The Somerset-Surrey Cricket Row

[keaton]

As a diversion from transfer binfestery what do the cricket fans think about this

For once Kevin Pietersen was a passive bystander as controversy erupted all around him on a seemingly quiet afternoon at sunny Taunton.

The fuss was provoked by Murali Kartik's running out of the young Somerset batsman Alex Barrow as he backed up, followed by the Surrey captain Gareth Batty's refusal to withdraw the appeal when offered the option to do so by the umpire Peter Hartley. By the letter of the law Barrow was out, but via a method of dismissal long considered against the spirit of the game and rarely witnessed on the county scene.

Pietersen's only involvement was to wander in and join the small group discussing the incident as 20-year-old Barrow made his way disconsolately back to the pavilion.

As Barrow walked off, having made 12 in a Somerset total that then read 191 for six, boos rang out across the County Ground. Angry spectators continued to jeer Kartik, while Peter Trego responded by twice sweeping the Indian left-arm spinner over deep square-leg for six.

There were angry scenes below the Surrey dressing room balcony at tea, with supporters of both sides directing abuse at Batty and Kartik, who joined Surrey when Somerset opted not to offer him a new contract at the end of last season.

Surrey's team director, Chris Adams, later conceded that the dismissal "challenged the spirit of cricket" but backed Batty over a decision made "in the heat of battle during a very difficult season".

Adams said: "I went to see the umpires at tea and asked them for their account of what happened. It appears that Barrow was warned two or three deliveries before by Kartik about leaving his ground.

"When it happened again Kartik stopped before his delivery stride, which is important, then took the bails off and appealed. The umpire then went to Gareth and asked him if he wanted to uphold it.

"After a few moments consideration and a discussion with Kartik, Gareth said 'yes'. His reason for that was that within the laws of the game it was the right decision.

"I will back the skipper. Gareth is very forthright that he considered everything and made the decision he did for the right reasons. Whether he would make the same decision if the situation arose again he doesn't know."

The incident took the gloss off a fine Trego knock after James Hildreth (85) and Chris Jones (50) had batted through a morning session delayed for 40 minutes by a wet outfield.

Trego has struggled with the bat during a season that has seen him take 48 Championship wickets, but he relishes a fight and produced a string of belligerent blows.

Surrey led by 23 when Somerset were bowled out for 294, and extended that advantage to 81 by reaching 58 without loss at the close.

After the match Somerset captain Marcus Trescothick spoke about the Alex Barrow dismissal, saying: "I'm very disappointed. It's not something you want to see in cricket. I have never witnessed anything like it before at any level. Theoretically, Alex was out, as we all know, but it was against the spirit of the game."

A contrite sounding Batty said: "I will talk things through with Marcus. I don't want this to bring the game into disrepute."


Kartik had previously warned him. For me I don't see what Surrey have done wrong, backing-up has got to stupid levels and if he was warned and continued to do so, I think it's far enough

 

[Hillian1]

Totally fair dismissal, the bowler had already warned the batsman once about leaving his crease.

Sorry, I don't go for "Spirit of the game", I was taught winning is everything, as long as it's in the rules.

 

[CHAPPERS]

It would be Surrey that did it though, eh?

 

[albion534]

Of course it's out, but anyone remember the Ian bell run out v Pakistan a few years back?

They were applauded for allowing bell to return to the crease

Yes he warned him, true, but the amount of times this could happen, but doesn't, so I can see both sides.

 

[ROSM]

What would be interesting here is whether the batsman believes he was warned by the bowler. If he had been then I would suspect the umpire would have heard it. If that was the case, would the umpire then ask batty whether he wished to retain the appeal?

 

[Simster]

Totally fair dismissal, the bowler had already warned the batsman once about leaving his crease.

This is the key issue. If the bowler has warned the batsman beforehand, he is well within his rights to flick off the bail next time it happened. And that is well within the spirit of the game, IMO.

We even teach our ten year kids this very point at our club.

Sorry, I'm fully behind Surrey on this one.

 

[Hillian1]

This is the key issue. If the bowler has warned the batsman beforehand, he is well within his rights to flick off the bail next time it happened. And that is well within the spirit of the game, IMO.

We even teach our ten year kids this very point at our club.

Sorry, I'm fully behind Surrey on this one.

Exactly Simster, in fact it could even be argued that the batsman was not playing in the spirit of the game by stealing a few yards.

 

[Badger]

It's a difficult one, when I was a kid I was taught that you warn the batsman first and then you can dismiss them if they do it again so this would be perfectly justified. However, more recently I've heard that is no longer the sporting thing to do and you should NEVER appeal for them to be out. Personally I am in favour of the first method, otherwise a batsman can gain an unfair advantage safe in the knowledge there won't be an appeal.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Having played cricket at a decent level for 40 odd years, I have only done this twice when in both cases, I warned the batsman and took the bail off, but both times just told them to stop taking the piss.

