous experience before arriving at their decision. Rahul Dravid said that when the India players came in for tea, "the guys started discussing it and you could sense that there was a feeling that, while it was out in the laws of the game, it probably wasn't out in the spirit of the game. You could sense that the guys were feeling that something was probably not right about it."

Dravid referred to the stumping of VVS Laxman off Shiv Chanderpaul during the Dominica Test on India's recent trip to the Caribbean, saying "a small incident in the West Indies left a little bit of a bitter taste in our stomachs. So if the tables were turned, I don't think our guys would have felt nice about it.

"If it was Laxman there or Sachin [Tendulkar] there, I don't think our guys would have felt nice about it. And that was one of the things discussed when we first came in, what if it was one of our guys? Would we have liked it? And the general feeling was no."

Dravid said that after the England management had approached the India captain MS Dhoni and coach Duncan Fletcher, "Dhoni led a team meeting and the issue was discussed. There was unanimity that we should reinstate Ian Bell as he fell in that grey area and wasn't out in the spirit of the game."

Bell admitted that he was out in the strictest sense of the law. "If you are going to go right down to exactly how the rules stand, then yes I'm out," he said. "It was a completely honest mistake to assume the ball was dead and to walk off for tea. The end result and decision was the right one for the spirit of the game and they probably admit that. It was naive on my behalf to walk off for tea."

The tea break was eventful for both teams inside the historic Trent Bridge pavilion. England captain Andrew Strauss and coach Andy Flower went to the Indian dressing room to speak to Dhoni and ask India to reconsider their appeal on the grounds that Bell had made an error in judging the situation and had not been attempting a fourth run. Dhoni then said he would discuss the issue with his team and respond.

The India players, meanwhile, had already been studying the video of the incident, and Dravid said the decision to recall Bell was taken, "as the umpires would've been ready to leave".

The England team, Bell said, had also been trying to work out what had happened and were watching replays of the incident. "In the last minute of tea, there were four of us padded up ready to go, just in case," Bell said. "Right at the last minute it was nice to get a knock on the door and have someone tell me to go back out there."

In the media conference, Bell explained his actions, repeatedly used the word 'naive' to describe them. "I guess the fielder's body language suggested it had gone for four. I had sort of come back and touched down for the third run. I turned around and Asad [Rauf] had pulled out his jumper and was heading towards the bowler to hand him his jumper. My initial reaction there, perhaps naive, was to walk off for tea, to say well done to Morgs [Eoin Morgan] and walk off for tea. I was certainly not attempting a run; I just thought that everything was meandering off for tea."

Dravid was asked whether he thought Praveen's body language while fielding the ball on the boundary had suggested he had given up and therefore caused Bell to believe it was four, and therefore tea. Dravid's expression, until then fairly even-tempered, changed for an instant. He said: "If the fielder gives up on the ball, it doesn't mean you immediately assume that it's four runs, no? We can accept the fact that he [Bell] wasn't attempting the run, but you can't blame Praveen Kumar for walking slowly; he can do what he wants. We accept that it was tea time and Bell was looking to go to tea."

Sharda Ugra is senior editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Indian_Fan2011 on August 2, 2011, 16:34 GMT

    It was Dhoni's Choice to revert the decision or not. It was not necessary for Strauss & Flower to beg for the decision to be reverted. This shows how desperate they were to get into good position in this Test match even though they were doing good at that time.

  • on August 2, 2011, 15:14 GMT

    It was Dhoni's choice to revert the decision or not. Strauss was not supposed to go beg to revert the decision as it was completely Bell's fault. Looks how desperate they were to get in a good position in the test match.

  • kksolanki on August 2, 2011, 11:51 GMT

    Besides the VVS Laxman issue against WI, the Indian team knew that whether they decided to withdraw or not to withdraw the appeal would have had little impact on the outcome of the game. Had it been a situation where Bell getting out would have helped India win the test match, the spirit of the game would have probably gone out of the window and the story could have been quite different. This has helped India and MS Dhoni gain some respect not just in England but in India as well and probably make people ignore the performance by India in the series so far. The fact that India would have lost this test match does not change whether Bell was called back or not.

  • on August 2, 2011, 7:13 GMT

    It was definitely a good decision from Team India( In the spirit of game).. We can't say what would have happened had Bell been out... But think of this would some of the other cricketing sides have done this?? A big NO is my answer and the beneficiary here England have proven it in the past... As rightly said by Dravid, One can't assume anything from the body language of the fielders.. I personally feel Bell should have been out.

  • Itchy on August 2, 2011, 3:43 GMT

    @fearless69: I was in general agreement with your comments until "Are they jealous coz india are ranking no.1 for so long?". Not all that long Sunshine - India have also not played many tests in their time at No. 1 and are currently being shown up for a lack of depth in this series.

    That being said I do think the correct decision was made and that ALL teams now would do the right thing as they realise the scrutiny they are under.

  • on August 1, 2011, 21:05 GMT

    All teams go through good times and bad. Just because India is ranked no.1, it doesn't mean they are not going to have ups and downs. Look at the Aussies. Only thing that bothers me is how the fans become fanatics. This is a game, the better team won. Congratulate and enjoy the cricket.

  • kumarcoolbuddy on August 1, 2011, 20:52 GMT

    @makeshift, per your answer you also like AUS team, correct?

  • kumarcoolbuddy on August 1, 2011, 20:38 GMT

    @Anthony Swann, To put it in simple way "Initially they went as per the rules but later they went as per their heart". Means....Dhoni & Co. appealed as per the rules and they were looking for wickets. But did you see what did Dravid and Dhoni mention? They didn't feel good in doing that. They also gave an example of Laxman's dismissal in WI tour. So they have withdrawn the appeal. Their heart always said that Bell is not out. After all Indians are sentimental guyz.

  • Simon74 on August 1, 2011, 20:10 GMT

    I'm not sure it proves much to trawl through all of cricket history looking for examples of good/bad behaviour on both sides and then build increasingly shrill cases for all-time national moral superiority based on what you find. Bell was out. If the Indians had upheld their appeal, I'd have been annoyed but had no right to complain. But they recalled him. Which was extremely gracious, and sportsmanlike, and made absolutely no difference to the ultimate outcome of the game. Strauss would probably have done the same thing in Dhoni's situation (see the Angelo Mathews decision). All the stuff about Harbhajan's decision isn't relevant - did Gambhir walk in the first Test when he got off an LBW after Bowden thought he edged it? No. And he'd have been crazy if he had done. That's sport. The Bell incident was a very unusual one - it could have gone either way without anyone having real grounds for argument. They did what they did. And Bell was out 20 runs later in a game ENG won by 300.

  • on August 1, 2011, 19:08 GMT

    good sportsmanship being shown by both India and England i like it

  • Indian_Fan2011 on August 2, 2011, 16:34 GMT

    It was Dhoni's Choice to revert the decision or not. It was not necessary for Strauss & Flower to beg for the decision to be reverted. This shows how desperate they were to get into good position in this Test match even though they were doing good at that time.

