The Julian-Campbell incident
Donald Rose
would be appreciated. Several issues arise. The W.I. crowd's behaviour
cost the match about 13 overs and since any loss of overs benefits the side
batting second, that means that the home side can be aided by the home
crowd's bad behaviour at any time they are in trouble on the field.
Secondly, The word "intentionally" is deliberately in the Laws. That means,
if the bowler is still in his natural follow through and does not
deliberately or intentionally deviate to incommode the runner then
everything stays as it is--just a normal game of cricket.
If you wonder why, think of this. The runner takes off and sees that he is
about to get run out. He intentionally deviates so that he is impeded by a
fieldsman and is given not out because of this. Hardly a desirable result.
Now I know I am mixing two parts of the Laws together here to make my point,
but I am really saying that the Laws are not too badly worded as they stand.
Don
S.D
Donald Rose wrote in message <7g0ak0$lod$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>...
there is a certain amount
of ambiguity in the laws to accomodate both the batsman running into the
bowler/fielder and vice-versa.
The worst part of the whole affair, regardless of intention in the run
out, is that the idiots in the stands
contrived to get their own way, and by allowing Campbell back out to the
middle, Raman Subba Row
and his match umpires are, in a way, condoning the bottle throwing and
trouble making.
As an Englishman, I have never been a great fan of the Aussies, but the
way Steve Waugh and his
team conducted themselves in Barbados showed great professionalism,
which must be respected.
Mad Hamish
>I did not witness the incident so if anyone can give an unbiased version it
>would be appreciated.
I can try. Julian was bowling left hand over the wicket and the ball got pushed
out on the other side of the pitch from him. (I have to admit that I can't
remember who was on strike, but it was Adams or Chanderpaul which would have
made it a push into the on-side)
Julian moved across the pitch before realising that he couldn't reach the ball.
He then stopped before _apparently_ moving right slightly and then back left to
knock Campbell off his feet. It definately looked deliberate to me....
which means that, if I'm right, under law 42 Campbell should have been given not
out
> Several issues arise. The W.I. crowd's behaviour
>cost the match about 13 overs and since any loss of overs benefits the side
>batting second, that means that the home side can be aided by the home
>crowd's bad behaviour at any time they are in trouble on the field.
>
>Secondly, The word "intentionally" is deliberately in the Laws.
actually in rule 42 the wording is "willful", which is slightly different from
intentional. You might be thinking of interfering with the field which, I think,
uses intentional.
>That means,
>if the bowler is still in his natural follow through and does not
>deliberately or intentionally deviate to incommode the runner then
>everything stays as it is--just a normal game of cricket.
Yep, or if he's just standing still looking at the ball or waiting for the
return - which are the situations that the Bevan interference came from or the
time Tendulkar was run out. Unfortunate but not wilfull interference by the
bowler.
>
>If you wonder why, think of this. The runner takes off and sees that he is
>about to get run out. He intentionally deviates so that he is impeded by a
>fieldsman and is given not out because of this. Hardly a desirable result.
>Now I know I am mixing two parts of the Laws together here to make my point,
>but I am really saying that the Laws are not too badly worded as they stand.
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
Marie-Anne
I’ve given my account and opinion of it elsewhere and won’t restate it here.
I thought perhaps people might be interested in hearing the opinions of the
commentators we heard through Fox Sports here in Australia at the time -
Tony Cozier; the very well respected West Indian commentator, and Michael
Holding; the former great West Indian fast bowler.
Here’s the transcript - verbatim - of how they described it;
{As it happened and Campbell leaves field} Cozier: "He’s gone. He ran
into the bowler. Similar happened today. Campbell is down on the ground.
But he’s bounced into the bowler - he’ll have to go. Same thing happened
earlier today, with the run-out of Michael Bevan. Bounced into the bowler
today King (sic), and Sherwin Campbell will have to go. The crowd doesn’t
like it, but that the Law and Campbell run-out. Two crucial set backs for
the West Indies in quick succession - the injury to Jimmy Adams and now the
run-out of Sherwin Campbell."
{Immediate Replay} Holding: "Always pretty unfortunate when things like
this do happen, but the bowler is in his right to try to get to the ball
and Sherwin Campbell collided with him trying to get across. It may seem
as if he was blocking him, but he has his right to try to get across to the
other side of the pitch. Well, unfortunate for Sherwin Campbell he slipped,
it’s 138 for 2."
>Bottle’s thrown, Players leave field, etc… Cozier describes the scenes…
{Replay} Cozier: "Here’s what happened here, as Campbell collided with
Julian going across the pitch to make the save. He in fact has to cross
the other batsman coming through and collided - Campbell ran into the back
of Julian. {Bevan Run-Out Replay} Now let’s see what happened earlier in
the Australian innings. Reon King was the bowler, ah Bryan was the bowler,
Hendy Bryan. The ball pushed across him and a collision there. On that
occasion, Bevan got up but was run-out all the same. He left the field."
{Back to descriptions of scenes…} Cozier: "It’s a hostile crowd, they’re
chanting ‘We want Campbell!’. There’s no way that they’ll get him back,
anyone who appreciates the Laws of cricket knows that - And Barbados
prides itself on being very knowledgeable about this game."
> Holding and Cozier describe more of the scenes and the poor reflection
it has on WI cricket…
Cozier: "… caused by a run-out. A run-out which was unfortunate but
completely fair - in the respect of the Law that is. A run-out very
similar to, as we’ve shown you, happened earlier in the Australian innings."
> Desciption of scenes again, they discuss possible abandonment of game…
{More Replays} Cozier: "Here’s how it happened. Scrambling for a run, he
ran into the back of Brendon Julian. A collision. Campbell appealed to
the umpire. Chanderpaul just pushing the ball to the on-side, Julian
attempting to go across to the ball, Campbell ran into his back and Shane
Lee came into effect the run-out, correction it was Michael Bevan...
Campbell into the back of Brendon Julian and the run-out effected. And
there is Sherwin Campbell appealing to Umpire Eddie Nichols, asking ‘What
about that?’. Eddie Nichols and the Square Leg Umpire really could do
nothing about that. The Law of the game says that is run-out. We saw an
incident earlier today very similar to that."
{Bevan Run-Out Replay} Cozier: "…The bowler came across, partially
obstructed the path of Michael Bevan. He was run-out, but the bowler is
within his right to go for the ball."
Holding: "The difference between those two incidences; that Michael Bevan
just walked off the ground. He didn’t ask the Umpire anything, he knows
what the rules are, he knows the Laws of the game. He knows he was run-out
and he left the ground. Second incident, Sherwin Campbell was asking the
Umpire ‘What about that?’, ‘What’s the situation with that?’. He should
have just walked off the ground - he was out! I think that’s what’s
sparked this sadly, to say that, but I think that’s the situation. Because
of his questioning of the Umpires, this ugly incident has occurred."
-----------
As Sir Garfield Sobers addresses the crowd and announces Campbell’s
reinstatement, Holding (who left his microphone on) can clearly be heard
exclaiming; "...That’s bullshit!...".
-------------
I’ll leave it at that :-),
- Cheers,
MAC the Vic!
Mad Hamish
>Discussion about the Julian/Campbell "incident" sadly just keeps on going...
>I’ve given my account and opinion of it elsewhere and won’t restate it here.
>
>I thought perhaps people might be interested in hearing the opinions of the
>commentators we heard through Fox Sports here in Australia at the time -
>Tony Cozier; the very well respected West Indian commentator, and Michael
>Holding; the former great West Indian fast bowler.
>
>{Immediate Replay} Holding: "Always pretty unfortunate when things like
>this do happen, but the bowler is in his right to try to get to the ball
>and Sherwin Campbell collided with him trying to get across. It may seem
>as if he was blocking him, but he has his right to try to get across to the
>other side of the pitch.
Yes, he has a right to go for the ball, he does _not_ have a right to stop, have
a look at where the runner is and then shoulder the batsman which is what looks
to have happened in the replay that I saw.
It just came up again on Sunday and the collision happened after Julien had seen
Bevan was in a far better position, stopped, glanced back over his shoulder and
shimmied across a bit to ensure that Campbell would either have to sidestep or
collide with him. It was a great Shepherd but not allowed in cricket. Maybe
Brenden should try out for Freemantle.
Interestingly Matthew Elliott was on The Panel on Wednesday and seemed to think
that it probably was deliberate.
That comes under willfull interference by any reasonable definition you can
make.
> Well, unfortunate for Sherwin Campbell he slipped,
>it’s 138 for 2."
>
>{Bevan Run-Out Replay} Cozier: "…The bowler came across, partially
>obstructed the path of Michael Bevan. He was run-out, but the bowler is
>within his right to go for the ball."
The difference there was that the bowler had also stopped, was looking at the
ball and was standing still. There was no _willfull_ obstruction.
>
>Holding: "The difference between those two incidences; that Michael Bevan
>just walked off the ground. He didn’t ask the Umpire anything, he knows
>what the rules are, he knows the Laws of the game. He knows he was run-out
>and he left the ground. Second incident, Sherwin Campbell was asking the
>Umpire ‘What about that?’, ‘What’s the situation with that?’. He should
>have just walked off the ground - he was out! I think that’s what’s
>sparked this sadly, to say that, but I think that’s the situation. Because
>of his questioning of the Umpires, this ugly incident has occurred."
