Well what Inzamam did is that when he was by his crease and the play was still alive INZI is just walking hes not in yet he looks back and Khan I think throws the bowl at him and it would of hit the stumps so Inzi uses his bat to stop the bowl and he was ruled out by Simon Taufel. Not smart stuff from the Pakistani captain. I hope you understand. It was one GREAT match. See the whole thing it was awsome it was tense till the last second Light problems and Pak won. Hope you see it enjoy

__________________
CRICKET IS IN MY BLOOD

Yes. With his huge body, its not as easy for Inzamam to quickly move away from the ball or get back into the crease. Another batsman in a fitter condition would find it much easier to deal with a situation like that.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

Here is a complete desc:

Inzamam played the ball to long on and came a few paces down the wicket. Obviously he was not trying a run as there was no question of a run. Zaheer Khan threw the ball back at the stumps from Long on, Inzamam was standing right between the throw and the stumps. The throw was not at all sharp or fast, the ball took its time in travelling though the air. When the throw was in the air, Inzamam even moved a couple of steps backwards but didnt move out of the line of the ball. Then as the ball came closer and was about to hit him, he showed his bat.

Now, he had the following options and ample time to make a choice.

1. Move away from the line of the throw- but that could have allowed the ball to hit the stumps and he was out of the crease.

2. Move swiftly back to the crease- if he could take a couple of lazy steps backwards, he could have got back to the crease easily.

3. Take the blow on the body- Like I said, the throw wasnt a sharp one. The fielder was close to the wicket (thats y a run was out of question) and yet the throw alloed him to take a couple of steps backwards shows you how slow the throw was. He could have easily taken it on his body. No law says you are out if a throw hits your body since he was simple moving towards the other end of the pitch only.

Inzamam did none of the above and used his bat to stop the throw. That was foolish and Indians had a right to appeal as he was standing right between the throw and the stumps.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

The fielder was Suresh Raina and he threw the ball from Long-off. Besides these changes, well-explained DomainK.

Thanks for thr corrections Rineet.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

Inzi did have intention to take a run at Peshawar, M. He was a good one and half yards out of his crease, the look on his face suggested he was going for a run, but then changed his mind after seeing Sreesanth gather the ball that quickly. He should have rather turned around and tried to make his ground, but instead he just takes the easy way out and plonks his bat to the throw, it was a perfectly willful obstruction of the field, and the Indians were within their rights to appeal, after which there was no way the umpires wouldn't have given it out.

I don't understand why this has to be related to his dismissal against England at Faislabad, that was ENTIRELY different, one Inzi wasn't ever taking a run then, two, he was always inside his crease, three he only went a little bit in the air while still in his crease because of a throw by Harmison that he was trying to evade. One might have argued then, that the throw was unsporting because Inzi never really left his crease and never even wanted to take a run, but here Inzi was a good distance out of his crease and also wanted a run.

I don't suppose Pakistan would not have appealed if the roles had been reversed, and say Sachin was batting with India chasing 320 odd and looking good to get them. Given the kind of situation the match was in then, and how intentionally and casually Inzi had stroked the throw away, any team in the world would have appealed. For Inzi to first come out and say he wasn't aware of the rule, which is shocking enough considering he's been playing the game for the better part of two decades, but then to claim he has told the boys not to make an issue out of it, when he him self (or his ghost writer) rather has devoted half a newspaper column to it, and not only this, on top of all this, he also wrongly accused the Indian players of bad sportsmanship, the whole episode left a lot to be desired. No wonder he failed with the bat yesterday, all this controversy about the appeal (Dravid then rightly said he didn't think the appeal was unsporting, and added that the Indian players could have complained about Inzi's allegations but decided against doing so) probably played on his mind a bit.

That the Indian team did not appeal yesterday against Malik when they might have (although to be fair it was far less certain in his case if the obstruction was willful or un-willful) is to their credit. And makes Inzi's claim that the Peshawar incident might affect the relationship between the players from either side appear in very bad light.

Inzi should either sack his ghost writer, or stop writing columns altogether, I've never been in support of the captain of a team writing columns during a series. The News can't be paying him much for it anyway.

i think its in very bad taste that inzi has semi critisized the decision that went against him or that he is flumoxed by it, personally it was out.. there are no two ways about it when you are standing a yard outside your crease and block an attempted run out throw at yr wicket. Even when i was a schoolboy if someone did that the bowlers response would be to demand he walked off accompanied by a few choice words... it doesnt matter if he was confused or he did it deliberately, cmon that just not cricket!!!