  • on August 2, 2011, 15:14 GMT

    It was Dhoni's choice to revert the decision or not. Strauss was not supposed to go beg to revert the decision as it was completely Bell's fault. Looks how desperate they were to get in a good position in the test match.

  • kksolanki on August 2, 2011, 11:51 GMT

    Besides the VVS Laxman issue against WI, the Indian team knew that whether they decided to withdraw or not to withdraw the appeal would have had little impact on the outcome of the game. Had it been a situation where Bell getting out would have helped India win the test match, the spirit of the game would have probably gone out of the window and the story could have been quite different. This has helped India and MS Dhoni gain some respect not just in England but in India as well and probably make people ignore the performance by India in the series so far. The fact that India would have lost this test match does not change whether Bell was called back or not.

  • on August 2, 2011, 7:13 GMT

    It was definitely a good decision from Team India( In the spirit of game).. We can't say what would have happened had Bell been out... But think of this would some of the other cricketing sides have done this?? A big NO is my answer and the beneficiary here England have proven it in the past... As rightly said by Dravid, One can't assume anything from the body language of the fielders.. I personally feel Bell should have been out.

  • Itchy on August 2, 2011, 3:43 GMT

    @fearless69: I was in general agreement with your comments until "Are they jealous coz india are ranking no.1 for so long?". Not all that long Sunshine - India have also not played many tests in their time at No. 1 and are currently being shown up for a lack of depth in this series.

    That being said I do think the correct decision was made and that ALL teams now would do the right thing as they realise the scrutiny they are under.

  • on August 1, 2011, 21:05 GMT

    All teams go through good times and bad. Just because India is ranked no.1, it doesn't mean they are not going to have ups and downs. Look at the Aussies. Only thing that bothers me is how the fans become fanatics. This is a game, the better team won. Congratulate and enjoy the cricket.

  • kumarcoolbuddy on August 1, 2011, 20:52 GMT

    @makeshift, per your answer you also like AUS team, correct?

  • kumarcoolbuddy on August 1, 2011, 20:38 GMT

    @Anthony Swann, To put it in simple way "Initially they went as per the rules but later they went as per their heart". Means....Dhoni & Co. appealed as per the rules and they were looking for wickets. But did you see what did Dravid and Dhoni mention? They didn't feel good in doing that. They also gave an example of Laxman's dismissal in WI tour. So they have withdrawn the appeal. Their heart always said that Bell is not out. After all Indians are sentimental guyz.

  • Simon74 on August 1, 2011, 20:10 GMT

    I'm not sure it proves much to trawl through all of cricket history looking for examples of good/bad behaviour on both sides and then build increasingly shrill cases for all-time national moral superiority based on what you find. Bell was out. If the Indians had upheld their appeal, I'd have been annoyed but had no right to complain. But they recalled him. Which was extremely gracious, and sportsmanlike, and made absolutely no difference to the ultimate outcome of the game. Strauss would probably have done the same thing in Dhoni's situation (see the Angelo Mathews decision). All the stuff about Harbhajan's decision isn't relevant - did Gambhir walk in the first Test when he got off an LBW after Bowden thought he edged it? No. And he'd have been crazy if he had done. That's sport. The Bell incident was a very unusual one - it could have gone either way without anyone having real grounds for argument. They did what they did. And Bell was out 20 runs later in a game ENG won by 300.

  • on August 1, 2011, 19:08 GMT

    good sportsmanship being shown by both India and England i like it

  • ajaykarwa on August 1, 2011, 19:05 GMT

    By any law of cricket, Ian Bell was OUT. I really fail to understand the rational behind Bell being called back. Dhoni was just trying to show the world how generous he is. In his mind he knew that the decision wouldn't impact the outcome of the match. He called back Bell speculating that the world (especially the British) would know treat him with respect.

  • m2pu on August 1, 2011, 18:52 GMT

    Mr. Dravid,

    I am an American of Indian origin. You make me proud. Your attitude, both on and off the field, is something to be cherished in this current climate.

    You are a great man. I never likedcricket, but I would like to see you do well

  • craig2005 on August 1, 2011, 18:49 GMT

    To all the people mentioning the NZ incident - England had a similar situation to this when facing Sri Lanka in 2009 (http://www.espncricinfo.com/iccct2009/content/story/426591.html). This was under Strauss' captaincy and the appeal was removed. It therefore doesn't seem fair to say that Strauss and his team would not have done as MS Dhoni did.

  • on August 1, 2011, 18:42 GMT

    I really respect your decision.....!!!!!!!

  • on August 1, 2011, 18:00 GMT

    @ Prasun Roy - "Just like Dravid is not an Odi player anymore " !!!!!!

    Naivity period.

  • jackiethepen on August 1, 2011, 17:52 GMT

    This was put to bed by Dhoni at the Awards Ceremony today after the game. He said that every player admitted they would not have liked to be treated like that. The team had a bad feeling about it . Strauss on interview said that Dhoni was an example to ALL captains and in the same situation he would hope to do the same. End of story. Dhoni got a big cheer from the crowd. All those know-alls claiming that Bell attempted a run were shown up to be foolish because Dhoni and Dravid both said that Bell had not attempted a run but was out of his ground because he thought the ball was dead and he was off to tea. If you want a run out a player in that way then so be it but no one will thank you for it and some time in the future it will come back to bite you. Dhoni acted on principle and he was right. This is a Series without bad feeling between the players and the spirit of cricket is alive and well.

  • on August 1, 2011, 17:15 GMT

    "The body language of the Indians suggest that they are only interested in games which will generate income- such as T20 & IPL The Indian team should learn from the English set up."

    Are you serious what you said is right? Then Why did India win a World Cup? Coz they could Earn? Lol what a insane statement ! But yeah England was Exceptional in these two tests and you can't ignore that indian team is not a fully fit squad! I mean no Zaheer, no Gautam and Sehwag in the top order!!

  • on August 1, 2011, 17:01 GMT

    Just to clarify on my previous statement, I wasn't talking about the Indian cricket team, but the spectators who always bash down weaker teams.

  • m_ilind on August 1, 2011, 16:52 GMT

    I applaud Dhoni's gesture but India needs to move on from this. We desperately need some fire in the belly or else this Eng team will run India to ground. Laudable as Dravid's innings were we need some aggression in the form of Sehwag, Gambhir and Sachin. Aggressive batting has always been India's strength. Sachin looked to be getting into form in the second innings, and with Viru and Gambhir coming back, let's hope India's batting won't be a cakewalk anymore.

  • on August 1, 2011, 15:33 GMT

    There was nothing nobel about the incident and no Spirit of the game was upheld. Dhoni just used the situation to salvage some fake pride for himself out of a misserably lost cause. India would have lost the test even if Englang were all out on the exact score at tea. If there was something called the Spirit of game then it would have been evident only if Bell accepted the decission and didn't returned. It was just a publicity stunt by Dhoni to remain in the team after several failures. I am sick of ppl mixing Odi performances with tests, just like Dravid is not an Odi player anymore Dhoni is not a test player period.