No, the ugly incident occured because the spectators decided to throw things
onto the ground.
Not because Campbell questioned a decision, not because Julien willfully
interfered with a runner, because the crowd decided to make it ugly.
Kurt
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mad Hamish) wrote:
> On 1 May 1999 19:06:07 GMT, Marie-Anne <mco...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Discussion about the Julian/Campbell "incident" sadly just keeps on going...
> >I’ve given my account and opinion of it elsewhere and won’t restate it here.
> >
> >I thought perhaps people might be interested in hearing the opinions of the
> >commentators we heard through Fox Sports here in Australia at the time -
> >Tony Cozier; the very well respected West Indian commentator, and Michael
> >Holding; the former great West Indian fast bowler.
> >
Marie-Anne and Hamish,
I listened to the same feed live, and I have to say that on initial viewing
I did not think that the interference was deliberate. On the replays, however,
I was reasonably confident that Julian's obstruction was deliberate. It still
was bad form on Steve Waugh's part not to withdraw the appeal immediately.
> >{Immediate Replay} Holding: "Always pretty unfortunate when things like
> >this do happen, but the bowler is in his right to try to get to the ball
> >and Sherwin Campbell collided with him trying to get across. It may seem
> >as if he was blocking him, but he has his right to try to get across to the
> >other side of the pitch.
>
> Yes, he has a right to go for the ball, he does _not_ have a right to stop,
have
> a look at where the runner is and then shoulder the batsman which is what
looks
> to have happened in the replay that I saw.
>
I can only speculate as to why the commentators were so conservative in their
expressed viewpoint. It is possible that they did not wish to inflame the
crowd, which by the time they viewed the replays, were already in a
mini-riot. Also, they almost never (well with the exception of Boycott)
directly criticize any player.
Now, no-one can tell me that there was any similarity between these two
incidents. For Mr Holding to suggest that the only difference was that
Bevan walked off without dissent is to my view, dishonest. Marie-Anne,
you have been the biggest defender of Julian, and I admire your loyalty,
but surely you will ocnced that the two incidents were quite different in
nature.
> No, the ugly incident occured because the spectators decided to throw things
> onto the ground.
> Not because Campbell questioned a decision, not because Julien willfully
> interfered with a runner, because the crowd decided to make it ugly.
>
Well, you're right in that it was the crowd, not the players who were
responsible for the objects thrown. However, we must accept that it was the
actions of the players (and umpires) that sparked their anger.
Kurt
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Kurt
"willsutton" <muta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Kurt <ktoo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I listened to the same feed live, and I have to say that on initial viewing
> > I did not think that the interference was deliberate. On the replays,
however,
> > I was reasonably confident that Julian's obstruction was deliberate. It
still
> > was bad form on Steve Waugh's part not to withdraw the appeal immediately.
>
> Did you just read what you wrote............well let me repeat...........on
initial
> viewing I did not think that the interference was deliberate. So if you did
> not think so initially how do you think it was bad form on Waughs part ?
> He would have been backing up or watching the ball so most probabley
> he would not have seen the clash. Or are Captains expected to view replays
> and then decide whether to withdraw the appeal ? Or are they susposed
> to ask their player involved ?
>
Again quite simple really. When contact is such that the batsman is lying on
the ground when the stumps are broken, etiquette demands that the fielding
captain withdraw any appeal REGARDLESS of whether there was any intent.
> > >
> >
> > Now, no-one can tell me that there was any similarity between these two
> > incidents. For Mr Holding to suggest that the only difference was that
> > Bevan walked off without dissent is to my view, dishonest. Marie-Anne,
> > you have been the biggest defender of Julian, and I admire your loyalty,
> > but surely you will ocnced that the two incidents were quite different in
> > nature.
>
> If one was caught and the other runout then that would be different but they
were
> both runout after been involved in interference from the bowlers. So how you
can
> say they are quiet different has me stumped ( sorry......very bad pun ).
Actually
> they are very similar.
>
OK, I accept that they both resulted in run-out decisions, that is not
the source of contention. However to equate the 2 incidents is rather
strange. In the Bevan incident, the batsman was forced to round the bowler
in his follow through. Whatever contact that occured was minimal. If it were
not for the Campbell incident and for the attempts to find an excuse for
the bevior of Mr Waugh and Mr Bevan, I GUARANTEE not one single comment
would have been made anything stronger than he (Bevan) was a little unlucky..
Certainly, there was absolutely no indication of any subterfuge on the bowlers
part and nothing which would have put a duty on Lara to withdraw his appeal.
Again, to say that they were similar is to say Hooper getting caught in the
slips chasing a ball 3 feet outside off-stump in a Test match is similar
to Campbell getting caught in the slips, playing a defensive stroke to a
great ball that left him late. Again, you are using the Bevan incident to
excuse the behavior of your team. I can think of no other reason for your
claim!
willsutton
Kurt <ktoo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message news:7gk89f$stl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <372d5c1...@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
> h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mad Hamish) wrote:
> > On 1 May 1999 19:06:07 GMT, Marie-Anne <mco...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > >Discussion about the Julian/Campbell "incident" sadly just keeps on going...
> > >I've given my account and opinion of it elsewhere and won't restate it here.
> > >
> > >I thought perhaps people might be interested in hearing the opinions of the
> > >commentators we heard through Fox Sports here in Australia at the time -
> > >Tony Cozier; the very well respected West Indian commentator, and Michael
> > >Holding; the former great West Indian fast bowler.
> > >
>
> Marie-Anne and Hamish,
>
> I listened to the same feed live, and I have to say that on initial viewing
> I did not think that the interference was deliberate. On the replays, however,
> I was reasonably confident that Julian's obstruction was deliberate. It still
> was bad form on Steve Waugh's part not to withdraw the appeal immediately.
Did you just read what you wrote............well let me repeat...........on initial
viewing I did not think that the interference was deliberate. So if you did
not think so initially how do you think it was bad form on Waughs part ?
He would have been backing up or watching the ball so most probabley
he would not have seen the clash. Or are Captains expected to view replays
and then decide whether to withdraw the appeal ? Or are they susposed
to ask their player involved ?
>
> > >{Bevan Run-Out Replay} Cozier: ".The bowler came across, partially
> > >obstructed the path of Michael Bevan. He was run-out, but the bowler is
> > >within his right to go for the ball."
> >
> > The difference there was that the bowler had also stopped, was looking at the
> > ball and was standing still. There was no _willfull_ obstruction.
> >
> > >
> > >Holding: "The difference between those two incidences; that Michael Bevan
> > >just walked off the ground. He didn't ask the Umpire anything, he knows
> > >what the rules are, he knows the Laws of the game. He knows he was run-out
> > >and he left the ground. Second incident, Sherwin Campbell was asking the
> > >Umpire 'What about that?', 'What's the situation with that?'. He should
> > >have just walked off the ground - he was out! I think that's what's
> > >sparked this sadly, to say that, but I think that's the situation. Because
> > >of his questioning of the Umpires, this ugly incident has occurred."
> >
>
> Now, no-one can tell me that there was any similarity between these two
> incidents. For Mr Holding to suggest that the only difference was that
> Bevan walked off without dissent is to my view, dishonest. Marie-Anne,
> you have been the biggest defender of Julian, and I admire your loyalty,
> but surely you will ocnced that the two incidents were quite different in
> nature.
If one was caught and the other runout then that would be different but they were
both runout after been involved in interference from the bowlers. So how you can
say they are quiet different has me stumped ( sorry......very bad pun ). Actually
they are very similar.
>
> > No, the ugly incident occured because the spectators decided to throw things
> > onto the ground.
> > Not because Campbell questioned a decision, not because Julien willfully
> > interfered with a runner, because the crowd decided to make it ugly.
> >
>
> Well, you're right in that it was the crowd, not the players who were
> responsible for the objects thrown. However, we must accept that it was the
> actions of the players (and umpires) that sparked their anger.
IT WAS THE NOT THE PLAYERS FAULT............THERE HAVE BEEN MANY
A CONTRIVERSAL DECISION BAT RIOTS LIKE THAT HAVE NOT HAPPENED.
Terry Walsh
Kurt <ktoo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message news:7gkqub$e2d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> > I listened to the same feed live, and I have to say that on initial viewing
> > I did not think that the interference was deliberate. On the replays,
however,
> > I was reasonably confident that Julian's obstruction was deliberate. It
still
> > was bad form on Steve Waugh's part not to withdraw the appeal immediately.
>
> Did you just read what you wrote............well let me repeat...........on
initial
> viewing I did not think that the interference was deliberate. So if you did
> not think so initially how do you think it was bad form on Waughs part ?
> He would have been backing up or watching the ball so most probabley
> he would not have seen the clash. Or are Captains expected to view replays
> and then decide whether to withdraw the appeal ? Or are they susposed
> to ask their player involved ?
>
Again quite simple really. When contact is such that the batsman is lying on
the ground when the stumps are broken, etiquette demands that the fielding
captain withdraw any appeal REGARDLESS of whether there was any intent.
