England v New Zealand, Champions Trophy, Group B, Jo'burg

Run-out recall 'an easy decision'

Sambit Bal in Johannesburg

September 29, 2009

Comments: 36 | Text size: A | A

Daniel Vettori and Paul Collingwood reach an amicable solution, England v New Zealand, ICC Champions Trophy, Group B, Johannesburg, September 29, 2009
Paul Collingwood walked up to Daniel Vettori to thank him with a handshake © Getty Images
Enlarge

The Spirit of Cricket occupied centre-stage at the Champions Trophy once again, and after sparing Paul Collingwood, who had been declared run out after wandering out of his crease, Daniel Vettori said it was an easy decision to make.

Andrew Strauss had made a similar decision in England's opening match against Sri Lanka by recalling Angelo Mathews, who had been stranded after a mid-pitch collision with Graham Onions, and Strauss praised Vettori's decision, which he described as the right one.

Vettori's gesture was more significant for two reasons. There was no case of obstruction in this instance, and Collingwood had no one to blame but himself for venturing out his crease. Secondly, it was a do-or-die match for New Zealand.

"It was a tough decision to make as a captain when your future in the tournament is on the line," Strauss said. "New Zealand were well within their rights to appeal. Obviously Colly was not going for a run, but he was hasty in leaving the crease."

It was an ironic turn of events since Collingwood was captaining England when New Zealand's Grant Elliott had been run out after a mid-pitch collision with Ryan Sidebottom at The Oval last year. The umpires were obliged to rule him out, but Collingwood's refusal to withdraw the appeal had infuriated Vettori and invited widespread criticism from the media.

The incident took place in the 11th over with England struggling at 27 for 3 on a bouncy pitch at the Wanderers. Collingwood had just survived a snorter from Kyle Mills, which flew off a length and whizzed past the batsman's nose on its way to Brendon McCullum.

It was the last ball of the over and Collingwood, taking it for granted that over had been called, had begun walking down the pitch. McCullum, always alert to such situations, under-armed the ball in a flash and the New Zealanders appealed.

Asad Rauf, the square-leg umpire, was already walking in and looking down, so he referred the decision to Aleem Dar, his colleague in the box. Confusion reigned as the umpire at the bowler's end, Daryl Harper, put his arm around Rauf's shoulders and took him away for a chat.

"It was one of those situations when we had a little time to think about it," Vettori said. "When it went to the third umpire, I deliberated with my team-mates, and the umpires. It was obvious that there was no intention of a run, Colly had wandered down the pitch, and it was a lot easier to call him back and get on with the game.

"According to the laws of the game, it was probably out, but of late we have discussed a lot about the spirit of the game."

Both the captains were of the opinion that Spirit of Cricket was becoming an issue cricketers were concerned with. "It's catching on,'' Strauss said.

"I think no one wants to come to a press conference and answer those tough questions," Vettori said, in jest at first. Turning serious, he added: "I think it is in the forefront on the lot of people's mind."

But Strauss found himself fronting up to questions about the spirit of the game after a visibly cramping Graeme Smith was disallowed a runner at SuperSport Park during his valiant 141. As it turned out, Strauss shouldn't have had to defend himself because the matter had been long taken out of the fielding captain's hands, and the call had been made by the umpires on the field.

In another all-too-similar incident back in December 2006, a Muttiah Muralitharan dismissal during the first Test between New Zealand and Sri Lanka at Christchurch was also the subject of controversy.

Kumar Sangakkara had whipped a Shane Bond delivery down to fine leg for a single to bring up his century. Murali having touched down at the striker's end, turned around and left his crease to congratulate Sangakkara. McCullum was quick to whip off the bails as the throw came in, to run out Murali.

Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo

RSS Feeds: Sambit Bal

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by BiSONN on (September 30, 2009, 20:31 GMT)

I think a new rule should be made where it is mandatory for the umpires to have the final and only say whilst giving a decision. I got great respect for Vettori and Strauss for what they did, but I'm getting a bit tired of this "spirit of the game" fad these days. You're just putting the captains in a tough spot.

