bad move that weren't it?

Am not one for close reading of cricket rules, and I can't work out what happened by the newspaper report this morning.

If the guy was eligible to be dismissed, why was it bad form to agree to it? One of these mysterious 'not cricket' things?

By the letter of the law it was out, but Collingwood was wrong in upholding the appeal. Is it the first sign of have the game will change with all this money, win at all costs. Would the appeal be withdrawn when £500,000 a man is riding on it?

It wasn't outrageous though (the appeal) had they not accidentally collided Sidebottom had every chance of running Elliott out at the bowlers end as it wasn't a great run. Pietersen has got away without a mention as well when it was him who took the bails off.

He's apologised and it's been accepted but it would have been different had England won.

Well, I sort of get it but it's a bit weird.

The umpire should have declared a dead ball as soon as the collision happened, so he should take some of the blame.

It is no wonder we never win owt with this typically English "sporting" attitude. Collingwood gets hammered for trying what he can, WITHIN THE RULES, to gain an advantage for his country and yet English sportsmen and women in general get pilloried for not being ruthless enough when the chips are down. I despair.

The Aussies wouldn't bat an eyelid at trying the same sort of thing.

aye, it wasn't against the laws as such but it wasn't a great move to appeal the dismissal, not in the spirit of the game etc.

mind, the commentators said that NZ got muralitharan out controversially once before so they kind of cant moan too much themselves in my mind.


doesn't really matter now as its all been apologised over and they won anyways

The ball was still "alive" as it had not been declared "dead".

Now as far as I'm concerned Collingwood and the England team have done nothing wrong. And the New zealander's are the last country to put on the "Its not Cricket" as they once ran out Muttiah Muralitharan in controversial circumstances at Christchurch in 2006. After his batting partner Kumar Sangakkara reached a century, Murali grounded his bat and went to congratulate Sangakkara.

However the ball was not yet dead (same as yesterday) and wicketkeeper Brendon McCullum removed the bails and appealed for the run out. It was given. New Zealand Stephen Fleming defended the run out.

Sri Lanka and many others did not consider the dismissal to be in the spirit of the game.

So whats the difference there. They have done it.

And just out of interest who was one of the biggest moaners on the New Zealand balcony yesterday..........Vice Captain Brendon McCullum. The man responsible for the appeal, what goes around comes around.

brendan mccullum was one of the most vociferous on the balcony as the new zealanders protested to the english management.

surely this can't be the same brendan mccullum that ran murali out as he celebrated with kumar sanggakarra, after the latter had completed a century

nor can it be the same new zealand side that refused to call murali back

and it must be a different new zealand captain and management, as the ones mentioned above refused to even issue an apology after the event

i must be getting confused.

You can bet your bottom dollar the Sri Lankan lads behaved with far more restraint and dignity than the effing and jeffing New Zealanders did as well in the face in of the incident.

Looking at both incidents, the Murali one is far, far worse as it's absolutely clear he's isn't attempting a second run Sidebottom was completely committed to getting to the ball as quickly as possible in an attempt to effect a run out, Elliott was running full pelt to run a single.

This one day series has certainly had plenty of incident.

The umpire can't declare the ball dead just because two players collide like they did.