  • Sam379 on August 1, 2011, 13:45 GMT

    @aalkool: I'm confused as to how short your memory must be - the reason behind the change of heart from Dhoni was based around the dismissal of Laxman against the West Indies and playing with a sense of sportsmanship!!Questioning intergity and calling the England team 'pathetic' is hypocritical considering the bad press recieved by the West Indies off the back of the Laxman incident. Bell was stupid - nobody is denying that - but trying to win a test match off the back of it is quite desperate. Dhoni did the right thing - end of discussion.

  • HaroldLarwood on August 1, 2011, 13:38 GMT

    Nice as it was, the gesture was naive. Strauss wouldn't had done it. Ponting (or any Aussie) and Smith (or any South African) definitely wouldn't have. Bell was in the wrong. Pure and simple. He should have accepted that. The pressure exerted on the Indian dressing room was unfair, but they should have been big enough to stand by their decision to appeal and take any flak. Hopefully it won't have a major say in the outcome of the game or this excellent series.

  • makeshift on August 1, 2011, 13:01 GMT

    Looks like an Indian wash. England have played some very good cricket. I watched the game on Friday. The body language of the Indians suggest that they are only interested in games which will generate income- such as T20 & IPL

    The Indian team should learn from the English set up. A professional approach. I watched them train before the game- Just look how Broad has played in this game. A great team effort from England.

    By the way I am an Indian Fan- but credit should go to the team/players that deserve it

  • on August 1, 2011, 13:00 GMT

    You can only be run out while attempting a run

  • Flighted_kiwi on August 1, 2011, 11:48 GMT

    Boy there has been some emotive nonsense posted about this incident. Firstly I would state that Dhoni did the right thing but not because Bell was not out - according to the rules of the game he was and he himself has admitted as much. So to those who say Dhoni took too long - he actually did nothing wrong but, to his credit, on reflection has decided that some things are bigger than just strict adherence to the rules. It does raise the issue tho of on what basis England him to reconsider. It can't have been the legitimacy of the decision. What would England have said if Harbhajan had asked them to reconsider their LBW appeal when he had hit the ball? And how is batsman walking off before the umpire called over and time any worse than bowlers not turning to the umpire when appealing? Not that the England batsmen are the only ones who do that. This incident raises more questions than it answers but England have now set themselves a moral bar that will take some doing to adhere to.

  • on August 1, 2011, 11:21 GMT

    @sam39: If you had seen the replays of sreesanth claiming the catch u would not have written so. He was not looking at the ball. He appealed without knowing it had bounced. Difficult for one diving full length to know what happened. Coming back to Bell incident English players themselves are saying they would not have recalled as the history stands(2008 Newzeland incident). It was clear that Bell actually ran after touching down the crease at batting end. Morgan was aware of the situation and was asking him to go back. When things went out of hand Bell was acting as if he was going for the break. If they were so good why didn't they call back Harbhajan when replays showed clearly that there was huge inside edge. Kudoos to BCCI fight out against UDRS as long as you feel it is not correct.

  • kiranphy on August 1, 2011, 10:44 GMT

    @sam379 please see the match carefully sreesanth was making just fun not a seriuos appeal

  • on August 1, 2011, 10:23 GMT

    England should be really really ashamed of this begging after all those things they have done to others. Al lest now you english people better stop talking about others think of what are you doing and did.

  • on August 1, 2011, 10:09 GMT

    My question is if bell knew he was out "If you are going to go right down to exactly how the rules stand, then yes I'm out..." as he says then why do u want to beg the opposition to retract on the appeal?? Isn't THIS against the spirit of the game??

  • chuckmuchingo on August 1, 2011, 10:07 GMT

    So many people talking such a lot of self-riteous nonesense about India. Dohni should not be revered here because he wes in the wrong morally. He should have immediately reversed what happened on the field, not had to wait until his players or the England management spoke to him, or more realistically because he knew he would be booed out of the ground. These arent the actions of a great man, just one who has had his hand forced.

    Bell made a mistake but once again lets get this in context. Is that the right way to end a magnificent innings? Imagine for a minute, if u are an India supporter, the same thing happening to Dravid or the Sachin when they had centuries on the board.

    I can tell you for a fact that the English supporters and the media would have been appalled and boo's would have rung around Trent Bridge in the same way. And rightly so. Strauss would have been slaughtered by the media and public alike.

  • khurramsch on August 1, 2011, 10:05 GMT

    all peopele who are comparing this with other things like lbw, edges etc this is not the same as that . coz lbw aor edges are part of daily routine with umpires fault. and 2nd those things hapen in middle of game u only get 1/2 mins for that . in this case 20 mins break help. even in this case when while leaving field umpires asked dhoni is he going to withdraw he said no so if there was next ball to bowl then it will not hapen. but hre 20 mins break helped dhoni to talk with team, managment etc.even at most said at first thts ok or not but after few mins when whole picture came in indias apeal seems right.

  • khurramsch on August 1, 2011, 10:04 GMT

    ok dhoni showed good gesture but didnt this so called spirit of game has overtaken rules of game? it wasnt the case where batsman was colided with fieldr & no mistake. in this case bell was clearly wrong & he did saw back to see ball but then again proceeded with it. & about crowd they dont have enough info. even at home at 1st instance i thought india were wrong but when whole info came inda was right in there appeal.

  • on August 1, 2011, 9:55 GMT

    I think, the Indian team has won the heart of the whole cricket fans in the world by calling back Bell. It was an outstanding exhibition of sportsman ship from the Indian team. I do not have any slightest hope that we have any chance of winning this match, even a draw appears to be impossible. As per me, India is a clear winner and they'll will get many chances in future to win matches and series...

  • Sam379 on August 1, 2011, 9:40 GMT

    Lots of people are saying England wouldn't have done the same thing - the last time an issue like this arose Angelo Matthews WAS recalled after a legitimate run out!! Granted the Indian team would have been within their right to maintain that Bell was out but then lets not forget Sreesanth trying to claim a very obviously grounded caught and bowled! The sportsmanship of Dhoni yesterday was fantastic the actions of Sreesanth and Mukund were not and should be considered before anymore England/Australian bashing takes place....

  • him18july on August 1, 2011, 9:26 GMT

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87m2d6cV4F0

  • Antomann on August 1, 2011, 9:22 GMT

    All teams make these mistakes from time to time. The Indians were terrible in Australia a few years back, racially abusing Symonds, weaseling out of it, then threatening to pull the plug on the whole tour. The Aussies and Poms have had their fair share of poor sportsmanship as well. But the Indians have done the right thing here.

  • aalkool on August 1, 2011, 9:21 GMT

    @Trickstar, what is your agenda? So Paul Collingwood terms the NZ incident the biggest regret of his life. Are we supposed to feel bad for him and forget it ever happened? And I am very sure that if England had gone on to win the match, he would be regretting it even more today. Imagine if Bell's run-out had triggered a chain of events resulting in an Indian victory. The media and fans would have been baying for the Indian team's blood and forgetting that it was Ian Bell's own stupidity that caused the controversy.