When players don't get into an argument, doesn't the umpire always intervene to maintain the spirit? Why not just let them argue, you know, since they are the one's in-charge of the spirit of the game?

If an umpire sees an "unfair" appeal, he can turn the appeal down and give the captain the reason for it. THEY should be laying dow the law - not the captains.

Run-outs = Replay Stumpings = Replay Close catches = Replay LBW's = Experimented with replays - thankfully sanity has prevailed Spirit of the game = Captains Caught-behind = Umpire! (unless it's a low catch, then replay!) Bowled = Ahem..

Get what I'm trying to say? Might as well start using machines instead of umpires

Posted by Rash00 on (September 30, 2009, 9:12 GMT)

@ SHANTIRATNAM: Let me correct you here. The umpire cannot give a player out unless appealed by the fielding team. So in the Spirit of the game (as Colly was not going for a run), Vettori took the appeal back and so the umpire couldn't give him out as such. If it is the case as you said, you might be knowing that handling the ball can be given out, but even then batsmen do hand the ball to the fielder many times. the fielder doesn't appeal in spirit of game and thats why the batsman is not out. Remember this is Gentlemen's game. Great going Strauss and Vettori...

Posted by Mutukisna on (September 30, 2009, 7:39 GMT)

The decision by Vettori to allow Collingwood to continue batting was admirable, in the context of the importance of a NZ win in order to qualify for the semi-final. It was an example on how the game should be played. However, this incident needs to be compared with that of the Murali dismissal when he walked out of his crease to congratulate Sangakkara on Sanga reaching his century. In both cases, it is clear that Collingwood and Murali were not attempting a run. And in both cases, the inflicting player was McCullum. Besides his admirable explosive batting and competitiveness, McCullum tends to resort to apparent subterfuge and desperate measures in order to compensate for his team's mediocrity. There are better ways of getting an opposing batsman out!

Posted by NZerinDubai on (September 30, 2009, 7:14 GMT)

I thought that the umpire calling "over" and walking off means that it is over!! Therefore Vettori's decision is the right one and shouldn't have got to that situation anyway. And c'mon guys - even the ICC backed Strauss's decision. You can't get a runner becuase you are tired. Nevertheless he was also caught and not "run out". You can't blame Strauss because Smith isn't fully conditioned to play.

Posted by rzi-BDML on (September 30, 2009, 7:05 GMT)

weldone Deniel, Its really like a gentelman's attitude in the feild. I m really impressed specially because of the importance of the match for Kiwis, and more importantly it was Colly (who dint allow G Alliot last year to resume the innings). I hope the things like this will help the cricket a lot.

Posted by DieterK on (September 30, 2009, 6:58 GMT)

No way Strauss would have re-called anyone had he been in the same situation. I know he did it with Angelo Mathews earlier in the tournament, but had Englands future in the tournament depended on it, he would have sent the player packing. Afterall, it would have been the players own fault (like Collingwood admitted), just like cramping is also your own fault.... Hats off to Vettori, the ideal cricketing sportsman!

Posted by Seb_the_Kraut on (September 30, 2009, 6:36 GMT)

Guess what! I'm a PE teacher and at school it's common practice to first teach students the rules and then let them get on with it themselves. It's considered to be a crucial part of growing up to be able to negotiate and arrive at a result that suits both parties without somebody looking over you all the time and telling you what's right and what's not. Of course there are lots of situations where umpires are indispensable but isn't it great to see that sometimes you don't need them?

Posted by AnyoneButVettel on (September 30, 2009, 6:33 GMT)

Zthang, praise Vettori much as you want but don't take objection with Mccullum. A wicket-keeper's job and instinct tell him to just whip the bails off and appeal, whatever the situation. Given some time to reflect on that, I'm sure he'd also keep up the Spirit of Cricket.