I can understand what happened here and the rules about backing up are a bit vague, but I would never run someone out like this. Maybe I am a bit old school but I would rather get someone out " properly" than this. And I was always told that winning is paramount, but my philosophy is that if you win well then that is better.

I suppose it is a bit like a striker hurling himself to the floor in the penalty area when someone's fingernail brushes his shoulder...yes technically it may be a penalty, but we all know it's bollox.

 

[itszamora]

It's a difficult one, when I was a kid I was taught that you warn the batsman first and then you can dismiss them if they do it again so this would be perfectly justified. However, more recently I've heard that is no longer the sporting thing to do and you should NEVER appeal for them to be out. Personally I am in favour of the first method, otherwise a batsman can gain an unfair advantage safe in the knowledge there won't be an appeal.

I'd agree with this. IF the batsman was warned, fair enough. If batsmen realise they can't be out, are you going to have them halfway down the wicket by the time the ball is bowled one day?

 

[itszamora]

Having played cricket at a decent level for 40 odd years, I have only done this twice when in both cases, I warned the batsman and took the bail off, but both times just told them to stop taking the piss.

I can understand what happened here and the rules about backing up are a bit vague, but I would never run someone out like this. Maybe I am a bit old school but I would rather get someone out " properly" than this. And I was always told that winning is paramount, but my philosophy is that if you win well then that is better.

I suppose it is a bit like a striker hurling himself to the floor in the penalty area when someone's fingernail brushes his shoulder...yes technically it may be a penalty, but we all know it's bollox.

The only thing I'd say there is regarding your last paragraph - there's this notion that contact must equal a foul in football. It's simply not the case. Regarding the cricket point, I agree, I don't think I'd feel great about getting someone out this way. Then again, I'm not a professional sportsman whose future livelihood depends on his ability to win cricket matches.

 

[METALMICKY]

Exactly Simster, in fact it could even be argued that the batsman was not playing in the spirit of the game by stealing a few yards.

This big time. The degree of stealing yards is against the spirit. If I recall the key factor is a recent change to the law which means the bails can only be whipped off before the delivery stride which thereby gives a batsman further notice along with any previous verbal warning.

Also not sure why umpire asked Batty whether he wished to recall the appeal. Are they claiming that the batsman was unaware of the warnings?

 

[Badger]

Why would you even do it in a 4-day game? I could understand if it was a CB40 or T20 but there really is no excuse to be charging down the wicket during a game of that length.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Law 42 covers this:
15. Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon possible.

So ignore "warnings" - that's got nothing to do with it [except support to playing within the spirit of the game].
The key is at what point the bowler broke the wicket - the law changed on this a couple of years ago and now refers to "entering the delivery stride".
In the bowling action, the relates to the planting of the back foot as this is the initial entry point of the delivery stride.

Correct backing up is something I coach into both my county and club youth players - there can then be no doubts.
"Don't leave your ground until the bowler's back foot has landed."

Its as clear and as simple as that.

 

[Highamgull]

I have just watched a video clip on the Somerset CC website and it is clear that Kartik entered his delivery stride before checking, swivelling round and taking the bails off.

Unless there are Playing Regulations in the County Championship which take precedent over the Laws of Cricket I cannot see that he should have been given out.

As to the question as to why the umpire asked Batty if he wished to withdraw the appeal, I can only say that this comes from 'tradition'. It is not written in to the Laws of Cricket but something that I have seen frequently done over the years.
Having watched the video, I expected to see the non-striker half way down the pitch but he was marginally beyond the popping crease. No further than you would expect the non-sriker to be.

 

[BensGrandad]

If the non striker is going to be out of the popping crease they are seeking to gain an unfair advantage of a quick run so for me it was an appropriate dismissal.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I have just watched a video clip on the Somerset CC website and it is clear that Kartik entered his delivery stride before checking, swivelling round and taking the bails off.

Unless there are Playing Regulations in the County Championship which take precedent over the Laws of Cricket I cannot see that he should have been given out.

As to the question as to why the umpire asked Batty if he wished to withdraw the appeal, I can only say that this comes from 'tradition'. It is not written in to the Laws of Cricket but something that I have seen frequently done over the years.
Having watched the video, I expected to see the non-striker half way down the pitch but he was marginally beyond the popping crease. No further than you would expect the non-sriker to be.

That video makes Surrey look very, very bad.

 

[CHAPPERS]

If the non striker is going to be out of the popping crease they are seeking to gain an unfair advantage of a quick run so for me it was an appropriate dismissal.

Watch the video.

 

[MJsGhost]

It reminds me of a Newick vs Ringmer game in about 2000, which even got a mention in Piers Morgan's autobigraphy...

A Newick batter was warned a couple of times about backing up, then was run out. Much carping from Morgan led to the classic line "I'm not taking lessons on morality from a multi-million pound fraudster like you" from a Ringmer player (it was at the time of the insider trading scandal & the sun's front page about Morgan had alreaady been sellotaped to the away dressing room door!)

 

[PHCgull]

Quite clearly Kartik has begun his delivery stride and therefore the kid should NOT have been given out. basic error from the umpires.