People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones
June 27, 2008
I can certainly understand the Black Caps frothy anger at Grant Elliott's run-out debacle at the Oval.
But if you apply the old maxim…"people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," I'm not so certain Daniel Vettori and co. have as higher ground to preach from as they would have us assume.
England's captain, Paul Collingwood acted disgracefully, only saved to some extent by his reasonably rapid admission that he has stuffed up badly by not recalling Elliott.
But while I can acknowledge how abused the Black Caps obviously felt, their fury invites an obvious question.
How on earth can Vettori and McCullum and other senior players seriously believe that they can convince fans that we should totally sympathise with their feelings at the Oval but also agree they were in the right when McCullum shamelessly ran out Muttiah Muralitharan at Christchurch in 2006?
You will recall that McCullum ran Murali out by taking advantage of the Sri Lankan wandering from his crease to congratulate a team-mate.
When it came down to the cold-hearted reality of the rule-book, McCullum was adjudged within his rights to act as he did.
But that's no different to the current controversy where New Zealand umpires boss, Brian Aldridge has given his backing to the belief that the umpires at the Oval had also judged correctly as far as the laws were concerned.
So, in both cases, the laws themselves appear to have been served appropriately. But of far more importance, it's the spirit in which the game should be played that has been so violated.
Herein lies the problem with most international teams in most sporting codes today that act in a holier-than-thou manner when feeling aggrieved at any one incident, however major it may seem at the time it occurs.
That's because it's most unlikely that any individual country has a clean slate when it comes to consistently having acted in the spirit of the law.
For example, no cricketing nation is blame-free.
New Zealand has the Murali incident.
Australia has the under-arm skull-duggery.
England now has the Elliott affair.
India has corruption.
The West Indies has their appalling behavior in New Zealand in 1980.
Pakistan has Shoiab Akthar.
South Africa had Hansie Cronje.
And as the exception, Sri Lanka appears to prove my rule.
All of which is why as one humble fan, I would urge Daniel Vettori throughout his captaincy, to make the commitment to always put the spirit of the law above the interpretation of the law.
Only then, will any outburst such as the one he has just vented at the Oval carry all the weight he intends. In other words, a captain who only deals out exactly what he expects back.
What are your views on the incident at the Oval?
But if you apply the old maxim…"people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," I'm not so certain Daniel Vettori and co. have as higher ground to preach from as they would have us assume.
England's captain, Paul Collingwood acted disgracefully, only saved to some extent by his reasonably rapid admission that he has stuffed up badly by not recalling Elliott.
But while I can acknowledge how abused the Black Caps obviously felt, their fury invites an obvious question.
How on earth can Vettori and McCullum and other senior players seriously believe that they can convince fans that we should totally sympathise with their feelings at the Oval but also agree they were in the right when McCullum shamelessly ran out Muttiah Muralitharan at Christchurch in 2006?
You will recall that McCullum ran Murali out by taking advantage of the Sri Lankan wandering from his crease to congratulate a team-mate.
When it came down to the cold-hearted reality of the rule-book, McCullum was adjudged within his rights to act as he did.
But that's no different to the current controversy where New Zealand umpires boss, Brian Aldridge has given his backing to the belief that the umpires at the Oval had also judged correctly as far as the laws were concerned.
So, in both cases, the laws themselves appear to have been served appropriately. But of far more importance, it's the spirit in which the game should be played that has been so violated.
Herein lies the problem with most international teams in most sporting codes today that act in a holier-than-thou manner when feeling aggrieved at any one incident, however major it may seem at the time it occurs.
That's because it's most unlikely that any individual country has a clean slate when it comes to consistently having acted in the spirit of the law.
For example, no cricketing nation is blame-free.
New Zealand has the Murali incident.
Australia has the under-arm skull-duggery.
England now has the Elliott affair.
India has corruption.
The West Indies has their appalling behavior in New Zealand in 1980.
Pakistan has Shoiab Akthar.
South Africa had Hansie Cronje.
And as the exception, Sri Lanka appears to prove my rule.
All of which is why as one humble fan, I would urge Daniel Vettori throughout his captaincy, to make the commitment to always put the spirit of the law above the interpretation of the law.
Only then, will any outburst such as the one he has just vented at the Oval carry all the weight he intends. In other words, a captain who only deals out exactly what he expects back.
What are your views on the incident at the Oval?
In the test series Vettori was in his ground but didnt ground his bat - stupidity on Vettoris part and he was given out. Dumb mistake like Murali. Should he have been called back? - no. So why would you call Murali back for losing his head? Loved Vettori's reaction from the balcony. Stick it right up them.
Post a comment
To post a new comment, you must Sign in first.