Posted by UniStudent99 on (September 30, 2009, 6:25 GMT)

Vettori would have been crucified if New Zealand had lost that match after letting collingwood off the hook. He showed he is a great person, as well as a great player. Mccullum did as anyone would do in the situation, he reacted straight away. I think he did nothing wrong, and Vettori showed himself well, I am proud to say he comes from my country. Good Luck boys!

Posted by chandau on (September 30, 2009, 5:13 GMT)

Cant imagine why there was such a hullabaloo when at the moment Bruce Willis called over the ball was dead. In fact in side on tv you can see Rauf walking to the stumps head down BEFORE the wicket is broken. In straight on tv Harper has called over before he pauses and stands to attention as the wicket is broken. If at all the fault is with Rauf for calling the 3rd ump, but then nowadays they go to TV even when a crow flies by!!! It just shows the alarming deterioration of umpiring in the highly commercial era. Dickie Bird or Sheppard would have just said "NOT OUT BOYS - RIGHT HAND". To think that New Zealand come smelling of roses after all this is funny and sad. Keeper Mac has claimed a few NOT OUT outs in his time, Murali being just one. Wonder why this new found SPIRIT OF CRICKET was not practiced in 2006!!! The win at any cost mentality is the reason for such cases as everyone wants to get that 1% advantage over their rival be it unfair or downright cheating. Cheers Chandana SL

Posted by SHANTIRATNAM on (September 30, 2009, 3:36 GMT)

Take a break guys! What's going on here, the players are taking turns and manupilating the laws of the game. If a batsman wonders out of the crease and if he is stumped then he is out, the captain of the opposition team cannot grant a second chance to the batsman. The purpose of having umpires in the game will be lost if players try to agree on decisions among them.

Posted by hilshahz on (September 30, 2009, 2:20 GMT)

I agree with Hapuka35kg.There were a lot who posted comments against Angelo Mathews 2 days back.Onions was running straight to him,not to the wicket.but the opinions in collingwoods case seems to be different.there was a same incident with Inzamam ul haq few years back where he played a shot to mid off and standing outside the crease he just practiced the shot properly in the gap while he was runout.For me I stronly think if Captains are trying to take the games in their hands then there should be consistency.if Mathews was called back and if collingwood was given another chance then Smith should have been given a runner.what is wrong with that.Otherwise they all should have been denied.How many times we gave seen batsman clearly nicking to the keeper and not leaving .how many times we know that captains know that it is not bat and pad and they still take the out with a smile.if sportsmanship then it should be there all the time.not for popularity or pressure.Vettori is good.

Posted by sammykent on (September 30, 2009, 2:06 GMT)

Vettori showed he is a captain of incredible calibre once more by giving Collingwood a reprieve. He risked losing a spot in the finals in order to preserve the spirit of the game and ensure a fair contest. It is refreshing to see a captain that does not have a 'win at all costs' attitude that can be damaging to the sport. When youngsters see the situation and the reaction to it, by both Vettori and Collingwood, they are educated in the way cricket should be played. Even though Collingwood was technically dismissed it was not very fair on him as the umpire was a bit tardy in calling the over finished. Looking at the replay it almost seemed there was some affirming body language or an inference by the umpire, directed at Collingwood, that the over was complete. He was too quick out of the blocks but the dismissal would not have been good for the game. For Vettori to recognise the situation and do the right thing was very pleasing and Collingwood's obvious gratitude was also nice to see.

Posted by Lucas_Pallesano on (September 30, 2009, 1:50 GMT)

Just a quick note on that Murali run-out. That was definitely Muarli's own fault, unfortunate because he was happy for his team mate, but a bit foolish. I'm pretty sure New Zealand lost that game anyways....

Posted by Zthang on (September 30, 2009, 0:46 GMT)

Hats off for both Vettori and Strauss....Vettori gave the right answer to Mccullum's unethical heroics... Hope Mccullum will also get a chance to compromise for his behaviors....End of the day CRICKET is the winner..and it surely is a gentlemens game...