No, I cannot agree with this statement, who's etiquette *demands* that the appeal be withdrawn REGARDLESS of any intent or not.If this was the case, you would have batsmen falling over when they know they are not going to make their ground or deliberately running into the bowlers and then feigning a fall. No way. I have witnessed many instances where players are short of their ground, sprawled on the ground after alleged interference or that they simply are not wearing spikes. To expect a captain to withdraw an appeal EVERY time this occurs is ludicrous and open to exploitation by the unscrupulous. And yes, I have seen a captain withdraw an appeal where there was a collision, in this case it was an unfortunate mix-up by both the batsman & bowler - but that doesn't then set the standard for all cricket matches around the world. It was a captain whose team was in a very sound position and really couldn't lose the match.Cheers
--
Terry Walsh
aka Mudguts / Walshuana / Mr Cricket
> > >
> >
> > Now, no-one can tell me that there was any similarity between these two
> > incidents. For Mr Holding to suggest that the only difference was that
> > Bevan walked off without dissent is to my view, dishonest. Marie-Anne,
> > you have been the biggest defender of Julian, and I admire your loyalty,
> > but surely you will ocnced that the two incidents were quite different in
> > nature.
>
> If one was caught and the other runout then that would be different but they
were
> both runout after been involved in interference from the bowlers. So how you
can
> say they are quiet different has me stumped ( sorry......very bad pun ).
Actually
> they are very similar.
>
OK, I accept that they both resulted in run-out decisions, that is not
the source of contention. However to equate the 2 incidents is rather
strange. In the Bevan incident, the batsman was forced to round the bowler
in his follow through. Whatever contact that occured was minimal. If it were
not for the Campbell incident and for the attempts to find an excuse for
the bevior of Mr Waugh and Mr Bevan, I GUARANTEE not one single comment
would have been made anything stronger than he (Bevan) was a little unlucky..
Certainly, there was absolutely no indication of any subterfuge on the bowlers
part and nothing which would have put a duty on Lara to withdraw his appeal.
Again, to say that they were similar is to say Hooper getting caught in the
slips chasing a ball 3 feet outside off-stump in a Test match is similar
to Campbell getting caught in the slips, playing a defensive stroke to a
great ball that left him late. Again, you are using the Bevan incident to
excuse the behavior of your team. I can think of no other reason for your
claim!
willsutton
Kurt <ktoo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message news:7gkqub$e2d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <7gkcbl$mq9$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
> "willsutton" <muta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kurt <ktoo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>
> > >
> > > I listened to the same feed live, and I have to say that on initial viewing
> > > I did not think that the interference was deliberate. On the replays,
> however,
> > > I was reasonably confident that Julian's obstruction was deliberate. It
> still
> > > was bad form on Steve Waugh's part not to withdraw the appeal immediately.
> >
> > Did you just read what you wrote............well let me repeat...........on
> initial
> > viewing I did not think that the interference was deliberate. So if you did
> > not think so initially how do you think it was bad form on Waughs part ?
> > He would have been backing up or watching the ball so most probabley
> > he would not have seen the clash. Or are Captains expected to view replays
> > and then decide whether to withdraw the appeal ? Or are they susposed
> > to ask their player involved ?
> >
>
> Again quite simple really. When contact is such that the batsman is lying on
> the ground when the stumps are broken, etiquette demands that the fielding
> captain withdraw any appeal REGARDLESS of whether there was any intent.
Etiquette flew out the window with the Jones runnout..........bouncing of tailenders
......even the underarm bowling inncident , people not walking when they know they
knicked the ball ...........even bodyline .........so what is etiquette ?
And if you believe in what you say Bevan should have been recalled as well or do
you belive in double standards.............
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now, no-one can tell me that there was any similarity between these two
> > > incidents. For Mr Holding to suggest that the only difference was that
> > > Bevan walked off without dissent is to my view, dishonest. Marie-Anne,
> > > you have been the biggest defender of Julian, and I admire your loyalty,
> > > but surely you will ocnced that the two incidents were quite different in
> > > nature.
> >
> > If one was caught and the other runout then that would be different but they
> were
> > both runout after been involved in interference from the bowlers. So how you
> can
> > say they are quiet different has me stumped ( sorry......very bad pun ).
> Actually
> > they are very similar.
> >
>
> OK, I accept that they both resulted in run-out decisions, that is not
> the source of contention. However to equate the 2 incidents is rather
> strange. In the Bevan incident, the batsman was forced to round the bowler
> in his follow through. Whatever contact that occured was minimal. If it were
> not for the Campbell incident and for the attempts to find an excuse for
> the bevior of Mr Waugh and Mr Bevan, I GUARANTEE not one single comment
> would have been made anything stronger than he (Bevan) was a little unlucky..
> Certainly, there was absolutely no indication of any subterfuge on the bowlers
> part and nothing which would have put a duty on Lara to withdraw his appeal.
>
> Again, to say that they were similar is to say Hooper getting caught in the
> slips chasing a ball 3 feet outside off-stump in a Test match is similar
> to Campbell getting caught in the slips, playing a defensive stroke to a
> great ball that left him late. Again, you are using the Bevan incident to
> excuse the behavior of your team. I can think of no other reason for your
> claim!
I dont need to make any excuses for the Australian Team behaviour..........they
are not the guilty party . The crowd was wrong......no matter what you bullshit........
the crowd was wrong..........its that simple..........the crowd was wrong.........no
matter what.....the crowds reaction was disgusting and wrong.........no excuses.....
they were wrong
Will
Kurt
"willsutton" <muta...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Etiquette flew out the window with the Jones runnout..........bouncing of
tailenders
> ......even the underarm bowling inncident , people not walking when they know
they
> knicked the ball ...........even bodyline .........so what is etiquette ?
>
Well, I believe I now understand your point, which seems to be there should
be no ettiquette, just "win at all costs". Again, I suspect that this is a
cultural attribute prevalent in Australia (and many other countries).
Of course, once you accept this then Julian really did no wrong EVEN IF
his intention was deliberate. He merely took a calculated risk and until
the crowd intervened got away with it. In fact it was the umpire at
fault. Now, I see why you have not condemmed Julian even though you've
basically admitted that the evidence whilst not conclusive is pretty damning.
> And if you believe in what you say Bevan should have been recalled as well or
do
> you belive in double standards.............
>
Again, There was no parallel involved you're just searching for an excuse.
Bevan's contact was minimal. He basically ran around the bowler. I accept
that the line by which etiquette demands that a captain withdraw his appeal
is somewhat grey but suffice to say I though the Bevan run-out was clearly
below the line, while the Campbell run-out was clearly above it.
Does that mean I believe in double standards?
> I dont need to make any excuses for the Australian Team
behaviour..........they
> are not the guilty party . The crowd was wrong......no matter what you
bullshit........
> the crowd was wrong..........its that simple..........the crowd was
wrong.........no
> matter what.....the crowds reaction was disgusting and wrong.........no
excuses.....
> they were wrong
>
> Will
>
>
I absolutely agree 100% that the crowd was wrong. I never meant to imply
otherwise and indeed I though I had made myself quite clear on that in
prior posts. The actions of the players and the crowd should be kept separate.
That is not to deny that the players actions cannot contribute to the
crowds misbehavior but to accept that the players cannot be held responsible
for it.
Again the crowds behavior was "disgusting and wrong.........no excuses".
Do I make myself clear?
Marie-Anne
(snippety snip)
Hi Kurt - me again! :-)
> OK, I accept that they both resulted in run-out decisions, that is not
> the source of contention. However to equate the 2 incidents is rather
> strange.
Strange? In both instances, the bowler ran across the pitch to field the
ball, but pulled out of the chase, for a fieldsman. Both (unwittingly imo)
impeded the batsman attempting to run.
> In the Bevan incident, the batsman was forced to round the bowler
> in his follow through.
Neither bowler was "in his follow through"; they were *both* on the other
side of the pitch from their follow through. In *both* instances, the
batsman was forced to (attempt to) run around the bowler.
> Whatever contact that occured was minimal. If it were
In both cases! Bevan was able to change direction and push past the WI
bowler. Whereas Campbell *slipped* trying to change direction and *fell
into* Julian... (I'm really tired of repeating this point). There was
minimal contact between batsman and bowler in both instances.
> not for the Campbell incident and for the attempts to find an excuse for
> the bevior of Mr Waugh and Mr Bevan, I GUARANTEE not one single comment
> would have been made anything stronger than he (Bevan) was a little unlucky..
Both batsman were damn unlucky; but the Law as they say is an ass -
they were both out! It's not fair, but that's the way it is...
> Certainly, there was absolutely no indication of any subterfuge on the bowlers
> part and nothing which would have put a duty on Lara to withdraw his appeal.
On what grounds would either captain withdraw the appeal? Because the
batsman was unlucky? LOL - No batsman would *ever* be out!!!! Neither
bowler did anything 'wrong', *but* they both got in the batsman's way.
By the Laws of this great game, that's 'tough cheddar' for the batsman...
btw Adams was acting WI capt on the day.
> Again, to say that they were similar is to say Hooper getting caught in the
> slips chasing a ball 3 feet outside off-stump in a Test match is similar
> to Campbell getting caught in the slips, playing a defensive stroke to a
> great ball that left him late. Again, you are using the Bevan incident to
> excuse the behavior of your team. I can think of no other reason for your
> claim!
Ah huh, I've got it... They've kept it quiet for years, but now all is
revealed - Mikey Holding and Tony Cozier are actually Australian! (Pity
Mikey didn't tell us this 25 years ago...) ;-)) They brought up the
comparison. Now what was that about "excuse" and "claim"?
