http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/pakvi...ry/236128.html

Inzi is claiming that although he should have been given out there are some laws of the game that I against the spirt of the game!! How does that work, the laws are there and have been for years!! Surely he should know that hitting the ball when a run out attempt is being made is also "against the spirit" of the game.

He also calims they are not explained enough

Surley it is the players responsibilty to be aware of the rules, and you would have thought that a player with 13 years Test experince, 107 Test Caps, 352 ODI Caps and currently cpatianing his side, would know the rules!!

From these comments I guess Bob Woolmer agrees with Inzi, that although the decsion was correct, it was not right

I think the law is justified and not at all against the spirit of the game. A batsman must be careful not to obstruct the field. Many batsmen do that cleverly by coming between the throw and the wicket when they are running and I think thats fine. But stopping a throw with the bat when the batsman is out of the crease is something avoidable and any umpire would raise the finger to an appeal. And I think an appeal is justified since it is within the law and whether the attempt is intentional or not is upto the umpires ti decide.

I think Inzamam should stop complaining and accept it as it was his mistake. He is the captain and complaining about something that happened within the laws is not a good example.

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

He could have just put his foot behind the crease instead of using his bat, or am I just being silly?

An interesting article on this topic (link) by Shahed Sadullah: And Inzamam's own column on this subject (link): He may have a point y'know - someone chucks the ball at him:
i) he moves out the way to take evasive action - he is given out (wrongly);
ii) he tries to stop the ball with the bat to take evasive/preventative action - he is given out (corectly).

In both cases, he had no intention of taking a run; in both cases, the ball could quite possibly have hit him and in both cases, he took evasive/preventative action - why then is the outcome, as per the Laws of the game, different in the two scenarios? Is there a contradiction in the Laws?

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

Could Inzi not just have put his bat into the crease somehow and twisted his body around? Could he not have moved side ways or atleast maybe cocooned himself somehow into a crouch and moved his bat to protect himself atleast showing he was not taking a run.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

i feel the rules are fine and well explained. It also says in the rule book that if they are taking evasive action they should not be given out, if they are then blame the umpires. Umpires are also very good at seeing whether actions taken are aginst the spirit of the game and will deal with them apropiately.

In case of Inzamam, it was quite clear. He was outside the crease when he blocked the throw. Its out. On how many occassions we see a batsman step out and play the delivery back to the bowler when the bowler gathers the ball and throws the ball straight back at the batsman, not at the stumps, at the bats man. The batsman simply rushes back to the crease and moves out of the line of the ball. How many of them stop the ball with the bat? We see similar things when close in fielders throw balls back at the batsman if he is out of the crease to hurry him back to the crease. None of them stops the ball with the bat but just move out of the way of the ball and get back into the crease. Inzamam is not a quick mover and its difficult for him to move his bulky structure out of the line of the ball, but he cant stop the ball with his bat.

On numerous occassions we see batsmen deliberately get between the throw and the stump and bravely take the blow on the body to save their wicket. The umpires cant give them out as they do it in the process of taking the run. I think the best thing to do when a throw is coming your way and you dont have the time to move out is to take the blow on the body. I understand that an evasive action is a reflex action and can not be planned, but the rule is very clear- if you are out of the crease and you stop a throw with your bat, you are out.

I completely agree that Inzamam had no bad intentions in the act but I cant see how he can compalin about it or how can one blame the Indian fielders for appealing. Inzamam was out of the crease and had he not blocked the throw, the ball might have deflected of his body on to the stumps. I dont see anything against the spirit of the game.

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

I have to say INZI was clearly out. The reson why I think he put his bat is because one he is very lazy at times specaily in the beganing of his innings. Second he wasnt expecting that and when he threw the bowl Inzamam has slow reflexs I think maybe and it was hard to move or leave the bowl alone. Inzi if we would of lost it was all your fault I think in the batting stand point.

__________________
CRICKET IS IN MY BLOOD

Do you think that because Inzi is seen as "lazy" would mean that he would not have time to move to take evasive action. Also with his back being bad he wouldn't want to risk it either...Do you think that a different batsmen would be able to make quicket reflex reactions to dodge the ball?

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

What did Inzi do? They havent shown the current India vs. Pakistan series down here (maybe its on cable, but I dont have cable ) so I havent seen it or really heard anything about it.