Ian Bell Saga: When India were bullied by Player Power and Crowd Pressure

India's withdrawal of Ian Bell's run-out displayed player power and pressure from an emotional crowd at work, not the 'spirit of the game'

Summers of Cricket in England are almost always epitomised by one stand-out event or theme. Take the moment Andrew Flintoff and Australia’s Brett Lee embraced after that memorable 1-run England victory at Edgbaston in 2005. Or the Pakistan ball tampering row in 2006. Or when Mitchell Johnson was torn apart by the home crowds during the 2009 Ashes Series. Or the spot-fixing scandal last year.

2011′s summer of cricket will almost certainly be remembered for the Run Out That Never Was, when Ian Bell took it upon himself to walk out of his ground on the presumption that a boundary had been scored and tea had been called. Neither was true, and when India whipped his bails off and appealed his dismissal, the umpires were right to judge him out.

Bell and partner Eoin Morgan then remonstrated with fourth umpire Tim Robinson on their way off the pitch before England’s captain and coach, Andrews Strauss and Flower went to speak to their Indian counterparts over a cup of tea to query whether their appeal had been made within the “spirit of the game”. With that on their conscience, and with a Trent Bridge crowd close to boiling point over the decision, India decided to withdraw their appeal, thus reinstating Bell to continue his magnificent innings (and it was magnificent, lest we forget).

I recall a football match once, when Robbie Fowler, then of Liverpool, fell in the penalty area. No appeal was made for a penalty, but the referee gave one all the same. Fowler himself told the referee it wasn’t a foul, but football referees never change their minds, do they? The resultant penalty was duly stuck away, and we all debated why the referee wouldn’t listen to the folk on the field during Match Of The Day later that night.

It was a harsh decision, but the referee is there to make decisions. He did and so and therefore it was right that it stood.

Yesterday was farcical: An umpire’s decision overturned as a result of some pressure from opposing fans and managerial figures for me shows a weakness in the constitution of the sport rather than strength, as some of the pundits suggested afterwards – Geoffrey Boycott said it was “A great day for Cricket.” Hmm.

It is quite conceivable now that later on in this series, without a review system in place, an Indian batsman may be given out caught behind say, knowing full well he didn’t touch the ball and as a result of Bell’s reprieve, wants to appeal to Strauss’s “spirit of cricket” sensibilities and ask for him to withdraw England’s appeal against him. Previous experience of this England team would suggest that, to put it kindly, they play hard, and therefore may not be too co-operative in such situations. This sets a dangerous precedent and it remains to be seen whether it will yet come back to haunt England.

Yesterday was unique. The run-out occurred after the last ball before tea, when it looked to the naked eye that a boundary had been scored. However, rules are there to make sport fair to both sides, and I don’t see how yesterday was fair to India.

Imagine being India yesterday – going into tea with a bonus wicket after a tough two sessions. You’d be thinking that, with an injured Trott in next and then Prior to follow, you’d be able to make inroads and put the brakes on England. 15 minutes later you’re being told that your team should allow the man who has already amassed 130-odd quick runs back in because the spirit of the game dictates you should. I’d hazard a guess that their fast bowlers would have been pretty dispirited themselves after that!

I love the game of cricket and it’s quirky rituals and traditions – some of which can be frustrating at times, but they are the essence of what makes the sport such a special one. But when you allow player power and an emotional crowd to dictate the agenda and override the rules, should they see fit, then the sport loses credibility.

Rahul Dravid had the task of talking journalists through Bell’s reprieve from an Indian perspective at the end of play last night. His pre-rehearsed answer in front of the Sky Sports cameras about the unanimous decision within the Indian camp to withdraw the appeal, adhering to the spirit of the game of course, all sounded good, but when Ian Ward, the interviewer, pushed further and asked, “It was out though, right?” Dravid’s response said it all. “IT WAS OUT!…….but the spirit of the game blah blah blah.”

I defy any competitive sportsman or woman to argue with the way India must have been feeling last night.