It never ceases to amaze me in this age of professional sport how quick people are to take the moral high ground. The argument over the Grant Elliott run out in the recent one day international is a case in point. By the ’spirit of the game’ the England captain (Paul Collingwood) should have called the player back to the crease as he was clearly, if unintentionally, obstructed. However, would the New Zealand captain (Daniel Vettori) have acted any differently?
Both players were going about their respective jobs when the collision occured and therefore no infringement of the laws of cricket had taken place.
In view of this ’storm in a tea-cup’ I ask this question - why is the same amount of fuss not made when any batsman, who has clearly snicked the ball to the wicket keeper or slips, does not walk voluntarily rather than waiting to be given out. Surely not walking when you are clearly out, even if the umpire is not sure, is worse than the events at the Oval?
Hypocracy rules ok??
(Image from images.google.com)