  • on August 1, 2011, 9:20 GMT

    Why did Dhoni and the Indians wait until they were approached by the opposition, before deciding to withdraw their appeal? If they were truly playing within the spirit of the game, they would not have attempted the run out in the first place - Dhoni himself threw the ball to the fielder at the stumps! Even if he wasn't to know that the fielder would remove the bails, he should have withdrawn the appeal there and then (when asked by the umpires), instead of waiting to be asked to do so by the opposition.

    "True sportsmanship" - when it suits them, so it seems...

  • I.RAGHURAM on August 1, 2011, 9:10 GMT

    I was indeed naive of Bell of not knowing the rules of the game he plays day in and out....

  • aalkool on August 1, 2011, 8:59 GMT

    Naive! This guy has played international cricket for seven years and first-class cricket for 12. This is absolutely pathetic from the English camp. They cannot uphold the spirit of cricket as and when they choose. If Strauss did not deem Smith match-fit, then very clearly Bell was not situation aware. By going into the Indian dressing room and asking India to withdraw their appeal, Strauss and Flower have shown a clear lack of integrity. As a now senior middle-order batsman, Bell should have been punished for his stupidity by his own camp.

  • on August 1, 2011, 8:50 GMT

    appreciation for Ms Dhoni for being such a great ambassador of cricket. when we talk about fair play its on individual how he thinks and MS proved he is a great man as well as a cricketer

  • on August 1, 2011, 8:50 GMT

    appreciation for Ms Dhoni for being such a great ambassador of cricket. when we talk about fair play its on individual how he thinks and MS proved he is a great man as well as a cricketer

  • rockyadav on August 1, 2011, 8:49 GMT

    Magnanimous gesture by the Indians!!. Makes me wonder, had it been Laxman instead of Bell, MSD and Fletch, knock on the English dressing room-to ask ENGLAND to reconsider--it would have been mayhem- in the media,we would have been accussed of forcing decisions using financial strength blah blah

  • awg3599 on August 1, 2011, 8:27 GMT

    This was India's best 20 minutes of the series and the game of cricket itself benefited. Dhoni's litmus of "how would we feel if this had been done to us?" was spot on and followed the lead set by Strauss in refusing a runout after a colision. This is not without precedent at all - those with longer memories will recall the Greig/Kallicharan incident in 1974. Greig acted correctly, the umpires acted correctly but in the end the appeal was withdrawn in the interests of the game. The Smith refusal of a runner is a completely different issue and no point in mentioning it except in a poor effort to try and paint England here as somehow being at fault??? Most impressive of all though was Dravid - who I suspect is one who still exercises some power behind the throne.....

  • BULTY on August 1, 2011, 8:25 GMT

    On the incident of Ian Bell being given out and then recalled, whatever the rule book says, if it is not in the best spirit of the game, the decision of MSD is the best one. Remember he is risking losing the match, the series & the No.1 position. On the same point, I have another point to make here. There was a rule which said that when the bowler had come through the bowling action but had not actually delivered the ball, finds the non-striker out of the crease, he can run him out and he would be out as what is termed as "Mankadad". Kapil had many a time warned many batsmen that they were out of the crease and he would run them out. In the same vein, India claiming Inzamam's wicket because he offered a stroke to the ball thrown by the fielder (not the bowler) was also criticized as being in bad taste. In the case of a fielder obstructing batsman while running between wickets and eventually not making it to the crease, the umpires have every right to deny the appeal of fielding side.

  • DrToast on August 1, 2011, 8:16 GMT

    The problem with these decisions is they interfere with what should really be the main topic of discussion, a so far excellent test series between the world number #1 India and England.

    For people saying that certain nations do or don't rescind appeals; it is the captain that makes the decision rather than being part of a national identity. Collingwood (vs NZ) made the wrong decision and regretted it... I fail to see how people infer from that the knowledge that all English teams are poor sports. The closest comparable situation featuring Eng vs W.I resulted in Eng calling back the batsman.

    That said, Bell was out, probably should have remained out because his amateruish antics warranted it. However, Dhoni would have withdrawn the appeal regardless and the visit by Flower/Strauss annoys me.

    This entire issue has spoiled my enjoyment. I will continue to pray for the health of Sehwag, Gambhir and Zaheer as the addition of their skills will make for an excellent test series.

  • kiranphy on August 1, 2011, 8:07 GMT

    title seems to be wrong whats mean by teams agree; it was the only India to decide that bell will again bat or not. eventough he was cleary out. straus and flower begged for him and India gave them

  • strategic_blunder on August 1, 2011, 8:07 GMT

    Kevin Pietersen's face sums it all, he cant believe it. Probably muttering to himself something like "well done chums, wouldnt have dreamt doing the same myself. Here goes your match, only if it was that easy everytime". Pathetic.

  • Fluffykins on August 1, 2011, 7:53 GMT

    I would have hoped that Strauss would do the same if the boot was on the other foot. He should consider that if the situation is ever reversed as I was disgusted with Paul Collingwood's decision in that ODI left a very bad taste and was glad when he was punished that time for a slow over rate as I felt served him right.

    With all the animosity that the Ashes creates between the two teams using incidents relating to that series isnt a reliable yardstick for the England Team.

    All said dont think Strauss should have gone to the Indian's to ask.

  • on August 1, 2011, 7:48 GMT

    Bell made a mistake and had to pay, simple as that. nothing more can be made of this. I dont see any spirit of the game here, infact they made a mockery of the umpires decision by calling him back. It is too naive of the indians to go by bell's word that he was not attempting a run. The decision would have stayed but for tea.

  • on August 1, 2011, 7:42 GMT

    Where this spirit of game gone when Akthar involved in run out of Sachin in Eden garden Test match in 1999 ???

  • raunakwakode81185 on August 1, 2011, 7:39 GMT

    WELL WELL WELL!! Its seems that Dhoni has now become Hero Of Sportsmanship Spirit for the EPIC Decision for lets say 30,000 people present in the Stadium or all British team supporters. BUT what about the Angry, Hurted and Disappointed 100,00,00,00,000 INDIAN people if INDIAN CRICKET TEAM lose the series because of this so called IN THE SPIRIT decision.

  • on August 1, 2011, 7:36 GMT

    @athardik u r true bro they ...are saying both team took right decision,its only India who give bell a chance to play again.Indians are showing sportsmenship but what abt english palyers,they are requsting dhoni to turn around decision

  • on August 1, 2011, 7:31 GMT

    this only show the arrogence of english players,they are not giving credit to Indian team and caption but saying it was a right decision,If they are on India place they never ever change the decision becz they need wickets at that time ,may be it comes from anywhere and how it come doesn't matter...................luk at the incident of aus vs Ind in 2007 ...struss also changed the decision but metter is at crucial tym change the decion in the spirt of game.........no one has courage to do so what Indian can do....they only play fair game

  • s_tiwari on August 1, 2011, 7:26 GMT

    MSD did the right thing by calling ian Bell back. Kudos to him.

