Ian Bell's "controversial" dismissal

Avatar Image
THECORBYLOON | 22:25 Sun 31st Jul 2011 | Sport
34 Answers
In the Laws of Cricket, Law 27 (Appeals) states

“8. Withdrawal of an appeal
The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only if he obtains the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls. He must do so before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. If such consent is given, the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke his decision and recall the batsman.

9. Umpire’s decision
An umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire’s decision, once made, is final.”

As Ian Bell had left the field of play, under what grounds was Bell allowed to play on?


1 to 20 of 34rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by THECORBYLOON. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think Bell had left the field of play because he had been given out, which are the circumstances that 27(8) appears to apply to; all of the players and the umpires were leaving the field for tea, therefore the intervening tea period can be ignored.
The decision to withdraw the appeal and the umpires decision were made promptly if you consider that game elapsed time between the final ball of the last over before tea and the first ball of the over after tea is essentially zero, despite the fact that in real time there was a thirty minute gap. The precedent for this is the time that a player is at the crease does not include time spent during breaks in play, be it for lunch, tea or weather.
Of course this is going to appear in a Question of Sport's 'what happened next?' round.
As a rider question, as a non-cricket expert, at what point does the ball become 'dead' and a batsman cannot be run out?
I am probably even less knowledgeable than you but my understanding is that a ball becomes dead when the umpire calls it dead.
Apparently if you view the footage, the England players were not the only ones who thought it was a 'four', a 'dead' ball and time for tea. An Indian player can be seen picking up helmets and walking to leave the field of play.
Yes, SirP, but at no time did I see the umpire signal 'four' or make any gesture that suggested play was over. Obviously I have no idea what, if anything, was said at the time.
That's a good point. The long and short of it is that the spirit of the game is valued above the Laws of the game, and so I guess all parties simply agree a compromise, and turn a blind eye to the laws.
The ball also becomes dead when it crosses the boundary, or when the umpire calls 'Over'. Bell was (apparently) under the impression that both of those things had happened but has since accepted that neither of them had and that his dismissal was completely within the rules. (i.e. the umpires were correct in their decision, after review, to give him 'Out').

TheCorbyLoon's question however looks at a later stage in the proceedings and examines whether the umpires were entitled to accept a withdrawal of the appeal (allowing them to reverse the 'Out' decision) after Bell had left the field of play.

I fully agree with the underlying assumption in that question. (i.e. the rules, strictly interpreted, did not allow the appeal to be withdrawn and the 'Out' decision to be overturned).

However, like Lborobrewer, I assume that the umpires used the 'get out' clause of assuming that Bell had only left the field of play because it was the start of the tea interval, and not because he accepted that he was out.

There was not any grounds, he was out, but everyone including the Indians, (credit to them) thought that the dismissal was not in the spirit of the game and agreed that he should continue his innings, umpires agreed, end of story.
-- answer removed --
Of course the Corbyloon and Scotman are both Scottish so therefore they go by rule 59a paragraph 3

If he's English he's definately out..or "oot"

Seriously though it was a bit of a strange situation,there was an element of doubt whether tea had been called or whether the ball had crossed the boundary.

Full credit to the Indians though for playing in the spirit of the game,they should be applauded for that...As it happened Bell only hit another 22 so hopefully it won't matter!
-- answer removed --
and the umpire was holding the bowlers sweater out.....and the throw in was half hearted.

Technically out, right decision, and not the first time it has happened. England vs West Indies and Edmonds/Haynes and England rescinded the appeal overnight as it was last ball of the day. Haynes did say "Philip, dis is my island and you aint going to get off it live if it sticks" (apparently in jest).

Also one involving Kallicharan as well.....can't remember that one.
If the fielder touched the ball at the same time as he touched the rope then would that not count as four.
The whole incident was odd for several reasons:
1) The Indian fielder who returned the ball did so very slowly- I got the impression he thought the ball had gone for four
2) The other England batsman (Morgan?) seemed to put his hand up to tell Bell not to come- so he seemed to realise the ball was still in play.
3) Bell and possibly some Indian fielders (the one picking ip helmets and collecting sweaters) and the umpire (who handed over the sweaters) appeared to think play was over for tea. However they must have been wrong- why would an umpire bring play to a close while the ball was still in the fielder's hands? If the return had sailed over the wicket keeper's head and gone for overthrows would they have been counted?
4) I think it was wrong of Strauss and the manager to go to the Indian dressing room to ask them to withdraw the appeal.
5) Once the decision was made to reinstate Bell the crowd and scorers should have been informed before they the Indian team came out to boos and jeering.
Ian Bell realised too late that the ball was still in play and laso realised that he had no chance in getting back to his crease, so he "bluffed" and walked off the field of play.

My opinion.
And I think Bell should have sportingly declined the Indians' offer to withdraw the appeal.
factor 30....I agree.
It boils down to the fact that the spirit of the game has been applied over and above the law, and that has to be a good thing for all concerned.

Should the Indians lose the series, there will always be a question-mark over England's right to hold the Number One position, given that they gained iy under these circomstances.
OH tells me it is considered ungentlemanly to "take a wicket" under such circumstances. He tells of a batsman at the bowler's end who was well down the wicket as OH bowled. After a couple of balls, OH stopped at the wicket. held the ball near the bails, raised an eyebrow and the batman didn't do it again!
cc1 the point made by your OH is well made, but it is the umpire who decides whether the ball is dead and when "time" is called....not Ian Bell.
-- answer removed --

1 to 20 of 34rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Ian Bell's "controversial" dismissal

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.