Posted by meatballeditor on (September 29, 2009, 23:57 GMT)

If you watch the video, it is apparent that BOTH umpires thought the ball was dead because they BOTH looked down and started to walk away from their posts BEFORE the bails came off. And do you really think that Collingwood is stupid enough to leave his crease unless he thinks the ball is dead. Also you can hear Harper say "over" before you hear the "death rattle" of the bails. If anything, the umpires cocked-up. It was however extremely sporting of Vettori to do the right thing and call Collingwood back. Kudos to the New Zealand captain. "Play up! Play up! And play the game!"

Posted by RoyalChallenger on (September 29, 2009, 23:55 GMT)

I am Indian and I have always respected Vettori. He is a thorough gentleman. The most pleasant cricketer I have ever seen in a long time. Good Job Daniel. He deserves a lot of credit for this. Hope the media is listening? Media usually wastes their space on irrelevant news items :).

I would also like to add that most Kiwi cricketers are good sportsmen. It says a lot about your country.

Posted by D.V.C. on (September 29, 2009, 22:48 GMT)

I agree with what Vettori said the other day about going on a case by case basis. Each captain needs to do what they think fair. In this case the key fact for me is that Daryl Harper had begun walking off, thus causing Collingwood to think the ball was dead. If Harper hadn't moved, different story completely.

Posted by chunnie on (September 29, 2009, 21:41 GMT)

"The thing I've learned from this game is that the world's round. It's going to come back somewhere in the game, at some period of time in his captaincy." Remember that?

Personally i thought Vettori should have insisted he go, but it's good to see that he's a much better person than strauss.

Posted by shot274 on (September 29, 2009, 21:37 GMT)

Vettori did well and so did Strauss against SriLanka. His decision(if it was his) not to allow a runner for Smith ,however,was deplorable. If it was the umpires than they should have been asked why Englands worst fielder (Shah)was allowed to leave the field earlier when there was nothing wrong with him.Smith was clearly suffering and if Strauss was worried that a batsman who can run might cost him a semi final place than his team dont deserve to make the semis!

Posted by pragmatist on (September 29, 2009, 21:02 GMT)

Strauss and Vettori are both decent guys. I don't think there's anything cynical here. Quite a strange turn of events for the spirit of cricket to come to the fore so prominently in such a short period of time. As unexpected as England making the semis!

Posted by auggie on (September 29, 2009, 20:49 GMT)

I think all of them are nice when it suits them and the match. Not much honesty in any sport these days. Good old days are gone. The real issue here is how conveniently England folded up for a paltry 146 making the Kiwis task of scoring 139 to get to the semis so easy. I am not crying 'foul' but it sort of reminds me of the BBC's quiz program, 'The weakest link' where contestants sometimes vote off the strongest players in order to meet the weakest in the final. Perhaps,( Note I say perhaps!) England would have preffered NZ to make it into the semis as the other team in the group rather than dashers like Sri Lanka, South Africa already having been eliminated.

Posted by Hapuka35kg on (September 29, 2009, 20:25 GMT)

I wonder if Mccullan had missfielded, whether collingwood would have run....Vettori should be commended, it would have been "thanks for coming" from me... If collingwood had got 120 and won the game, this comment board would be scary and Dan would be crucified by Kiwi media

Posted by tanveers on (September 29, 2009, 20:06 GMT)

I disagree with Cheetah. Cricket is a gentleman's game. Rule of the Jungle do not apply. What Vettori did was good sportsman spirit. Every captain should follow this gesture.

Posted by cric4india on (September 29, 2009, 19:35 GMT)

Right, what have we got at the end? Team captains exercising their options at their own wish and will. Couldn't we move along smoothly with the umpire alone having the discretionary powers? Claiming the run-out or catch first and then rebuking the umpire who has spent some nervous moments to give the final verdict is really unwarranted and farcical. The ICC would do well to tell the umpire to judge the scenario and avoid captains becoming heroes whenever their situation in the match is favorable!