    SHAME ON ENGLISH MEDIA AND STUART BROAD WHO CHECKED VVS' BAT FOR VASELINE !!!!!! still cant believe its true !!

    Micheal Vaughan U ARE A LOOSER

  • on August 1, 2011, 7:25 GMT

    To all English Fans: would Strauss and Flower have recalled Tendulkar or Dravid or Laxman or any other Indian batsman on 137?

  • on August 1, 2011, 7:25 GMT

    guys in d 1st case d bails shodnt hv been taken off in d spirit of cricket!appealin itself was a cowardly act..dhoni had 2 reverse d decision...othersise it wod hv been totally against d spirit of cricket..he wod hv went rounds in d cricketin fraternity had he not reversed d appeal!

  • John-Price on August 1, 2011, 7:21 GMT

    By their actions over this incident, the two captains have raised the bar in terms of how the game should be played. In so doing, they have caught the public mood and the game the will be much better for it. We have seen the same happen happen in other sports too - contrast the behaviour of Nadal with the petulance of McEnroe. It is not surprising that the tired old pros in the the Sky commentary box just don't get it - they played in an era where standards slipped and so did interest in test cricket.

  • on August 1, 2011, 7:12 GMT

    with all respect to Dhoni and India, if this would have happened against any other team apart from Australia and England it would have been the right decision........ however, the whole spirit of the game thing is applicable for the England or Australia is debatable :P

  • Truemans_Ghost on August 1, 2011, 7:06 GMT

    None of us know what England would have done in that situation. However I suspect that NEXT time they are, they will remember this incident and make a similar decision.

  • on August 1, 2011, 6:56 GMT

    Dhoni has pulled off a masterstroke here. He knew that recalling Bell will not have an impact on the result of the game - India are going to get hammered anyway. So why not pull off some brownie points? Show how generous we are, inspite of the fact that Michael Vaughan casts allegations on one of the purest gentleman in the game of cricket, we are willing to overlook that and recall a batsmen who was clearly out within the laws of the game. Would I have been so charitable? No. But then, I am not Mahendra Singh Dhoni!

  • beaman on August 1, 2011, 6:48 GMT

    TRUE SPORTSMAN SHIP SHOWED BY DHONI !!!!! YOU ROCK MSD, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT TEAM INDIA WILL THRASH ENGLAND AT INDIA IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER WHEN ENGLAND TOUR INDIA DHONI PLZ BRING SEHWAG, ZAHEER AND MUNAF FOR THIRD TEST, THEY ALL 3 ARE MATCH WINNER FOR TEAM INDIA

  • ProteaMan on August 1, 2011, 6:48 GMT

    What a joke. "naive mistakes" can keep you at the wicket! Next time a batsman is right in front, not offering a shot, given OUT can say......ooooops I made a silly mistake, in the "Spirit of the Game" please recall your decision Mr Umpire! Or burst into tears, runs to his captain and couch and say......PLEASE HELP ME!!, go and plea for mercy at the opponent's captain. Sorry......any sport has its laws and rules.Every contest must be played in GOOD SPIRIT. There is no time in any contest where spirit comes into play and times where it doesn't. England have always been known to be crybabies anyway. So no wonder

  • on August 1, 2011, 6:47 GMT

    Well, to make an appeal for run-out in the first stage, was i think a mistake from Dhoni. We shouldnt give him credit for withdrawing his appeal, as the act of appealing itself was not fair, not correct and not in the spirit of the game.

  • on August 1, 2011, 6:37 GMT

    So funny...definitely England never would have allowed the same thing..We have seen all before...How could they approach indian team management...it was then not more than politics.. Dhoni was real dumb to reverse the decision..If pakistan/srilanka was in this situation, I would say india would not do this reversal. Can anyone remember the Inzamam's dismissal..obstructing the field...Dravid was captain then if I am not wrong..he was the first one to appeal..I felt so sorry for Inzi..the Dhoni shoud be out of test team as he already ran out of time...His last worthy performance was back in 2008 australian tour of india. In this world, there is no room for ethics..it is plain dumb to think other way

  • BowlingForever on August 1, 2011, 6:31 GMT

    "The trouble is that the spirit of cricket is often evoked arbitrarily and conveniently". I wonder only why this is thought of when its convenient to india. Remember a recent event where the sri lankan bowler Randiv bowled a no ball to give the winning run to indian depriving of Shewag a hundred. The mass media of India went to town with the "Spirit of the game" theory and ennded with randiv getting a ban from pressure put in by the BCCI. hypocracy by India is typical so dont brag about Dhonis heroics here. Hes just trying to cover up the face that they will be down by 2-0 and wht he did was the right thing. Doesnt mean hes a saint. Im not saying Bell is not out he is! And publish this comment or cricinfo is simply biased and cowerdly to hear the truth

  • crooked_hyeena on August 1, 2011, 6:27 GMT

    if bell claims he was foolish and was out then under spirit of the game he should have declared himself out... jus jokin.. actually good decison made from dhoni atleast manage to say yes we are the leader around and u follow us..everything happens to us but we dont complain.. now we know the root of all monkey gate it was that edge of symonds..that created the whole controversy had symonds walked that time no monkey gate would have happened...

  • SudharsanVM on August 1, 2011, 6:23 GMT

    Definetly Bell was attempting fourth run, then stopped a second, then only started to jog for tea. even morgan was signalling to wait, he kept on jogging. Asad rauf was clearly watching the ball and its complete mistake of the Bell. Its not acceptable if Bell says he was not attempting fourth run. But other things like praveen's casuality, dravid taking the helmets with him in the background also has to be considred. Also if it was not tea, Bell would not have jogged like that. So in all the ways a fair decison taken. Hats off to MSD and his men.

  • D.Nagarajan on August 1, 2011, 6:20 GMT

    This incident epitomizes our complete lack of ruthlessness and soft nature. Dhoni needs to be reminded that England left India in 1947. If Bell could be recalled here then Sachin also should have been recalled at the Eden Gardens in 1999. Vishy recalled Bob Taylor in the 1980 Jubilee test and we got thrashed. This series is beginning to resemble the disastrous trip to Australia in 1991-92 where Vengsarkar, Srikkanth, Manjrekar, Azhar (except one gem in Adelaide) flopped miserably. We will surely be 2-0 down by tomorrow (except if it rains) and probably lose the series 4-0 or 3-0 , frankly I dont see a way back, we have been softened and seasoned for the English to have us for lunch.

  • Trapdaar on August 1, 2011, 6:13 GMT

    This has nothing to do with the spirit of cricket. The rules said Bell was out, and he was indeed out. This is about ambition of the No. 2 cricket side in the world.

    They wanted to win this test so much, they resorted to begging and blackmail. It wasn't Dhoni who upheld the spirit of the game, it was England who became the beggar.

  • on August 1, 2011, 6:02 GMT

    well.......to be frank i didnt expected Indians to call him back. Being a Pakistan fan myself am amazed by their positive attitude. Way to go Indian team!