The only reason I can think that you would see no similarity between the
two run-outs, is to 'convict' Brendon Julian (or should I say, "an
Australian player"?) of so-called wrong-doing.
They *were* similar, but in Campbell's case he slipped and fell - no fault
of his, but no fault of Julian's either. As he felt contact to his back,
Julian's arms raised; to brace himself for further contact or to balance
himself or whatever - none of which had no bearing at all on Campbell's
fall. Seeing the batsman hit the deck with the bowler in front of him,
arms out to his side, is what made the whole thing *look* 1000 times worse
than it actually was; even I had BJ condemned before examining it.
Both bowlers had the same intention - to field ball - but saw a fieldsman
in a better position, so pulled out. When they found themselves out of
the action, the first bowler chose to stop, but continued walking in a
straight line. He walked into the batsman's path. The second stopped,
then, realising he'd interfere with the fielding had he continued in a
straight line, sidled off the pitch (with I must add arms tucked in by his
side). He too got himself into the batsman's path.
They were both in the batsman's way and on the opposite side of the pitch
to where they started. No similarity? Come on, be realistic.
What is in contention is whether or not either bowler *meant* to get in the
batsman's way. No-one is accusing the WI bowler of any intent and I'm
certainly not about to start! But for Julian, it looks like some people
will forever - despite evidence to the contrary and despite his own word -
believe him to be a cheating, lying scum-bag... 'Tough cheddar' for him
too I guess. Only he knows the truth (well he told us, but only I seemed
to believe him!) and he'll live with his own conscience.
No matter which side of the fence you're on here - whether you think Julian
is guilty of obstruction or whether you think he had no intention of getting
in his way - only one thing is absolutely clear... That is, that is there
is *doubt* either way. So what's wrong with those old adages "innocent
'til proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt"?? For some reason, for
some people, they obviously don't apply. :-(
- Cheers,
MAC the Vic!
(who had BJ cleared a week ago and is sick and tired of the argument!)
Dear Law makers, Get that word "willingly" outta that Law and we'd have a
fair result - with no dispute, no debate, no character assasination -
every time one of these instances arises. Please??
Btw Kurt, as for your previous request, I haven't had the inclination to
pour through video's. It seems odd to set about finding 'evidence of good
character' for someone you believe has done nothing wrong anyway. A little
voice said "don't do it". So, I'm not going too; there is no need too;
sorry mate.
Marie-Anne
> In article <7gltag$rod$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
(snippety snip)
> the crowd intervened got away with it. In fact it was the umpire at
> fault.
Says whom???????
> Now, I see why you have not condemmed Julian even though you've
> basically admitted that the evidence whilst not conclusive is pretty damning.
-------------------------------
Thank you Kurt! You've just backed-up what I've said elsewhere; there is
doubt. Yet you have been willing to say that Julian "wilfully" obstructed
the batsman and even accuse the umpire of getting it wrong! Mate, I hope
you never get Jury Duty! With evidence which is "not conclusive" you have
one fair option to take - you give the benefit of the doubt...
Or, aren't *Australian* cricketers entitled to that??
> Again, There was no parallel involved you're just searching for an excuse.
> Bevan's contact was minimal. He basically ran around the bowler.
Yes, he wore spikes, Campbell didn't.
> I accept
> that the line by which etiquette demands that a captain withdraw his appeal
> is somewhat grey but suffice to say I though the Bevan run-out was clearly
> below the line, while the Campbell run-out was clearly above it.
>
> Does that mean I believe in double standards?
(snip)
:-)
Kurt
Marie-Anne <mco...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Kurt <ktoo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in <7gmrjt$4nn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
> > In article <7gltag$rod$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
> (snippety snip)
> > the crowd intervened got away with it. In fact it was the umpire at
> > fault.
>
> Says whom???????
>
OK. I think if you re-read my posting you will see that you have
mis-interpreted my intentions:
I said:
"Well, I believe I now understand your point, which seems to be there should
be no ettiquette, just "win at all costs". Again, I suspect that this is a
cultural attribute prevalent in Australia (and many other countries).
Of course, once you accept this then Julian really did no wrong EVEN IF
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
his intention was deliberate. He merely took a calculated risk and until
the crowd intervened got away with it. In fact it was the umpire at
fault. Now, I see why you have not condemmed Julian even though you've
basically admitted that the evidence whilst not conclusive is pretty damning."
Note the "ONCE you accept" the "win at all costs". I was trying to make the
point that if the end result is the only thing that matters then Julian
did absolutely nothing wrong. Now, I do NOT accept that the end result is all
that matters and I DO believe that Julian's obstruction was deliberate
(and IMO quite blatant).
> > Now, I see why you have not condemmed Julian even though you've
> > basically admitted that the evidence whilst not conclusive is pretty
damning.
> -------------------------------
>
> Thank you Kurt! You've just backed-up what I've said elsewhere; there is
> doubt. Yet you have been willing to say that Julian "wilfully" obstructed
> the batsman and even accuse the umpire of getting it wrong! Mate, I hope
> you never get Jury Duty! With evidence which is "not conclusive" you have
> one fair option to take - you give the benefit of the doubt...
> Or, aren't *Australian* cricketers entitled to that??
>
Well, I was trying to paraphrase Will's words when I used the terms "whilst
not conclusive is pretty damning."
Still, that is pretty much my opinion, also. I grant you THAT THERE IS DOUBT.
Of course there is! When it comes to intent there ALWAYS is. Only a completely
biased person (and I do not believe that I fall into that category) would tell
you otherwise. Without entering in to a philosophical debate, as a scientist,
I will say that nothing is absolute, there is always doubt. This is even more
so when trying to determine intent.
However, just because there will always be some doubt does not mean that we
cannot make our own opinions as to what is LIKELY to have occured. I am only
expressing my opinion as to Julian's intention. You, however, seem intent on
hiding behind the "benefit of the doubt" rock. Look at the evidence, forget
what anyone said, and tell me if you believe that Julian's actions were not
deliberate. If you then say you think his actions were deliberate but there
is some doubt, then I will agree with you. If you say that you think his
actions were most likely not deliberate but you have some doubt, then I will
respectfully beg to differ. However, if you claim that his actions were
absolutely, beyond any doubt, NOT deliberate than I would regretfully have to
assume that you are an irrational person too emotionally attached to the main
characters in this drama to make an accurate assesment.
> > Again, There was no parallel involved you're just searching for an excuse.
> > Bevan's contact was minimal. He basically ran around the bowler.
>
> Yes, he wore spikes, Campbell didn't.
>
Irrelevant. If Julians actions were deliberate then Campbell should have been
adjudged not-out and (IMO) Julian should be punished. If his actions were
not deliberate then the umpire has no choice but to rule the batsman out
provided the fielding captain is unwilling to follow the spirit of the game.
You see it really does not matter a hoot if Campbell wore spikes any more
than if he was wearing a box. This argument is a red-herring.
Oh, and BTW the jury-duty dig is uncalled for. Most legal systems call for
"beyond reasonable doubt" or something similar. I know many people for whom
that means that if there is a 10% or less chance that the accused is guilty,
then that satisfies the "reasonable doubt" clause. NOT that I agree with that
sentiment. Regardless, if we wish to draw parallels to legal systems, then I
would say the much more appropriate parallel would be a civil trial, in which
an accused is found guilty simply if it is "more likely" that he commited the
action for which he is accused. I can say, without hesitation, that from my
analysis of the evidence that it is "more likely" that Julian's actions were
deliberate than they were uninententional. I think most neutrals who have
viewed the tape would probably concur.
I know we are not making much progress on this thread. I do not see how any
argument can rebuff the evidence on tape. I would simply like to see an
admission from some Australian posters that Julians actions LOOKED as if
they were intentional, and that furthermore Steve Waugh should have recalled
the batsman REGARDLESS of Julian's intent. Instead I have only seen excuses
being made for the players. Well to be fair, Mad Hamish has gone down as
saying that he believes that Julian intended his obstruction, and he has
always been to my eyes the most unbiased of posters, with the notable
exception of posts regarding one Mathew Hayden. But then Mad Hamish is by
Australian standards doubtless, well ... er, Mad.
Ron Knight
|
|Dear Law makers, Get that word "willingly" outta that Law and we'd have a
|fair result - with no dispute, no debate, no character assasination -
|every time one of these instances arises. Please??
|
Well, I can't speak for the Law makers, but I'll stick my own opinion
in here. No Law and no alteration of the Law can ensure fairness
that will satisfy everyone in every instance that can occur. That
is true of cricket Law and civil law as well. That is why the
civil law adage is that "Tough cases make bad laws". It is better
for the law to lay down clear principles that apply across the
board and that everybody can understand than to try to get into
the business of covering every single possibility. This is not
simply because complicated law is bad law, resulting in nobody
understanding the law at all and nobody but lawyers benefitting.
It is also because in the end the quest for absolute fairness
is futile: you will never attain it and even if in some
unimaginable hypothesis you do achieve a Law that is perfectly
fair you will never get everybody to accept that it is perfectly
fair.
I will not discourse here on the Law of Unintended Consequences,
but it seems clear from observation of the recent evolution of
the one-day game that every time you make a rule change to bring
about an intended result you get about four unintended results,
some of which may be worse than the situation you tried to
correct in the first place. Personally I think that the current
cricket Law on Batsman/Fieldsman collisions is about as good as
you are going to get without changing the nature of cricket.
|Dear Law makers, Get that word "willingly" outta that Law and we'd have a
|fair result - with no dispute, no debate, no character assasination -
|every time one of these instances arises. Please??
