The radio coverage has ended: I'd be grateful if anyone able to follow the match presentations and interviews could report what's said.

I'm assuming Collingwood is going to apologise and then resign as England ODI captain (before being pushed) following an outrageous appeal for a run-out.

If not, Vettori's interview should be interesting: if he's got anything about him he'll demand the sacking of the captain... and unless the coach can show that he instructed Collingwood to apologise and suggested he resign I'm not sure how he can survive either.

Surely the most sordid day for the ECB since Atherton's ball tampering...

You'll be able to hear the report in the TMS podcast, Rachael, and I'll be picking that up a bit later today. I only heard the radio commentary, but I'm really not able to come to the same position as you on this one. It's up to the batsman to run around the bowler, not the other way about. No-one has suggested that Sidebottom brought the batsman down deliberately (in which case, of course, I would have been with you). As the result showed, the game was about as finely poised as it could be, and in the circumstances I am pretty sure I would have (a) apologised to the batsman for any discomfort he felt; (b) assured him that fortunately he had not hurt my bowler; and (c) appealed. And if necessary I would have brought a wheelchair on to help him back to the pavilion.

Now, if Collingwood did not do (a) or (b), he might like to do so. If Vettori suggests that Collyingwood should be fired, someone ought to tell him to mind his own business. And the Spirit of Cricket argument fails utterly to wash with me, given that the on-field incidents were accidental in the case of the collision and taken in the heat of the game in the case of the appeal; the off-field snub to Collingwood when he attempted to congratulate New Zealand on their victory was calculated in every respect and is much the worse offence against the Spirit of the game.

No-one emerges from this with honour, perhaps. But there is certainly no basis on which the Kiwis can claim the high ground nor, in my view, on which Collingwood can be criticised to the extent you are seeking.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Gosh Rachael, such drama you spin!

Not that you'll take the slightest bit of notice of anything I say, I certainly don't think Collingwood should resign or anything else should happen.

You really are making a real song and dance over nothing, and yes I saw the incident live and slow motion reply, here's a few thoughts -

It's the batsmans responsiblity to run around fielders...
It's the batsmans responsibility to actually WATCH where he's going...and not just drop the ball and run with his head down...he has to take full responsiblity for what he's doing AND where he's going.
Sidebottom was FULLY entitled to go for that ball...

Now consider this...

If the run they took counted, so does the run out, you cannot have it both ways.

If the batsmen had completed that run do you think they would have turned round and said, well it was unfair so we won't take it? Not on your nelly, yet England get criticised for running him out? Would NZ have been criticised for completing that run? No, yet England are for stopping it.

One way or the other, one of those sides were going to be upset over that situation, England just made sure it wasn't them, you can hardly blame them for that, well you can is seems.

I agree with everything you wrote in your post 100%.

A wicket is worth much more than one extra run.

Collingwood apologised to New Zealand in their changing rooms and also publicly during the presentation ceremony. Vettori accepted his apology and apologised himself for his team's excessive show of emotion. So all is probably as well as it can be; the two teams can move ahead to Lord's without bad feeling.

Regardless of whether Collingwood was entitled to appeal (he was), he should have withdrawn the appeal. It's easy to look at the laws of the game and say "there's no problem, he's out, no question about it" and devalue the very first law of cricket:

Note carefully how the spirit of the game is placed before the laws. On that basis, since the captain is allowed to withdraw his appeal (Law 27.8), we have to conclude that the right decision would have been for Collingwood to call Elliot back. The mere existence of the heated debate indicates that the Spirit of the Game is being brought into disrepute.

Now, speaking as a club captain, I can sympathise with Collingwood; I can't hold my hand up and say that I wouldn't have done the same thing in the heat of battle. That doesn't make my/his decision any better, however; it would still be wrong.

(As a complete side-point, New Zealand should have a think back to when they ran out Muralitharan in December 2006 when he was simply congratulating Sangakkara on his century...again, they were entitled to do so within the laws, but not within the Spirit of the Game, and ought to be similarly ashamed of their actions...)

McCullum whipped off the bails blind, and unaware to the sitation behind him....this was completely different circumstances.

Agree that there should be no punishment to Colly or him resigning over his captaincy, thats a bit too far in my view for one stupid incident (which in my eyes was solely down to KP/Bell not having any decency).

But it seems people have forgiven each other now, and although inside there will be a bit more heat for the final game, lets just hope that builds to a good finale

__________________
Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy...OI OI OI!!!

Recent history is littered with times when captains should have called back batsmen. From the moment Dean Jones was run out off a no ball, on his way back to the pavilion thinking he had already been dismissed (during the unofficial world test championship), there has unfortunately been too much at stake to play within the spirit of the game.

The Muralitharan example is very well made, especially as it was at the hands of the same New Zealand team. England also have their history with the run out of Inzamam when he was trying to avoid the ball...and have also suffered when Pietersen was run out when Pollock accidentally took him out.

Bottom line is, in modern cricket, any talk about the spirit of the game is really quite futile.

This is good news, and for me it should close the whole chapter. Will be interested to see if the press can let it lie as quickly as the captains have been able to. There's all to play for in the fifth game, and if we get anything like as interesting a game as today's has been, we should all be happy enough for that, I'd say.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

The best result for all concerned. Had England won the game, I'm sure we would not have got the amicable end to the story.

Collingwood has apologised Rachael - but has not resigned.
LINK:BBC SPORT | Cricket | England | Collingwood sorry for run-out row
I don't know whether Collingwood should resign or not, but the fact that Vettori has accepted his apology.
Seems to me to be over, maybe a rule change is needed - this could quite easy happen again.

__________________
Ern