  • crooked_hyeena on August 1, 2011, 6:00 GMT

    well bell was stupid there and india has to pay for that... maybe now we should consider batsman should walk when they know when they know they have nicked it... spirit of the game...this is nonsense.. if this was an american sport.. now its the fact india is a spiritual country...

  • TheOnlyEmperor on August 1, 2011, 5:48 GMT

    The umpires are the guardians of the game, including its spirit, when a match is going on. There are the umpires and the match refree for that. Bell was DECLARED out. Strauss & Co had no business knocking on the Indian door asking for reversal and Dhoni had no business reversing a decision taken by the umpires. While players get fined for the slightest show of dissent, over-ruling the decision of the umpires is the highest form of desrespect shown yeserday. Why on earth did the umpires allow Bell to come back? This is not about reversal of an APPEAL! It is about reversal of an umpiring decision by the players!

    I am ashamed by both the English and Indian behaviour on this issue.

  • on August 1, 2011, 5:20 GMT

    me2 back dhoni's decision... but ma questn s.. Y s dat crick s Gentlemen game ly fa india??...

  • on August 1, 2011, 5:13 GMT

    I agree with those who say the spirit of the game is enshrined in the laws. Hence, Sanjay was correct, to say that Bell should not have been recalled - this episode has opened up a whole can of worms in cricket! For example, suppose in India's second innings, Dravid is ruled to be out in the way that Harbhajan was in the first innings, and Dhoni goes to Strauss and says, 'Skip, you know that Dravid hit the ball before it hit his pads, could you please ask the umpire to reverse the decision?' I bet Strauss would not heed Dhoni's request - the umpires decision would stand. And further to that, if Strauss agrees and the umpire obliges, this would become the norm and one would appreciate the chaotic situation that would emerge in the game of cricket! I agree with Sir Ian Beefy Bothom that this is serious test cricket and not a 'Benefit Match'; He rightly observed that it would appear as though Strauss and certain umpires are playing this game in the spirit of a benefit match. It is not.

  • on August 1, 2011, 5:12 GMT

    wrong decision by Dhoni because England player does not deserve

  • cricketik on August 1, 2011, 5:07 GMT

    Its rediculous to say that fielder's body language was taht it was a four is absolutely rediculous. Wil they accept if a fielder declares a six as a boundary. Bell did a mistake and it is a mistake. it does not matter if it is a naive one or otherwise. Spirit of cricket is ridiculous. Where was it when smith was regused a runner. Where was it when Sachin was given run out against Pakistan after having collided with Shoaib. Where was the spirit when Kapil was refused a drink afte his shot has unintentionally killed a Seagull. Where was the spirit when K.Srikkanth was given out when he was taking a customary stroll thinking the ball is said. Where was the spirit when Glen McGrath appealed for LBW when the ball was hit on the shoulder and later given out. Let all sides paly with the same spirit. Where was the spirit of ECB and BBC when Vaughan made that rediculous allegation on VVS. Using vaseline on the forehead and using to shine the ball is not Indian Cricket teams idea

  • strategic_blunder on August 1, 2011, 5:04 GMT

    Btw, another stat for those who are saying it was a mere 20 odd extra runs Bell scored after the recall. The score was 251/3 in the 66th over when Bell got 'run-out' and was 323/4 in the over 77 when he was 'caught-out'......................For simpletons, thats 72 extra runs in 11 overs @ 6.54 runs per over.....This single-handedly had a detrimental effect on the final scoreline as the lead at the 'run-out' stage was only 187 with the new ball due 14-15 overs and judging from Eoin Morgan's prior form, he wudnt have been able to score as quickly under the pressure of saving a match.

  • randika_ayya on August 1, 2011, 5:02 GMT

    Strauss did recall Mathews back after a collision in an ODI and effectively exorcised demons of the earlier NZ incident involving Colly. I'm happy that sanity prevailed and Dhoni took the correct decision. The body language of the players suggested that it was a boundary and clearly Bell wasn't attempting a run even though the umpire hasn't called time just yet.

  • TheSpiritOdTheGame on August 1, 2011, 4:46 GMT

    The big winners here were the game of cricket and MSD.

    The big losers were Ravi Shastri and Gavaskar, who were hugely disappointing in their comments about the incident and their rejection of the concept of fair play. Shame on both of them.

  • navin_inet on August 1, 2011, 4:30 GMT

    I am sure if same might have happened with one of india batsman, then MSD must have not approached England captain and coach.

  • ashish514 on August 1, 2011, 4:30 GMT

    But wasn't he going for a fourth run, or was he jogging coz he wanted to hurry up and finish his tea fast?? What i think is he was first running and in the middle he thought it was over and then started walking. And if this is the case, he was out and in the right spirit. If you see the replay the ball touched PK's leg before he tumbled, after which he lost sight of the ball,and which made him think that it might have touched the rope. But Dhoni and Mukund were not sure about the boundary and they dislodged the bails.

    Nevertheless Dhoni did the right thing to curb the controversy as the British media, which already is playing it bad, would have got a lot to chat about. Seldom they see an English team so consistently strong and they want to win it at any cost. Mind this, i'm only talking about the media, not the people of the team.

  • on August 1, 2011, 4:25 GMT

    Forget whatever ENG/AUS/NZ/PAK etc. had done in the past in such a situations, this is what India does always...thats why we are the no. 1 team. Tremendous spirit shown by the Indian team...forget whats the result of this match....

  • chandau on August 1, 2011, 4:25 GMT

    Trickstar: Strauss called back Mathews because Onions got in the way. While its true the batter has to run around the bowler it is also true the batter can run the shortest line between the 2 sets of stumps. What actually happened is Strauss tried to avoid another Collingwood LOL! Then again Strauss refused a runner for cramping Smith (SA), I think Bell reviewed a clean catch, and Bell never said THANK YOU to Indians for absolving his mistake!

  • RakeshDash on August 1, 2011, 4:11 GMT

    Last time when Grant Elliot collided with Sidebottom(if i am not wrong) he was given marching orders and Collingwood was the captain then. The NZ team refused to shake hands then. So please stop writing rubbish Poms

  • willow_the_wisp on August 1, 2011, 4:00 GMT

    Oh, and another thing. What is an 'honest' mistake? In Bell's case I tinhk it was a dishonest one.

  • Umms on August 1, 2011, 3:55 GMT

    Good teams win test matches and great teams do what India did!It was great decision by Indian team to called back Bell, despite he already scored the hundred and was well set. It was courageous and difficult decision to make. I can recall once Imran Khan called back Kris Srikanth.Msg from Pakistani fan

  • willow_the_wisp on August 1, 2011, 3:54 GMT

    Very embarrassed for England. I feel Bell was very dishonest in his post match interview for sky, and a bit here. He did not hear 'over' as it was not called - nor was tea called or a four signalled. The umpires decide when the ball is dead, not Bell or the Indian players for that matter. I think Bell was trying to bluff his way out when he realised he made a mistake. Even Morgan knew and told Bell to stop when he came back for four and stopped halfway down the track and started to walk. He owes Dhoni a drink and an apology. He should have put his hand up and said it was his mistake and I will be out. That would have been 'in the spirit of the game' as it is the rules.