Another way of achieving the same result without revision the Laws
would be for people to understand that a passing instance of
unfairness in what is supposed to be a pastime is not the worst
thing in the world. Cricketers have understood that for centuries:
why is it now so wrong?
The current Law of Cricket on Batsman/Fieldsmen collisions is as
follows:
Law 37: If a Batsman "wilfully" obstructs a Fieldsman he is out,
Obstructing the Field. (The benefit of the doubt as to wilfullness
goes to the Batsman.)
Law 42.7: If a Fieldsman "wilfully" obstructs a Batsman in
running, the Umpire calls and signals "dead ball" and scores
the run as though it were completed. (The benefit of the doubt
as to wilfullness goes to the Fieldsman.)
Otherwise, accidental collisions between Batsmen and Fieldsmen--
and those in which there is doubt about wilfullness--do not
concern the Laws. They are treated as any other accident that
may occur in a sporting event, as unlucky incidents to be
accepted as part of the game.
Remember that in different instances accidental collisions
might benefit the batting side or the fielding side. That
all the most celebrated recent instances benefitted the
batting side should not blind us to this fact. Changing the
Laws to award runs to the Batsman in accidental collisions
effectively deprives the fielding side of the right to field
the ball.
And a change in the Laws must favor one side or the other.
Removing "wilfully" or otherwise altering the current Law
changes the legal situation from the current one in which
all players have the right to pursue their goals and accept
the consequences to one in which one side has the right of
way and the other must yield. Right now the clamor is for
the Fieldsmen to yield the right of way to the Batsmen. I
must wonder if the most recent incidents had involved
accidental obstruction by Batsmen of Fieldsmen attempting
to field the ball whether the clamor on r.s.c. would be to
force the Batsmen to give the right of way to the Fieldsman.
On what basis do we favor one over the other, either way?
Let changes be made in the Laws because of long-term observations
of the effect of the current Law, not because of emotional
reaction to one or two "unfair" incidents.
Now when I say that clarity and simplicity in the law (civil
or cricket) are to be preferred, even if on occasion the
result is unfair, this may sound quite hard-hearted to the
victim of an unfairness who has received the full benefit
of a fair law that has in his own case resulted in an
unfairness. The condition of a Batsman "unfairly" given
out according to the Law is not to be compared of course
to the condition of an innocent man "unfairly" sentenced
according to the Law, but in both cases we have safety
valves. In civil law we have the pardoning power of
governmental executives to see that obvious injustices are
overturned.
In Cricket, we have Law 42.1 in general ("The Captains are
responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted
within the spirit of the game as well as within the Laws.")
and Law 27.7 in particular (Withdrawal of an Appeal). If
an application of the Laws of Cricket causes a manifestly
unfair result, it is the *responsibility* of a Captain
under Law 42.1 to rectify that unfairness. It is not
a gesture of good sportsmanship and it is not simply a
nice bit of icing on the cake. It is the Captain's *duty*,
required by the Laws.
Our problem arises not because of a deficiency in the Laws
but because we have Captains nowadays who ignore their
duty in this regard and national boards who keep appointing
them anyway. (Spare me the history lesson: yes, we have
always had such Captains and such boards. But I don't think
we have had such universal acceptance of them and such a
lack of any question about them as we have today.) If this
is the attitude in which Cricket is going to be played today,
it is no longer Cricket, and you can change the Laws all you
like, it is never going to be Cricket again.
We have seen too many postings to this newsboard to the effect
that Adams and the other Captains involved in these recent
had no obligation to recall the run-out Batsmen because the
Batsmen were lawfully run out. But Law 42.1 clearly states
that the obligations of the Captain go beyond the letter of
the Laws. This does not mean that the Captain is always
obliged to withdraw an appeal at any time that a Batsman
is run out through accidental interference. It may be his
honest conclusion that the Batsman would have been run out
anyway, and in that case he is entitled to let the appeal
stand. It is quite possible that this argument can be offered
in extenuation of many or most of the Captains who have not
attempted to withdraw the appeals in the most recent incidents.
Nevertheless, I tender my opinion that the perception exists
that Captains no longer care about Law 42.1, and that this is
the rock-bottom reason that we want to be constantly fiddling
with the Laws, to change the definition of a throw so we don't
have to worry with Murali anymore, to change the definition of
Hit Wicket so Waugh was out, to change the definition of
obstruction so nobody is ever run out. You can change all you
want, but you are not going to stop the arguments and the
incidents until Captains understand their duties and Players
and spectators understand the difference between a game and
a war. And if you do create this understanding you are not
going to need to change the rules.
Take it easy,
--
Ron Knight (r...@med.unc.edu)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
I can't speak for UNC-CH, and UNC-CH can't speak for me.
It's better for both of us.
Zito Skeete
> > Again, There was no parallel involved you're just searching for an
> excuse.
> > Bevan's contact was minimal. He basically ran around the bowler.
>
> Yes, he wore spikes, Campbell didn't.
>
Since when anyone is asked to play with spiked boots? I don't rememeber
ever seeing Viv Richards wearing on...hmm, or even Lara.
Cheers
Zito.
Marie-Anne
> In article <7gnkue$be4$1...@trst.cca.vu.nl>,
> Marie-Anne <mco...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Kurt <ktoo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in <7gmrjt$4nn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
> > > In article <7gltag$rod$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>,
> > (snippety snip)
> > > the crowd intervened got away with it. In fact it was the umpire at
> > > fault.
> >
> > Says whom???????
>
> OK. I think if you re-read my posting you will see that you have
> mis-interpreted my intentions:
>
> I said:
Kurt, I sincerely apologise if I mis-interpreted you. But I deliberately
snipped the "ettiquette" stuff, coz I never raised it or addressed it.
Though it's going to make this another long post, I'll leave it in this
time... and won't do any snipping at all.
> "Well, I believe I now understand your point, which seems to be there should
> be no ettiquette, just "win at all costs". Again, I suspect that this is a
> cultural attribute prevalent in Australia (and many other countries).
> Of course, once you accept this then Julian really did no wrong EVEN IF
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> his intention was deliberate. He merely took a calculated risk and until
> the crowd intervened got away with it. In fact it was the umpire at
> fault. Now, I see why you have not condemmed Julian even though you've
> basically admitted that the evidence whilst not conclusive is pretty damning."
>
> Note the "ONCE you accept" the "win at all costs". I was trying to make the
> point that if the end result is the only thing that matters then Julian
> did absolutely nothing wrong. Now, I do NOT accept that the end result is all
> that matters and I DO believe that Julian's obstruction was deliberate
> (and IMO quite blatant).
I can't speak for any other Australian's - let alone the person you were
addressing here - but I certainly do not believe in winning at all costs.
I used to follow - week in, week out, training sessions, the lot! - a
recently defunct football team (my dearly beloved Fitzroy F.C.) which won
it's last title in 1944! That was loooong before I was thought of btw.
Sport is about a lot of things - winning and losing is just one part of it.
The contest, the human endeavour, the courage, the grace and/or style of
the individuals, the general conduct of the players/teams... are all as
important to me. Winning means a lot, but it is *not* everything as far
as I'm concerned. Losing with honour (the one thing my footy team excelled
at!) has always been more acceptable to me than winning by deceit.
Now once you accept that, you'll realise that I would not be here
repetatively covering this subject if I thought this guy had done the wrong
thing. I don't believe Julian's obstruction was deliberate and as he isn't
here to defend his reputation (is he? BJ where are you??????), then I feel
obliged to 'stick up' for him. Maybe that's more of an Australian trait
than the one you assume.
> > > Now, I see why you have not condemmed Julian even though you've
> > > basically admitted that the evidence whilst not conclusive is pretty
> damning.
> > -------------------------------
> >
> > Thank you Kurt! You've just backed-up what I've said elsewhere; there is
> > doubt. Yet you have been willing to say that Julian "wilfully" obstructed
> > the batsman and even accuse the umpire of getting it wrong! Mate, I hope
> > you never get Jury Duty! With evidence which is "not conclusive" you have
> > one fair option to take - you give the benefit of the doubt...
> > Or, aren't *Australian* cricketers entitled to that??
>
> Well, I was trying to paraphrase Will's words when I used the terms "whilst
> not conclusive is pretty damning."
>
> Still, that is pretty much my opinion, also. I grant you THAT THERE IS DOUBT.
> Of course there is! When it comes to intent there ALWAYS is. Only a completely
> biased person (and I do not believe that I fall into that category) would tell
> you otherwise. Without entering in to a philosophical debate, as a scientist,
> I will say that nothing is absolute, there is always doubt. This is even more
> so when trying to determine intent.
>
> However, just because there will always be some doubt does not mean that we
> cannot make our own opinions as to what is LIKELY to have occured. I am only
> expressing my opinion as to Julian's intention.
And you are entitled to your opinion...
> You, however, seem intent on
> hiding behind the "benefit of the doubt" rock.
Really? I have provided my account of the 'incident' on this ng in minute
detail and addressed particular points over and over again. The point is
that, no matter what your opinion, there *is* doubt. Only Brendon Julian
can be certain of what his intentions were. Yet many condemning him seem
to have somehow avoided all possibility of doubt and I guess it's that (as
well as my belief that he's innocent!) which has my 'BJ Defence Witness'
hat on.