Posted by Geraldine on (September 29, 2009, 19:21 GMT)

Batsmen usually get out from a mistake, whether it's their own mistake or a mistake of the umpire. If a batsman thinks a ball is going down leg, thrusts out the pad and is adjudged LBW, he is out due to a mistake he made. Same thing here. Collingwood made a mistake, he was out, and he should learn from that.

Posted by StevieS on (September 29, 2009, 19:15 GMT)

It shouldn't be up to the captains, there should be a black and white rule on all rules and that descision is final.

Posted by ranjan.pati on (September 29, 2009, 19:15 GMT)

That is called sportsmanship, my friend. This is the difference between Cricket and other sports

Posted by dsl67 on (September 29, 2009, 19:15 GMT)

Do I not understand the rules of cricket correctly? Why would Collingwood be ruled "run out?" Shouldn't he have been ruled "out stumped?"

Per law 39, a batsmen is out stumped if he is 1) out of his ground 2) has not received a no ball 3) is not attempting a run & 4) his wicket is fairly put down by the wicket keeper without intervention of another fielder. And per law 38, a batsmen is not run out if he is out stumped. This event would seem to be a stumping.

If I am misinterpreting the laws please let me know, as I am a relatively new cricket fan.

Posted by Scrop on (September 29, 2009, 19:09 GMT)

Good gesture by Vettori. At the end of the day game has to be played like a game and with the spirit. Well Done Vettori.

Posted by afridi63 on (September 29, 2009, 19:08 GMT)

I don't agree with Cheetah. The game should be played in its true spirit. sledging and staring donot mean that you should adopt below belt means of dismissal. Infact they are used to test character and exploit weakness of the opponent. So well done Vettori and a good lesson to Collingwood.

Posted by MAK123 on (September 29, 2009, 19:04 GMT)

what goes around, comes around.

Posted by wanderer1 on (September 29, 2009, 19:01 GMT)

Take notes Srauss, being nice when it suits you is not being nice. One cannot be a nice gentleman until he has much to lose from being so.

Posted by giggler12345 on (September 29, 2009, 18:58 GMT)

I'm a NZer and I think what Vettori did was very good gesture. These guys are professionals even school cricket players know how to wait for the umpires to say "over" before leaving the crease. In terms of rules that is out and that's the bottom line. It didn't cost us at the end thankfully and we are top qualifiers!

Posted by jayaar on (September 29, 2009, 18:57 GMT)

Double standards i would say from both England and New Zealand. Team being in better condition prompted these actions.

Posted by Graduated_Cheetah on (September 29, 2009, 18:14 GMT)

Are they playing professional cricket or just a fun game in the house where you can make adjustments and favors every now and then?

I want more aggressive cricket ... Out should be Out ... Hard staring eyes ... Competitiveness ... Rivalry ... Not Golden Handshakes during the match ...

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Sambit BalClose
Sambit Bal Editor-in-chief Sambit Bal took to journalism at the age of 19 after realising that he wasn't fit for anything else, and to cricket journalism 14 years later when it dawned on him that it provided the perfect excuse to watch cricket in the office. Among other things he has bowled legspin, occasionally landing the ball in front of the batsman; laid out the comics page of a newspaper; covered crime, urban development and politics; and edited Gentleman, a monthly features magazine. He joined Wisden in 2001 and edited Wisden Asia Cricket and Cricinfo Magazine. He still spends his spare time watching cricket.
Tournament Results
Australia v New Zealand at Centurion - Oct 5, 2009
Australia won by 6 wickets (with 28 balls remaining)
New Zealand v Pakistan at Johannesburg - Oct 3, 2009
New Zealand won by 5 wickets (with 13 balls remaining)
Australia v England at Centurion - Oct 2, 2009
Australia won by 9 wickets (with 49 balls remaining)
India v West Indies at Johannesburg - Sep 30, 2009
India won by 7 wickets (with 107 balls remaining)
Australia v Pakistan at Centurion - Sep 30, 2009
Australia won by 2 wickets (with 0 balls remaining)
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days