  • on August 1, 2011, 3:38 GMT

    Its amazing. I think Bell has pulled a fast one on everyone and only Shane Warne (the poker player) realized the bluff. Look at the replays closely. Half way down the pitch Bell realizes that the ball was in play and he may be in trouble, but he thinks fast and concludes that if he turns back to try to make his ground he would definitely be out run-out. So he calmly continues walking to the pavilion pretending to be completely oblivious to what is happening. You guys can praise Dhoni's sportsmanship all you want but the fact is he and almost everyone else has been duped by Bells bluff.

  • fearless69 on August 1, 2011, 3:36 GMT

    Why do India always have to show sportsmenship? Why other teams can't?? Indian players never criticize opposition team / players but others do.. // Pravin Kumar was fined 20% of match fees when argued with the umpire BUT WHAT ABOUT SWANN?? Swann kicked da stumps on 2nd day of this test but his actions were tolerated?? What the hell.. Are they jealous of Indian players for playing IPL & earning big money?? Are they jealous coz india are ranking no.1 for so long & England team never reached to no.1 spot?? Law must be same for both swann n pravin kumar.. I remember Harbhajan singh was fined when he couldn't stop da ball at boundary line n kicked da advertising board.. That was out of boundary lines.. Disgusting.. I lost respect for england players, their cricket standards are low, look at michael vaughan commenting on laxman "was he using vaseline on bat!" What RUBBISH comment..

  • b4u8me2 on August 1, 2011, 3:07 GMT

    I am not sure how Dravid can compare the stumping of Laxman in the WI with this Ian Bell run out. Laxman was stumped off some very smart and good wicket keeping alertness by Baugh. Is Dravid suggesting that as long as a batsman leaves a delivery he shouldn't be stumped in the spirit of the game?

  • on August 1, 2011, 3:07 GMT

    I think there is still that colonial mentality in the minds of the english which was coupled by the presence of an umpire born amidst the practice of apartheid who was relentless in overlooking plumb lbw decisions. India have shown that they are miles ahead from their counterparts in sportsman spirit. The english press is hung on the fact that India opposed DRS and they seem to think that it uses it financial muscle to power over the once dominant cricket nations. The incredulous allegation on VVS of applying vaseline is in stark contrast to the decision made by the Indian team of recalling an out batsmen in the spirit of the game. Kudos to the English for being "gentlemen" !!! :|

  • sircha on August 1, 2011, 3:06 GMT

    The fact of the matter is Bell was out. He was the one who was careless and pray, why should India pay for his carelessness? Although, I am sure that England will pay for this through the course of the match and the series.

  • RaamSaran on August 1, 2011, 2:39 GMT

    Dear Editor - Para 6. Dravid commenting on the Dominica Test - "a small incident in the West Indies left a little it of a bitter taste." Should be little (B)it of a bitter taste. Thanks.

  • caanup on August 1, 2011, 2:33 GMT

    England must take a lesson from MS DHONI. MS is all time great player a Captain. Well done dhoni, we proud of you. Win or defeat is a part of game.

  • RaamSaran on August 1, 2011, 2:33 GMT

    Great Job Team India on upholding "The Spirit of Cricket". Let this be an instance for every team to remember and emulate when needed. Cricket unlike most other games, is still played very fairly. Third umpire, slow motion cameras, DRS (will eventually be accepted in its entirety) etc are already addressing the fact that the better team wins and bad decisions are never a deciding factor. We live in a great time where we can enjoy Test cricket in its true tradition and technology aiding in presenting the right winner. Which other sport (maybe tennis) can boast the same.

  • on August 1, 2011, 2:29 GMT

    iF IT WAS THE LAST WICKET, OR THE SERIES/MATCH DEPENDED ON IT.. i DNT RECON THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT

  • asif2311 on August 1, 2011, 2:01 GMT

    tea was off 30 min and immidiately i felt there was something going on....the most amazing part was the crowd who boooooed dhoni wen ind came out but then were made to eat there words as bell went out to bat again....magnificent decision by dhoni.

  • on August 1, 2011, 1:58 GMT

    @rattoir @zico123 The one time Strauss has found himself in a similar situation i.e. against Angelo Matthews in 2009, he recalled him despite him being legally out because it was the right thing to do. So when you say England would not do the same remember that England already HAVE done the same. Dhoni made the right decision, Collingwood made the wrong decision in 2008 against New Zealand and was rightly criticized.

  • Trickstar on August 1, 2011, 1:58 GMT

    @thardik How do you now what Bell said to the Indian team at tea break, I'm pretty certain he would have thanked them

    @hp32 Go one then, when do England never play in the right spirit ever, fact is England have got one of the classiest captains around (example Champions trophy against SL, calling Matthews back who had been run out) and all the time I've been watching them, they don't cheat or bend the rules like some other teams I could mention. In fact, your just sounding butt hurt because England are giving your team a hiding, I mean really over 410 runs scored in a day, not on swinging pitched like Trent Bridge, it just doesn't happen and there has never been more than 300 chased down in a 4th innings. No doubt we'll here all the same tired excuses, if you lose.

  • Trickstar on August 1, 2011, 1:37 GMT

    @zico123 But completely missing the fact that the last time England had a decision like that against Sri Lanka, Strauss recalled Matthews, when he had run into Onions who was stood by the stumps , it was actually Matthews own fault and wouldn't have got in anyway but Strauss did the right thing, there in the pitch within seconds of the incident. That obviously doesn't fit your agenda though does it. Colly even to this day says that is one of his biggest regrets in his career, not called the NZ player back. In cricket as in life, you treat people and teams how you want be treated.

  • on August 1, 2011, 1:26 GMT

    England would have not done the same and Strauss n Flower had no right to approach MSD.....

  • cricket_for_all on August 1, 2011, 1:21 GMT

    Well done Dhoni (From Sri Lankan fan); AUS or ENG or NZ (remember run out of Murli) will not reverse their appeal for sure while they talk about the spirit of the game. Remember Strauss arrogantly refused a runner to Smith (SA)?.

  • hp32 on August 1, 2011, 1:11 GMT

    I would not show any spirit while playing against Australians and English players. Both just want to win at any cost. Neither play in the right spirit ever. They want to clap because Bell was recalled. Bell made a mistake and you could see Morgan telling him to go back in his crease. English players should have respected the umpire's decision and accepted that Bell was OUT because of his stupidity.

  • strategic_blunder on August 1, 2011, 1:10 GMT

    Dhoni chooses grace over gamesmanship, but over loss of a match and possible series (and the trivial spot in the rankings). I disagree completely that it would have been against the spirit of the game if Dhoni would have refused Bell's appeal reconsideration. On the contrary, it would have provided spark to the sagging Indian team and consequently the series more meaning....1) Lets look at the decision making process of Dhoni for the reversal. As I mentioned, it wasnt for the spirit of the game but more so an altruistic act for English decision to play in India despite the Mumbai terror attacks. Muddled logic I'd say, as those circumstances were beyond either team, this whereas was due to an individual's lack of judgement....2) The last time when the Spirit was in question in Sydney, it was REALLY in question due to childlike decision-making from the opposite captain....3) The absymal bowling was due to the psychological disadvantage, things wouldve been different otherwise.