I restate that I do not believe he did anything wrong, but I acknowledge
that there is some doubt. Those who believe he was in the wrong, must also
acknowledge doubt. And I restate that the benefit of that doubt surely has
to go towards the guy accused of wrong-doing in this unfortunate 'incident'.
> Look at the evidence, forget
> what anyone said, and tell me if you believe that Julian's actions were not
> deliberate.
Again??? Okay, I repeat...
I have examined this 'incident' dozens of times - from all the angles
provided by the Fox Sports - at normal speed, slow-mo, freeze frame and I
believe that Julian did not *deliberately* impede the batsman.
> If you then say you think his actions were deliberate but there
> is some doubt, then I will agree with you.
Can I take it that this is now your view? If so, I disagree but I accept
your opinion. Can we call a truce on this now, please??? :-)
> If you say that you think his
> actions were most likely not deliberate but you have some doubt, then I will
> respectfully beg to differ.
Done! Many times... done to the point of absolute repetition!
> However, if you claim that his actions were
> absolutely, beyond any doubt, NOT deliberate than I would regretfully have to
> assume that you are an irrational person too emotionally attached to the main
> characters in this drama to make an accurate assesment.
Just as any suggestion from Julian's detractor's that there is no doubt,
is irrational. I don't deny anyone an opinion, but to condemn someone
with flimsy evidence is just *not on* imo.
> > > Again, There was no parallel involved you're just searching for an excuse.
> > > Bevan's contact was minimal. He basically ran around the bowler.
> >
> > Yes, he wore spikes, Campbell didn't.
> >
> Irrelevant. If Julians actions were deliberate then Campbell should have been
> adjudged not-out and (IMO) Julian should be punished.
If the obstuction was deliberate, then he was certainly not not. The Laws
of the game say so...
> If his actions were
> not deliberate then the umpire has no choice but to rule the batsman out
That's right. That's what he did...
> provided the fielding captain is unwilling to follow the spirit of the game.
?????? If (as I, and the Umpire obviously, believe) his actions were not
deliberate, then this is just an unfortunate part of the game. If you want
to argue that "in the spirit of the game" the WI batsman should have been
recalled, because he was unintentionally obstructed, that's fine. But why
aren't you arguing the same for the Aust batsman, who was unintentionally
obstructed? If you are going to be critical of one captain, be critical
of both.
For the record, I believe that "ettiquette" comes into play when, for
example, a batsman is given out caught when the fieldsman *knows* he hasn't
taken the catch. In that instance, "the spirit of the game" demands the
batsman's recall. If the fieldsman isn't sure of a clean catch, ettiquette
demands he tell the Umpire so, and leaves it to his judgement; or the third
Ump's replays. In instances where a poor Law is *exploited* to gain unfair
advantage - ie that disgraceful underarm bowling incident - that is plain
bad sportsmanship; the Aust capt there was definately, unquestionably
guilty of that! :-((
When a member of the fielding team unwittingly gets in a batsman's way,
it's bad luck... that's all. SWaugh (who has said he didn't see the
'incident') spoke to the Umpire immediately after the run-out as if to
double-check his player's actions were okay. So unless you expect him to
*not* take the word of his player *and* to reject the Umpire's decision,
he had to believe it was unintentional.
> You see it really does not matter a hoot if Campbell wore spikes any more
> than if he was wearing a box. This argument is a red-herring.
Red-herring or not, some people have seen the final frame of the TV replays
- batsman on ground, bowler in front of him with arms out - pieced together
their own *assumptions* from there and convicted Julian on that...
Campbell's slip and fall *is* irrelevant to the question of whether or not
the bowler was in his way on purpose, but it certainly made the whole thing
*look* a whole lot worse than it really was. If he had kept his footing
and pushed past the bowler (as Bevan did earlier) do you honestly think
there would be well over 100 posts to this ng on the subject???
> Oh, and BTW the jury-duty dig is uncalled for. Most legal systems call for
> "beyond reasonable doubt" or something similar. I know many people for whom
> that means that if there is a 10% or less chance that the accused is guilty,
> then that satisfies the "reasonable doubt" clause. NOT that I agree with that
> sentiment. Regardless, if we wish to draw parallels to legal systems, then I
> would say the much more appropriate parallel would be a civil trial, in which
> an accused is found guilty simply if it is "more likely" that he commited the
> action for which he is accused. I can say, without hesitation, that from my
> analysis of the evidence that it is "more likely" that Julian's actions were
> deliberate than they were uninententional. I think most neutrals who have
> viewed the tape would probably concur.
Fair enough. I deny no-one's right to an opinion.
> I know we are not making much progress on this thread. I do not see how any
> argument can rebuff the evidence on tape. I would simply like to see an
> admission from some Australian posters that Julians actions LOOKED as if
> they were intentional,
From my very first post on this subject I've said this!
My instant reaction to this was "Oh no, not again! Rotten luck; but it's
one of those things" (or words to that effect).
Then I saw those first couple of TV replays and well, if I was one to pass
judgement without checking the facts, then I'd have been agreeing with you.
Seeing the batsman falling with the bowler in front of him, arms out, gives
the appearance of a football-style shepherd. I *assumed* they'd collided.
Then we were shown a tight head-on shot, showing the bowler looking up, as
he pulls up. With only the bowler and batsman in shot, I *assumed* it was
the batsman he'd looked at, making his every action appear intentional.
Yes those replays *looked* dreadful...
It's not until we're shown further replays, that I got any awareness of
where the fieldsman swoops in from... That makes a huge difference, as
it clarifies where Julian actually looks (at Bevan, not the batsman), why
he pulls up out of the fielding (Bevan has a straight line to the stumps),
and why he moves off the pitch sideways (so as not to interfere with the
fielding). Noticing the batsman slip and tumble into the bowler also
explains why his arms are out as they make contact, when he has moved
across with his arms tucked into his side. It was a realistic run-out
chance for the bowler moving to his stronger left side, but when he found
a team-mate in a better position, he found himself stranded on the wrong
side of the pitch, and tried to get off it as best he could under the
circumstances. Not dreadful at all, just one of those unfortunate things
we all wish never happened.
The one doubt over any of this is that he *may* have seen the batsman out
of the corner of his eye as he looked up... It is highly improbable given
the angle of his head, looking straight towards the fieldsman, and where
the batsman is. But it's not impossible. People who believe he got in the
way deliberately, obviously think he *did* see the batsman - but there is
no way they can claim to be sure... It's a huge "if" to warrant conviction.
Julian has since said he did not see the batsman and given the evidence
(plus his clean record, and reputation on and off the field over 10 years),
I accept that.
I guess what all this tells me, is that I should trust my initial reactions,
rather than form opinions based on a couple of TV replays. I'm not suprised
that some commentator's (Keith Stackpole for one) refuse to look at repays
at all. In this instance they changed my opinion from "One of those things"
to "What have you done?!!!!". Fortunately I was recording at the time so
was able to examine it frame by frame later; and my initial response was
right (imo of course). Even more fortunate was the Umpire had a view of
the whole scene, rather than the limited view we had at home!
> and that furthermore Steve Waugh should have recalled
> the batsman REGARDLESS of Julian's intent.
So then, should Adams have recalled Bevan earlier in the day...
> Instead I have only seen excuses
> being made for the players. Well to be fair, Mad Hamish has gone down as
> saying that he believes that Julian intended his obstruction, and he has
> always been to my eyes the most unbiased of posters, with the notable
.. While Mic Cullen - an anti-Julian poster is ever there was one! -
doesn't think it was deliberate. The varied opinions only serve to
demonstrate the doubt over what Julian's intentions might or might not
have been. Hamish has at least stated *why* he thinks it was intentional,
while many others seem to have taken the view that "it *looked* bad, so
it *had* to be deliberate..." So, though I disagree with Hamish, his
view point has merit and I respect his opinion.
Kurt, now that you have acknowledged doubt, I accept your opinion (though
disagree with it) too. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. :-)
Is there any cricket being played at the moment??????
- Cheers,
MAC the Vic!
(for the last time...)
Kurt
Marie-Anne <mco...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
Marie Anne,
I'm going to snip some of this discussion as these posts are
getting quite long.
>
> I can't speak for any other Australian's - let alone the person you were
> addressing here - but I certainly do not believe in winning at all costs.
> I used to follow - week in, week out, training sessions, the lot! - a
> recently defunct football team (my dearly beloved Fitzroy F.C.) which won
> it's last title in 1944! That was loooong before I was thought of btw.
>
> Sport is about a lot of things - winning and losing is just one part of it.
> The contest, the human endeavour, the courage, the grace and/or style of
> the individuals, the general conduct of the players/teams... are all as
> important to me. Winning means a lot, but it is *not* everything as far
> as I'm concerned. Losing with honour (the one thing my footy team excelled
> at!) has always been more acceptable to me than winning by deceit.
>
> Now once you accept that, you'll realise that I would not be here
> repetatively covering this subject if I thought this guy had done the wrong
I do accept this, if I suggested otherwise then I do apologize.
> thing. I don't believe Julian's obstruction was deliberate and as he isn't
> here to defend his reputation (is he? BJ where are you??????), then I feel
> obliged to 'stick up' for him. Maybe that's more of an Australian trait
> than the one you assume.
