It was not a good show because

1. Sidebottom raising his arm, after getting to his feet, indicatng he is 
appealing

2. Collingwood, wry smile to the umpire, when in discuission over the 
appeal.

Both of these men displayed shabby behaviour.

Perhaps they are the new Trevor Chapell

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:19:26 +1200, "Caught" 
wrote:

>It was not a good show because
>
>1. Sidebottom raising his arm, after getting to his feet, indicatng he is 
>appealing
>
>2. Collingwood, wry smile to the umpire, when in discuission over the 
>appeal.
>
>Both of these men displayed shabby behaviour.
>
>Perhaps they are the new Trevor Chapell 

The fielder has an absolute right to an unhindered attempt to field a
ball. It's the batsman's duty to avoid the fielder, not vice versa.
However accidental the collision, the batsman has to some extent
brought it upon himself and the fielder by not calculating his path to
avoid the collision, however difficult and unforeseen that may have
been. Elliott had the option of not running because the way the ball
fell he might have not seen himself getting to the other end without
impeding the fielder. 
It's a bit harsh but why should the batsman not be run out when the
onus is on him not to be the architect of that situation?

"Jonathan Grogan" <jonathan@jwgrogan.invalid> wrote in message 
news:13b764ld63m49ile29gs2nh1taqjeob1hk@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:19:26 +1200, "Caught" 
> wrote:
>
>>It was not a good show because
>>
>>1. Sidebottom raising his arm, after getting to his feet, indicatng he is
>>appealing
>>
>>2. Collingwood, wry smile to the umpire, when in discuission over the
>>appeal.
>>
>>Both of these men displayed shabby behaviour.
>>
>>Perhaps they are the new Trevor Chapell
>
> The fielder has an absolute right to an unhindered attempt to field a
> ball. It's the batsman's duty to avoid the fielder, not vice versa.
> However accidental the collision, the batsman has to some extent
> brought it upon himself and the fielder by not calculating his path to
> avoid the collision, however difficult and unforeseen that may have
> been. Elliott had the option of not running because the way the ball
> fell he might have not seen himself getting to the other end without
> impeding the fielder.
> It's a bit harsh but why should the batsman not be run out when the
> onus is on him not to be the architect of that situation?

You're absolutely right: the seeds for this dismissal were sown when Mills 
called for a highly dangerous run and Elliott was slow to respond, at least 
in part because he didn't know where the ball had gone.

If we assume for a moment that the players had no mass and thus they could 
travel 'through' one another without collision, and the ball likewise, it is 
highly likely that Elliott would have been run out.  I guess the bit some 
find unsatisfactory is that any chance he had of making his crease was 
extinguished once he hit the deck.

I can't see that Sidebottom did anything wrong.  Collingwood asked him if he 
was making a genuine attempt to field the ball (which he plainly was) before 
confirming to umpire Benson that he wished the appeal to stand.

Andrew

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:06:43 +0100, Jonathan Grogan
<jonathan@jwgrogan.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:19:26 +1200, "Caught" 
>wrote:
>
>>It was not a good show because
>>
>>1. Sidebottom raising his arm, after getting to his feet, indicatng he is 
>>appealing
>>
>>2. Collingwood, wry smile to the umpire, when in discuission over the 
>>appeal.
>>
>>Both of these men displayed shabby behaviour.
>>
>>Perhaps they are the new Trevor Chapell 
>
>The fielder has an absolute right to an unhindered attempt to field a
>ball. It's the batsman's duty to avoid the fielder, not vice versa.

Can you find anything in the laws to back that up?

>However accidental the collision, the batsman has to some extent
>brought it upon himself and the fielder by not calculating his path to
>avoid the collision, however difficult and unforeseen that may have
>been. Elliott had the option of not running because the way the ball
>fell he might have not seen himself getting to the other end without
>impeding the fielder. 
>It's a bit harsh but why should the batsman not be run out when the
>onus is on him not to be the architect of that situation? 
-- 
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au