  • on August 1, 2011, 0:54 GMT

    how can it be the right decision and what is this about naive error. Naive errors are errors and one should pay for them. Thde decision and the process does not make sense in a professional game. If I remember correctly the ball remains in play till umpires calls it dead and its not just one decides its dead and walks over when the ball is being thrown back. Gracious of Dhoni but the english request that it was naive errror please take back your appeal was simple stupid.

  • cantwaittosee on August 1, 2011, 0:40 GMT

    Am I the only one who thinks that at some point, Bell was going for the fourth run? You can actually see him running. He should have been out.

  • FreddyForPrimeMinister on August 1, 2011, 0:20 GMT

    Great decision for the spirit of cricket. Some wise old heads and true gentlemen in the Indian team (Dhoni, Dravid, Tendulkar etc) Congratulations to them but now let's move on and not dredge up past instances which people already admit they regret - notably Collingwood. The Indians were lucky that they had the tea interval to reflect on their error in the first instance - a time period unavailable in previous situations. Hopefully everyone learns from this (as Dravid said India learned from the VVS instance in the West Indies) and the spirit of cricket will increasingly win in the future. Respect to Dhoni and all concerned here.

  • Rezaul on August 1, 2011, 0:18 GMT

    Above all these chaos, the truth is that Bell was OUT by pure cricketing laws. Though Dhoni called back Bell and withdraw his appeal for the sake of spirit I have reasonable doubt whether Strauss would have done the same for any other team. Look at the English commentators now they all praising Dhoni and labeling it as spirit of cricket. But if it were on their shoes (England's appeal) then these same commentators would have scream session after session that the out was according to the cricket law so Strauss doesnt need to call back the batsman and withdraw the appeal. We saw that when England toured NZL, Strauss did not call back Guptil (I think). And Stewart's intentional Run Out of Brain Lara was shameful. But every case English commentators screamed for the sake of cricket laws not spirit of game.

  • mahabesh on August 1, 2011, 0:07 GMT

    I know it looks like Eng have the advantage but, I wish India could win this match or its rains out. I say this because do not think the Eng team would have made the same decision. Dhoni has proven to be a gentleman and the just reward is a win or draw.

  • Vishal_07 on July 31, 2011, 23:53 GMT

    @RAVI_BOPARA, you are right dude. Does anybody know if it resulted in curtailing some playing time and India as it is with their slow over-rate, this might have caused Dhoni to be banned from the next Test ;). Talk about double whammy

  • on July 31, 2011, 23:35 GMT

    Well Ricky Ponting would've certainly wanted the batsman out you can see how farcical the Sydney test in 2008 was when ponting claimed a questionable catch off Michael Clarke and he was convinced that it is out, and the umpires took his word, only for the Indians to complain it was not in the spirit of the game. It was good sportsmanship from Dhoni and the Indians. Ponting always wants a gentleman's agreement on catches but not everyone would agree with that.

  • on July 31, 2011, 23:31 GMT

    Dravid should consider a career in diplomacy after he retires. He is an awesome communicator. Great decision by India. Acted like true champions. (for the record, I am a Pakistani Fan).

  • dsig3 on July 31, 2011, 22:59 GMT

    Lol check out KP's face! That has cracked me up. Dhoni made the right decision though. Nevermind this match, if he had not reinstated Bell the ramifications would be severe. Look what happened to Aus after Sydney 2007.

  • zico123 on July 31, 2011, 22:50 GMT

    putting England in Dhoni's shoes, they would not have recalled an opposition batsman, just as they didn't do earlier against NZ in an ODI match, GREAT statesmanship Dhoni and India.

  • rattoir on July 31, 2011, 22:47 GMT

    So Strauss not letting Smith have a runner? Bell asking for a review in Sydney? Not sure England would have done the same thing for any opposition.

  • RAVI_BOPARA on July 31, 2011, 22:28 GMT

    WITH ALL THIS GOING ON HOW LONG WAS THE TEA BREAK THEN???

  • athardik on July 31, 2011, 21:57 GMT

    Damn the Spirit. Every Cricket followed said that Dhoni did a great service to the game by calling Bell back. And Bell doesnt even have a word of Thanks for Dhoni or indian team. India has let itself down by thier gesture for "UNWORTHY" opponents.

  • on July 31, 2011, 21:39 GMT

    Best tea break................ever!

  • on July 31, 2011, 21:31 GMT

    What do u say about this Indian team??? I am proud to say Our team is still No 1. no matter whats the result of the series...

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on July 31, 2011, 21:31 GMT

    What do u say about this Indian team??? I am proud to say Our team is still No 1. no matter whats the result of the series...

  • on July 31, 2011, 21:39 GMT

    Best tea break................ever!

  • athardik on July 31, 2011, 21:57 GMT

    Damn the Spirit. Every Cricket followed said that Dhoni did a great service to the game by calling Bell back. And Bell doesnt even have a word of Thanks for Dhoni or indian team. India has let itself down by thier gesture for "UNWORTHY" opponents.

  • RAVI_BOPARA on July 31, 2011, 22:28 GMT

    WITH ALL THIS GOING ON HOW LONG WAS THE TEA BREAK THEN???

  • rattoir on July 31, 2011, 22:47 GMT

    So Strauss not letting Smith have a runner? Bell asking for a review in Sydney? Not sure England would have done the same thing for any opposition.

  • zico123 on July 31, 2011, 22:50 GMT

    putting England in Dhoni's shoes, they would not have recalled an opposition batsman, just as they didn't do earlier against NZ in an ODI match, GREAT statesmanship Dhoni and India.

  • dsig3 on July 31, 2011, 22:59 GMT

    Lol check out KP's face! That has cracked me up. Dhoni made the right decision though. Nevermind this match, if he had not reinstated Bell the ramifications would be severe. Look what happened to Aus after Sydney 2007.

  • on July 31, 2011, 23:31 GMT

    Dravid should consider a career in diplomacy after he retires. He is an awesome communicator. Great decision by India. Acted like true champions. (for the record, I am a Pakistani Fan).

  • on July 31, 2011, 23:35 GMT

    Well Ricky Ponting would've certainly wanted the batsman out you can see how farcical the Sydney test in 2008 was when ponting claimed a questionable catch off Michael Clarke and he was convinced that it is out, and the umpires took his word, only for the Indians to complain it was not in the spirit of the game. It was good sportsmanship from Dhoni and the Indians. Ponting always wants a gentleman's agreement on catches but not everyone would agree with that.

  • Vishal_07 on July 31, 2011, 23:53 GMT

    @RAVI_BOPARA, you are right dude. Does anybody know if it resulted in curtailing some playing time and India as it is with their slow over-rate, this might have caused Dhoni to be banned from the next Test ;). Talk about double whammy