Soapbox Corner - with PembrokeshireSport.co.uk

Was batsman Bell lucky or not?

There was a great deal of discussion last week when India recalled England batsman Ian Bell after he was given ‘run out’ from the final delivery before tea in the test match at Trent Bridge.

It made for gripping viewing on Sky Sports (when it should be on terrestrial TV, but that is another thing that is guaranteed to get me going!) when Bell sauntered up the wicket to walk off with Ioin Morgan, assuming either that there had been a boundary hit by Morgan or the umpire had called ‘over’ – but neither was the case and so he was given run out on appeal.

Furious discussion

Then there was the furious discussion over tea by Messrs Gower, Atherton, Botham, Willis, Warne, Hussein, Holding and Lloyd (incidentally the best commentating team I have ever enjoyed!), followed by the hullabaloo after tea when both umpires and the Indian team were booed onto the pitch as though all of them were convicted felons! Then there was the change to an almost standing ovation when Bell reappeared after tea with Morgan and added further runs to his already-magnificent innings.

Most of the pundits thought that Bell was lucky to remain at the crease because he had broken the rules and should be made to pay in what is the tough world of test cricket, with David ‘Bumble’ Lloyd as the only one to really consider it in the ‘spirit’ rather than the ‘letter’ of the law. The others quite rightly said that Bell had himself been guilty previously of some chicanery during his test career, like not walking when he knew he was out.

Whether that is so I leave to their expertise but on this occasion he clearly was not trying to take a run but eager to get in at tea time, and the Indian players could see that. As top Indian player Dravid said afterwards, they were ‘uncomfortable’ with their decision to run Bell out.

So what are the issues here?

Firstly, the umpire was absolutely right to give Bell out ‘run out’ and even gave Indian captain MS Dhoni the chance to withdraw the appeal before the teams left the field of play, another plus point.

Then there was the approach by the England officials about reinstatement (not sure about that one!) and agreement by the Indian team (well done lads!) but in my view the law says that the withdrawal of an appeal should be made before the player has left the field – and was not valid when it was allowed.

Were the umpires put under a little pressure, in the greater interests of cricket therefore, to allow Bell to return to the action is another point.

Can cricket and other sports change?

I am one of those who share the view that the spirit of sport was maintained so I am happy with what happened but wouldn’t it be nice if it was carried on throughout all team sports so that batsmen leave the field of play when they know they are out, footballers don’t ‘dive’ for a penalty or to get opponents sent off – and rugby players don’t bite blood capsules?

As far as I am concerned, we should learn from golf and bowls, the only two team sports I know which encourage participants to be honest at all times – with a life ban as a prospect in golf for moving a ball to gain advantage.

Will it improve things in cricket? Somehow I doubt it!