>
>
> > You, however, seem intent on
> > hiding behind the "benefit of the doubt" rock.
>
> Really? I have provided my account of the 'incident' on this ng in minute
> detail and addressed particular points over and over again. The point is
> that, no matter what your opinion, there *is* doubt. Only Brendon Julian
> can be certain of what his intentions were. Yet many condemning him seem
> to have somehow avoided all possibility of doubt and I guess it's that (as
> well as my belief that he's innocent!) which has my 'BJ Defence Witness'
> hat on.
>
Well, I guess we both agree that there is doubt. I would even say that this
doubt is more than some almost irrelevant quantity.
> I restate that I do not believe he did anything wrong, but I acknowledge
> that there is some doubt. Those who believe he was in the wrong, must also
> acknowledge doubt. And I restate that the benefit of that doubt surely has
> to go towards the guy accused of wrong-doing in this unfortunate 'incident'.
>
On rethinking the whole incident I backed off my initial call for some
punishment of Julian (though I still think that some action should be
taken against the Barbados ground). The only reason I backed off this
was because I recognized there was indeed doubt as to Julian's intentions.
> > If you then say you think his actions were deliberate but there
> > is some doubt, then I will agree with you.
>
> Can I take it that this is now your view? If so, I disagree but I accept
> your opinion. Can we call a truce on this now, please??? :-)
>
Indeed, I will be delighted to do so, although I do not think we were
ever at war.
> > If you say that you think his
> > actions were most likely not deliberate but you have some doubt, then I will
> > respectfully beg to differ.
>
> Done! Many times... done to the point of absolute repetition!
>
Yup, I still have my strong suspicions but going over mi\y interpretation
again will serve little benefit.
> > However, if you claim that his actions were
> > absolutely, beyond any doubt, NOT deliberate than I would regretfully have
to
> > assume that you are an irrational person too emotionally attached to the
main
> > characters in this drama to make an accurate assesment.
>
> Just as any suggestion from Julian's detractor's that there is no doubt,
> is irrational. I don't deny anyone an opinion, but to condemn someone
> with flimsy evidence is just *not on* imo.
>
Agreed, entirely!
>
> > provided the fielding captain is unwilling to follow the spirit of the game.
>
> ?????? If (as I, and the Umpire obviously, believe) his actions were not
> deliberate, then this is just an unfortunate part of the game. If you want
> to argue that "in the spirit of the game" the WI batsman should have been
> recalled, because he was unintentionally obstructed, that's fine. But why
> aren't you arguing the same for the Aust batsman, who was unintentionally
> obstructed? If you are going to be critical of one captain, be critical
> of both.
>
Because I do not believe the incident with the Australian batsman (Bevan)
crossed ove rthe admittedlt grey line where the fielding captain is expected
to withdraw his appeal. In about half of all run-outs the batsman has had
to round the bowler to some extent thereby increasing his chances that he
will come up short. Bevan's run-out was entirely unremarkable and would
never have been mentioned had the Campbell incident not occured in the same
match.
>
> > You see it really does not matter a hoot if Campbell wore spikes any more
> > than if he was wearing a box. This argument is a red-herring.
>
> Red-herring or not, some people have seen the final frame of the TV replays
> - batsman on ground, bowler in front of him with arms out - pieced together
> their own *assumptions* from there and convicted Julian on that...
> Campbell's slip and fall *is* irrelevant to the question of whether or not
> the bowler was in his way on purpose, but it certainly made the whole thing
> *look* a whole lot worse than it really was. If he had kept his footing
> and pushed past the bowler (as Bevan did earlier) do you honestly think
> there would be well over 100 posts to this ng on the subject???
>
Well no, if the contact was minimal. However given that Bevan feigned moving
to his right before jagging sharply to his left and then squaring his
shoulders, Campbell had no chance of avoiding Julian. The actions of the
Julian serve to distinguish the Campbell incident as being markedly different
than the Bevan run-out. It would have made no difference whether Campbell had
spikes, he would not have been able to avoid the obstruction (be it
intentional or not) that Julian created.
> > and that furthermore Steve Waugh should have recalled
> > the batsman REGARDLESS of Julian's intent.
>
> So then, should Adams have recalled Bevan earlier in the day...
>
Again, the impediment to Bevan's progress was normal when the ball is
played near the bowler. The impediment to Campbell was most abnormal.
So No, I do not think that Adams should have recalled Bevan. As I've
said a couple of times the line is not clear, but the 2 incidents to
my viewpoint, fall squarely on opposing sides of that line.
> .. While Mic Cullen - an anti-Julian poster is ever there was one! -
> doesn't think it was deliberate. The varied opinions only serve to
> demonstrate the doubt over what Julian's intentions might or might not
> have been. Hamish has at least stated *why* he thinks it was intentional,
> while many others seem to have taken the view that "it *looked* bad, so
> it *had* to be deliberate..." So, though I disagree with Hamish, his
> view point has merit and I respect his opinion.
>
> Kurt, now that you have acknowledged doubt, I accept your opinion (though
> disagree with it) too. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. :-)
>
Fair enough.
I know we've been discussing Julian's actions and his intents and I think
we've explored them sufficiently. I am more than happy to consider the subject
closed.
However, before we get off the thread entirely I would like to raise one
more issue. Did the umpires make the correct decision? I think we have both
accepted that there had to be some doubt as to Julians intentions. Should
the benefit of the doubt have gone to the batsman? I can see how the usual
benefit of the doubt might not apply in these cases, but it obviously will
depend on how the relevant law is phrased.
> Is there any cricket being played at the moment??????
>
Nah, everyone's too busy gearing up for the 3-ring circus going on in
good ole Blighty, at the moment.
> - Cheers,
> MAC the Vic!
> (for the last time...)
>
Cheers, indeed,
Ron Knight
|
|However, before we get off the thread entirely I would like to raise one
|more issue. Did the umpires make the correct decision? I think we have both
|accepted that there had to be some doubt as to Julians intentions. Should
|the benefit of the doubt have gone to the batsman? I can see how the usual
|benefit of the doubt might not apply in these cases, but it obviously will
|depend on how the relevant law is phrased.
|
that there was nothing in the Laws of Cricket stating that as a general
rule the benefit of the doubt goes to the Batsman, and he was drawn and
quartered here for his ignorance. In fact, he was correct.
Yes, I know what Law 27.4 says. It says that when there is an appeal
against the Batsman and the Umpires consult and they are still
unable to eliminate all doubt the Batsman gets the benefit of the
doubt. This is an application of the general principle to a
specific case--a correct application--, but the general principle
does not say that the Batsman always gets the benefit of the
doubt.
The general principle is not actually stated in the Laws of Cricket--
perhaps in the 2000 Code it will be--, but a better indication of
the general principle is given in Law 3.12, which says that all
disputes shall be determined by the Umpires and when they disagree
the actual state of affairs shall continue.
Neither Law gives the entire general principle because neither
Law discusses all cases of doubt. One concerns doubt remaining
after consultation of the Umpires, and the other concerns
disagreement of the Umpires, both special cases of the general
condition, which is that there is doubt. Law 27.4 also gives
a specific result (doubt is in favor of the Batsman) rather
than the general result given in Law 3.12 (the actual state of
affairs shall continue).
The general principle with which both Law 27.4 and Law 3.12 are
consistent, which is not specifically given in the Laws but
is understood by all well-trained Umpires, is that when there
is doubt the actual state of things continues without
intervention by the Umpires.
In particular, when there is doubt about an appeal against a
Batsman, the actual state of things, which is that the Batsman
was not out, continues--meaning that the Batsman still is not
out.
If the Umpires cannot agree on whether to continue play when
conditions of ground, weather or light are iffy, the actual state of
things--that the Players are playing--continues, and the Players
continue to play.
If the Umpires cannot agree on whether to resume play during
an interruption, the actual state of things--that the Players
are not playing--continues, and the Players continue not to
play.
If the Umpire at the Bowler's end is not sure whether a boundary
has been scored or not, the actual state of things continues,
and the ball is still considered to be in play and on the field.
If the Umpires are not sure that a Fieldsman wilfully interfered
with a Batsman in running the actual state of things continues,
the ball is still in play, and the Batsman can be run out.
Sometimes the benefit of the doubt goes against the Batsman and
sometimes it favors him. There is no Law saying that the Batsman
always gets the benefit of the doubt. Application of the general
rule to the specific matter of appeals against the Batsman does
result in the Batsman's getting the benefit of the doubt in
appeals for dismissal, but not in all cases that can happen on
the cricket field.
In cases where wilful conduct on the part of a Fieldsman is required
for the invocation of a penalty against the fielding side, as in
Law 42.7, it is the fielding side that gets the benefit of the
doubt.
If a Batsman in running collides with a Fieldsman the Umpire would
consider whether either Player wilfully interfered with the other.
If he considers that the Batsman wilfully interfered with the
Fieldsman, without doubt, he shall upon appeal give the Batsman
out, Obstructing the Field. If he considers that the Fieldsman
wilfully interfered with the Batsman, without doubt, he shall
intervene by calling and signalling "Dead Ball" and shall award
the run being attempted. If he considers that there was no
wilful interference, beyond doubt, by either Player, the
existing state of affairs shall continue, which is that the ball
is in play and the Batsman needs to make good his ground or be
run out.
