Eng v NZ ODI

[Skint Gull]

1. Swan was perfectly entitled to go for the run out to win the game, Gillespie would've been yards out and to be fair he hardly belted it, it just wasn't backed up properly!

2. As far as i'm concerned the twat who got run out was more at fault than Sidebottam. If you watch it again HE is the one who runs towards the ball when he's not entitled to! He should've been running down the left hand side of the wicket, as it was he ran towards where his teammate was coming in opposite direction and the ball. I know Cricket is all about 'the spirit of the game' but as far as i'm concerned that was fair game to run the bugger out, he was the one trying to block Sidebottom!

 

[BensGrandad]

I thought that the commentary team blamed Peiterson for the f*** up at the end.

They should have all been as close as they possibly could as it was obvious that they would either try to hit the ball beyond the fielders or run 2 runs. Had the strike beaten the ring of fielders they would have won any way so it didnt matter whether they scored 2, 3 or a 4 or 6 all we had to do was make sure they could only run a maximum of 1 to get a tie.

 

[keaton]

I was at the game, it was a great match, and Wrighty was very unlucky.

Collingwood refused to set attacking fields or try and cut off easy singles which cost us really.

And having watched the Sidebottom incident again, he's pretty blameless. He has a right to go for the ball.
No-one complained in the winter when KP got taken out during a run and then run out

 

[Easy 10]

Totally agree with Skint Gull.
I thought it was a deliberately STUPID run by Elliot. There's a moments hesitation when he looks up, does the rabbit-in-the-headlights bit, then he decides, he actually DECIDES to run towards his RIGHT, where he's got:

a) His own batsman coming the other way
b) the ball on the floor
c) Sidebottom barrelling down the wicket to get to the ball.

Elliot COULD have run in a straight line directly the way he was facing, or slightly left, and he'd have had nothing in his way whatsoever. Nothing. Instead, he physically turned TOWARDS all the aggravation, and runs straight into it - and Sidebottom gets blamed for the collision !! That situation was easily avoidable. I gather the batsman has right of way between wickets over the fielders once the ball has been struck, which is fine. But I think Elliot was playing on that rule. He ran towards the ball, practically OVER the ball in fact, fully in the knowledge that Sidebottom should "give way", therefore giving them more of a chance to reach the crease. I'm amazed nobody in the analysis picked up on the direction of Elliots run, because THATS what caused the collision.

If anything I'd say Elliot is the cheat. Its a bit rich the Kiwi's claiming the moral high ground over that incident, because Elliot deliberately engineered that situation with the direction of his run.

 

[Seagullible]

IF Collingwood hadn't appealed, I bet the Kiwis would have happily taken the run! The batsman has to take some blame as it would have been a dead ball if he hadn't got up and started running again, left Umpires with no choice but to ask for an appeal or no appeal

 

[CHAPPERS]

Collingwood is a weak captain. As Keaton says, he should have set more attacking fields. He should also have let Wright bowl some more overs as i think he has the best variation of all the England bowlers and can bowl full late on. Bowling himself is all well and good but he allowed far too many singles into the let side.

As far as the run out is concerned, well, I think he should have taken the glare of the umpire to mean he should not be appealing. The whole affair made him look like a f***ing idiot.

 

[keaton]

Collingwood is a weak captain. As Keaton says, he should have set more attacking fields. He should also have let Wright bowl some more overs as i think he has the best variation of all the England bowlers and can bowl full late on. Bowling himself is all well and good but he allowed far too many singles into the let side.

As far as the run out is concerned, well, I think he should have taken the glare of the umpire to mean he should not be appealing. The whole affair made him look like a f***ing idiot.

I'm not a great fan of Collingwood, but i think this was the Umpire's fault. if the batsmen's injured it's a dead ball. if Sidebottom did it deliberately then it can't be a run out. But if it's neither of those then it's a fair dismissal. The same thing happened to Pietersen with Pollack and everyone criticised Pietersens' running and no-one suggested he shouldn't be out.And NZ and Mccallum have done some seriously cheating run outs (ie Murali).

 

[keaton]

And he could be banned anyway



Collingwood faces over-rate ban

Collingwood's punishment will be determined by the match referee
England one-day captain Paul Collingwood faces a suspension after they were punished for a slow over-rate for the second time within a year.

He was found guilty of a breach of the International Cricket Council's code of conduct at The Oval on Wednesday.

A level three offence carries a minimum ban of four one-dayers or two Tests.

Collingwood, whose punishment will be determined at a meeting with ICC match referee Javagal Srinath on Thursday afternoon, has a right of appeal.

With England three overs behind on their over-rate in Wednesday's defeat by New Zealand, the remaining players will be fined 15% of their match fees, although Collingwood is set to escape a fine if he serves a suspension.

606: DEBATE
Should England be punished for a slow over-rate?
If a fielding side fails to bowl its overs in the required time and is more than two overs behind, an automatic level two charge is brought against the captain.

However, if that captain has already been found guilty of a level two offence within the preceding 12 months, the charge is elevated to level three.

Collingwood was previously fined 50% of his match fee, an estimated £1,250, for a slow over-rate in their one-day defeat by India at Bristol on 24 August 2007, when they were also three overs behind - while the rest of the team were fined 15%.

However, Collingwood, who could have been given a two-match ban on that occasion, pleaded mitigating circumstances.


The charges arising at The Oval were laid by all four umpires, who were present at the hearing along with England coach Peter Moores and team operations manager Phil Neale.

It adds to a controversial match for Collingwood, who apologised to the Kiwis after the game for not recalling Grant Elliott following a controversial run-out late in the game.

Elliott was run out after a mid-pitch collision with England seamer Ryan Sidebottom, and Collingwood conceded after the game that he had made the wrong decision in appealing.

BBC cricket correspondent Jonathan Agnew said the potential ban could have wider implications for Collingwood, while providing a precious opportunity to one of his high-profile team-mates.

"The timing couldn't be worse for him personally," said Agnew.

"Putting aside the argument about the run out of Elliott, in which he made a serious error of judgement, he now faces the real prospect of missing not only the final match of the series at Lord's on Saturday, but more importantly, the first Test against South Africa on Thursday week.

"This will all be subject to appeal, but it could mean that Kevin Pietersen will captain England for the first time in the one-dayer on Saturday."

 

[Seagull over NZ]

Totally agree with Skint Gull.
I gather the batsman has right of way between wickets over the fielders once the ball has been struck, which is fine.

Don't think that is the rule. The batsman has to avoid the fielders as it is their right of way. Sidebottom, Bell (who threw) and Pieterson (whipped off bails) are totally blameless in this incident, but Collingwood was given the chance to retract tha appeal and did not. His excuse was "in the heat of the moment" but he had a good 30 seconds to change his mind. Justice was done for me with a NZ win.

 

[Paxton Dazo]

Luke Wright.