Paul Collingwood

[Twodogs]

Appealed after the runner was knocked over and run out.



Shameful ignoring of the spirit of the rules or fair enough?


Shameful for mine. I'd never do it.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Paul Collingwood

Can you be a little more specific please Twodogs. Too hard to comment on without knowing what happened.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Paul Collingwood

Appealed after the runner was knocked over and run out.



Shameful ignoring of the spirit of the rules or fair enough?


Shameful for mine. I'd never do it.

Do you mean substitute runner? If so I didn't read that into it. I thought he just collided with the non-striker.

[Topdog]

Re: Paul Collingwood

NZ player was knocked out by the English bowler. England took off the stumps.

There was a bit of waiting and then Collingwood (everything associated with that name is bad news) appealed.

After the game he apologised.

Check out fox sports news (or their website) for video of it.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Paul Collingwood

Foxsports Link


The match threatened to be overshadowed by controversy when New Zealand, closing in on victory, saw Grant Elliott run out after what appeared an accidental shoulder charge by England quick bowler Ryan Sidebottom, who'd veered off a straight course in an attempt to regather the ball.

With Elliott flat out, Ian Bell threw to Kevin Pietersen at the bowler's end and Elliott was dismissed with New Zealand 8-220 in the 44th over.

Although England captain Paul Collingwood could have withdrawn the appeal - and there is also provision within the laws for the umpires to call dead ball in the event of a serious injury - Elliott was ruled run out.

Afterwards, Collingwood apologised for not withdrawing his appeal.

"You have to make a split decision at the time and maybe it was not the correct one,'' he said.

"The umpire asked me if I was upholding the decision and I said, 'yes'.

"Obviously the apologies go out to the New Zealand team over the decision - I made a split-second decision on the issue and that was the wrong one.

"When two players collide like that it is difficult to make a quick decision and maybe in hindsight it was the wrong one.''

Video

[LostDoggy]

Re: Paul Collingwood

It was worth it to see them lose because of their failure to back-up the wicket and the resultant overthrow. Very funny

Collingwood - the new Jardine

[LostDoggy]

Re: Paul Collingwood

Appealed after the runner was knocked over and run out.



Shameful ignoring of the spirit of the rules or fair enough?


Shameful for mine. I'd never do it.

You're funny two-d, in this case you're all for the spirit rather than the letter of the law but on another thread you were happy enough to give teams plaudits for tanking for high draft picks because it's clever exploitation of the rules as they stand (which I think is against the spirit of sporting endeavour in general). Can't really have it both ways.. different sports or not.

I'll sit up on my high-horse and say Collingwood had an opportunity to be remembered forever for a great sporting gesture (a la Di Canio not scoring when an opposition player was injured) but threw lasting posterity away in the name of one lousy wicket.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Paul Collingwood

Is it permissable for the umpires to show some leadership & perhaps ask the captain if he really wants to appeal?

[Twodogs]

Re: Paul Collingwood

It was worth it to see them lose because of their failure to back-up the wicket and the resultant overthrow. Very funny

Collingwood - the new Jardine

In a way I didnt mind Jardine's attitude. Cooly thought out, implemented despite public reaction, no apologies to anyone.



Collingwood is entirely a different, more opportunistic, beast.

[Twodogs]

Re: Paul Collingwood

You're funny two-d, in this case you're all for the spirit rather than the letter of the law but on another thread you were happy enough to give teams plaudits for tanking for high draft picks because it's clever exploitation of the rules as they stand (which I think is against the spirit of sporting endeavour in general). Can't really have it both ways.. different sports or not.

I'll sit up on my high-horse and say Collingwood had an opportunity to be remembered forever for a great sporting gesture (a la Di Canio not scoring when an opposition player was injured) but threw lasting posterity away in the name of one lousy wicket.

See the post above for where I think the difference lies. Collingwood slunk off with his tail between his legs. I dont like that-you have to own your actions.


It's not something I would have done, but I could understand why. I cant understand running away from the consequences of your actions. It's plain stupid to not think it was going to be contreversial.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Paul Collingwood

Is it permissable for the umpires to show some leadership & perhaps ask the captain if he really wants to appeal?

Yes, that's excellent umpiring in a practical sense. Benson attempted to avert trouble by offering Collingwood a way out. The fact that Benson asked, should have alerted Collingwood to the fact that he was on soft ground with respect to the spirit of the Laws if not the literal interpretation of them.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Paul Collingwood

In a way I didnt mind Jardine's attitude. Cooly thought out, implemented despite public reaction, no apologies to anyone.



Collingwood is entirely a different, more opportunistic, beast.

TD

You either act within the spirit of the Laws or you do not. Jardine did not. Collingwood did not.

No spin can justify acting otherwise. Jardine went down in history accordingly. Collingwood, like Greg Chappell will have this addendum to their career notes.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Paul Collingwood

TD

You either act within the spirit of the Laws or you do not. Jardine did not. Collingwood did not.

No spin can justify acting otherwise. Jardine went down in history accordingly. Collingwood, like Greg Chappell will have this addendum to his career notes.

/\ /\ /\

What he said.


Spin, or bravado after the fact, isn't going to change whether an act is within the spirit of the laws or not. The act is the act is the act, right? If he 'acted like he owned his actions' he would have been even more of a tool. At least he realised pretty much immediately it was a dumb thing to do (to his credit). I like the bloke, but it was a mistake, and at least he apologised soon after.


-- (and tanking will never, never, never be within the spirit of the law, however clever.)

[LostDoggy]

Re: Paul Collingwood

In a way I didnt mind Jardine's attitude. Cooly thought out, implemented despite public reaction, no apologies to anyone.



Collingwood is entirely a different, more opportunistic, beast.

In a way, I think the exact opposite -- Collingwood's was an opportunistic, spur of the moment error of judgement that he almost immediately ended up apologising for, because he's an essentially decent bloke who screwed up.

Jardine was a spineless, miserable coward whom his own teammates hated, with an inferiority complex masquerading as a superiority complex who was motivated by jealousy and misplaced arrogance, and was never contrite for his actions.

I know who I think is the better man.

[1eyedog]

Re: Paul Collingwood

Ricky Ponting would have done exactly same thing IMO