Did the Umpires make the correct decision? The only ways they
could not have made the correct decision would have been if they
were convinced, without doubt, that the Fieldsman interfered
wilfully with the Batsman and did not intervene under Law 42.7,
or if they were convinced, without doubt, that the Batsman
interfered with the Fieldsman and then gave him not out when
appealed to. If in both cases the Umpires were either sure
that the interference was not wilful or doubtful on the point,
their actions were in accordance with the Laws of Cricket,
which treat unfortunate accidental collisions as one of those
unlucky things that people accept as part of a sporting event
if they have any true appreciation of what a sporting event
is.
I doubt seriously that either Umpire would have been certain that
the Fieldsman wilfully interfered and then not intervened.
Considering that intervening under Law 42.7 would have been
the ecstatically popular thing to do, I think we can safely
assume that the Umpires acted in accordance with the Laws.
If they had been certain that the interference was wilful
they would have intervened.
There is no case for focusing on the Umpires here. They
were within the Laws. The responsibility for going beyond
the Laws to ensure fairness lies with the Captain (Law 42.1).
That is a different question, and not the one you asked,
so I will end now.
Marie-Anne
> In article <7gsh9l$ij4$1...@trst.cca.vu.nl>,
> Marie-Anne <mco...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Marie Anne,
>
> I'm going to snip some of this discussion as these posts are
> getting quite long.
Cool Kurt! I will too.
(snip)
> > Now once you accept that, you'll realise that I would not be here
> > repetatively covering this subject if I thought this guy had done the wrong
>
> I do accept this, if I suggested otherwise then I do apologize.
No offence *at all* taken here. :-)
(snip)
> > > If you then say you think his actions were deliberate but there
> > > is some doubt, then I will agree with you.
> >
> > Can I take it that this is now your view? If so, I disagree but I accept
> > your opinion. Can we call a truce on this now, please??? :-)
>
> Indeed, I will be delighted to do so, although I do not think we were
> ever at war.
LOL No... Just a figure of speech. :-))
(snip)
> Because I do not believe the incident with the Australian batsman (Bevan)
> crossed ove rthe admittedlt grey line where the fielding captain is expected
> to withdraw his appeal. In about half of all run-outs the batsman has had
> to round the bowler to some extent thereby increasing his chances that he
> will come up short.
Ron Knight (in his most informative post, which I sincerely thank him for)
has addressed the Laws relating to both obstruction and the responsibility
of captains' on the field - it's not hard to feel his sadness for the game
as you read it...
My views have been formed purely from watching cricket - I don't umpire,
or play the game - and making *my* best attempts to interpret the Laws
(not always succesfully, I might add!). So I can fully understand your
definition of what is fair play, and duly respect that.
My interpretation is that IF the batsman in this situation was, in all
probability, going to make his ground without being obstructed, then
withdrawing the appeal would be the only fair thing to do. In that case,
the likely result of the play has been altered, albiet unwittingly, by the
fielding team. But IF the *likely* outcome was that the batsman would have
been run out, even without interference, then the letter of the Law ought
to stand... (regardless of my opinion of that particular Law).
So my very humble opinion is that neither captain acted in an unsporting
manner in Barbados, by allowing the decisions to stand (though they would
have received warm applause for a noble gesture...) In both instances the
batsmen took risky singles and in all probability, would have struggled to
'get home', even if their paths were clear. From my p.o.v. I don't see
grounds for withdrawing the appeal/s; unless of course wilful obstruction
was proven or 'fessed up' too. It was bad luck for the batsman, "out"
within the Laws of the game and in all likelihood, the end result was the
same = run-out.
I don't know if my view is precisely "right", within the spirit of the game
and the Laws pertaining to it, but it is way I've seen cricket played over
the past 20-odd years and I accept it to be the same for all sides.
> Bevan's run-out was entirely unremarkable and would
> never have been mentioned had the Campbell incident not occured in the same
> match.
I agree entirely; the Bevan run-out would have passed without comment had
the second 'incident' not occurred. The fact that quite a rare occurance
on a cricket field (perhaps remarkably, given the amount of one-day games
played and the 'helter-skelter' nature of that game), happened twice in
the same match, served as an interesting reference point. But I must add
that there is not the slightest suggestion that the WI bowler interfered
deliberately; whereas the possibility exists the Aust bowler *may* have
acted with intent.
(snip)
> than the Bevan run-out. It would have made no difference whether Campbell had
> spikes, he would not have been able to avoid the obstruction (be it
> intentional or not) that Julian created.
Well, that much we'll never know.
(snip)
Ron Knight has answered the main question you posed, in another post;
many thanks again Ron...
And thanks for an interesting discussion Kurt. That we've managed to see
each other's point of view, indicates neither of us have totally wasted
our time on these threads. I hope when next we meet, we'll be discussing
a much 'nicer' aspect of this strange game we love. :-)
Enjoy the World Cup! Please let it be controversy-free...
Kurt
r...@med.unc.edu (Ron Knight) wrote:
> Kurt <ktoo...@my-dejanews.com> posted:
> |
> |However, before we get off the thread entirely I would like to raise one
> |more issue. Did the umpires make the correct decision? I think we have both
> |accepted that there had to be some doubt as to Julians intentions. Should
> |the benefit of the doubt have gone to the batsman? I can see how the usual
> |benefit of the doubt might not apply in these cases, but it obviously will
> |depend on how the relevant law is phrased.
> |
> I doubt seriously that either Umpire would have been certain that
> the Fieldsman wilfully interfered and then not intervened.
> Considering that intervening under Law 42.7 would have been
> the ecstatically popular thing to do, I think we can safely
> assume that the Umpires acted in accordance with the Laws.
> If they had been certain that the interference was wilful
> they would have intervened.
>
Well, I must agree. There had to be some doubt. I wonder how much the Umpires
even saw of Julian's actions before the collision. The square leg Umpire
would have had his attention focussed on the stumps, but one would have
thought the ump at the bowlers end would have got a decent view. Nonetheless,
I do not think that, given your explanation, that anyone has a case for
criticizing the Umpires in this particular incident.
I am somewhat concerned that a law exist that allows the bowler to obstruct
the batsman unless his obstruction was wilfull beyound any reasonable
doubt. As I said in an earlier post, intent is almost always impossible to
determine without doubt. However, as was mentioned previously, the laws can
never always ensure a "just" outcome.
> There is no case for focusing on the Umpires here. They
> were within the Laws. The responsibility for going beyond
> the Laws to ensure fairness lies with the Captain (Law 42.1).
> That is a different question, and not the one you asked,
> so I will end now.
>
Yup, probably the best. Thanks for your inputs, Ron.
> Take it easy,
> --
> Ron Knight (r...@med.unc.edu)
... and peace reigned throughout the land.
Kurt
Marie-Anne <mco...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Kurt <ktoo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in <7gsqct$f3j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> Ron Knight has answered the main question you posed, in another post;
> many thanks again Ron...
>
Yes indeed. I had not realized exactly that benefir of the doubt resided with
the "status-quo", though I had a hunch that would be the case for willful
obstruction.
> And thanks for an interesting discussion Kurt. That we've managed to see
> each other's point of view, indicates neither of us have totally wasted
> our time on these threads. I hope when next we meet, we'll be discussing
> a much 'nicer' aspect of this strange game we love. :-)
>
I never thought that this thread was going to be a waste of time. Normally,
the threads that are going to degenerate into nothing but name-calling are
fairly easy to spot and I try and simply avoid them altogether.
> Enjoy the World Cup! Please let it be controversy-free...
>
I certainly will, and hope you do so too. I can't see it being entirely free
from controversy though, there's just too much at stake. While I and many
other do prefer the Test matches, there is no denying that the players
themselves, including Test stalwarts such as Lara, the Waughs, Tendulkar and
Walsh, view this World Cup as one of the highlights of their career. I do hope
that this World Cup lives up to its' billing as a "Carnival of Cricket".
Let the games begin!
Kurt
> - Cheers,
> MAC the Vic!
>
Ian T
>
..... VERY big SNIPS throughout ...
> > Because I do not believe the incident with the Australian batsman (Bevan)
> > crossed ove rthe admittedlt grey line where the fielding captain is expected
> > to withdraw his appeal. In about half of all run-outs the batsman has had
> > to round the bowler to some extent thereby increasing his chances that he
> > will come up short.
There has been one point throughout both your and Kurt's postings that has
continually irked (as distinct from annoyed...) me. That is the constant referral to
"the captain is expected to withdraw his appeal" or similar.
In fact the Captain cannot simply withdraw the appeal. All he can do is ask the
Umpire for permission to withdraw the appeal (before the outgoing batsman has left
the field). If the Umpire decides to allow the withdrawal then he shall cancel his
decision (out to not-out) and the batsman is recalled. If the Umpire decides that
the original appeal should be upheld then it is.
>
> Enjoy the World Cup! Please let it be controversy-free...
An optimist... We can only hope.
73 de Ian.
Mic Cullen
written:
[snips]
>.. While Mic Cullen - an anti-Julian poster is ever there was one! -
Hmmm, how did you work that one out?? :-)
Have a good one,
Mic. (Return address will work as is...)
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
AutismUK
writes:
>>.. While Mic Cullen - an anti-Julian poster is ever there was one! -
>
>Hmmm, how did you work that one out?? :-)
You are Australian ! (probably).
Is picking Julian the international equivalent of putting a joke bowler
on to make a game of it in village cricket ?