INDIA VS ENGLAND 2nd test 3 rd day Highlights

Nottingham: A magnificent 159 by Ian Bell and some uninspiring bowling by the Indians allowed England to march to an imposing total of 441/6 at the end of day three of the second Test at Nottingham on Sunday.

At stumps, Matt Prior was sitting pretty on 64 while Tim Bresnan was giving him company on 47 as the home team extended their lead to 374.

Prior and Bresnan stretched their unbeaten stand to 102 after India struck back with quick wickets in the post tea session.

Yuvraj Singh dismissed Bell who edged a rising delivery to first slip where VVS Laxman took a sharp catch.

Praveen Kumar then picked up Eoin Morgan's wicket for 70, and was unlucky not to get Jonathan Trott off the very next delivery.

It looked like a clear leg before wicket decision but the umpire ruled the batsman not out. Trott though did not survive long and was finally out in Praveen's next over for just two.

Earlier, in a magnanimous move, Indian skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni called back Bell after the latter was declared run out under bizarre circumstances off the last ball before tea.

Morgan flicked the ball off his legs and a sprawling dive by Praveen Kumar at the deep square leg boundary prevented the ball from touching the boundary skirting.

Bell assuming that tea had been called jogged up to Morgan and the two batsmen started walking off before the bails were whipped off at the batsman's end.

The decision was referred to third umpire Billy Bowden who gave the decision in favour of the fielding team which was reversed subsequently.

Bell and Morgan pressed on for England after the loss of Kevin Pietersen as the home team went into tea at 252/4.

Pietersen struck seven boundaries and scored 63 before nicking one to MS Dhoni off the bowling of S Sreesanth.

England progressed to 130/2 at lunch with Bell on 84 and Pietersen on 20 as the hosts moved ahead by 63 runs with eight second innings wickets still in their bag.

Sreesanth struck a crucial blow for India by sending back England skipper Andrew Strauss as the hosts carried on from their overnight score of 24/1.

Strauss who made 16 put on 51 runs with Bell for the second wicket before edging a delivery to his opposite number Dhoni behind the stumps.

It was really stupid on my part says Bell

Nottingham: After being at the centre of the run-out drama, England batsman Ian Bell admitted that it was "naive and stupid" on his part to walk off the crease, assuming that the tea break had been called on day three of the second Test against India here on Sunday.

"It was being naive on my part to assume the ball was dead and walk off for tea, it was stupid," stated Bell whose stupendous 159 was overshadowed by the run-out drama at the stroke of tea.


Bell was controversially given run out when he left the crease after completing a run, assuming that the ball is dead and tea had been called.

The batsman was, however, called back after the Indian team, in a fine gesture, withdrew its appeal. "Morgan had clipped one off his pads right down to the boundary, the fielder had dived, it looked like having gone for four, the fielders body-language suggested so. I had touched down for the third (run) and turned and saw Asad (umpire Asad Rauf) pull out the jumper and looked like he was going to hand it over to the bowler," Bell said.

"My initial reaction was naive and to walk off for tea. I walked up to Morgan. I wasn't attempting a run and everything was meandering towards walking off for tea. It wasn't until we reached the boundary ropes, we realised something had changed.

"We felt something was going on. But not thinking it involved us. We were waiting to understand. Even then it was a shock (when I was given out)."

Bell revealed that it was at the very last moment that he was told he could resume his innings. "It was at the very last minute. Prior had padded up to go. There was this last-minute knock on the door that I could go out and bat. After the captains and coaches had met, India had got back to us."

VVS laxman Vaughan Hot spot controversy

NOTTINGHAM: If England are at the receiving end, can Vaseline be far behind? Late on Saturday afternoon, when India were just about effecting a strong but eye-pleasing fightback, it inevitably made its appearance.

VVS Laxman, on 27, jabbed at a swinging delivery and missed it; the bowler, James Anderson, and the slip cordon promptly went up, claiming an edge. Umpire Asad Rauf had a long look at it and shook his head. Not out.

 England were not convinced though: they sought a review. Third umpire Billy Bowden watched a few replays, enlisting the Hot Spot technology too, but just couldn't detect the edge. Laxman survived again.

 It should have been the end of it. But commentators on Sky Sports, mostly former England players, were also certain that he was out; indeed, the 'snicko' that the broadcaster was using, flashed the tremor indicating that the ball had hit the bat.

 They were obviously not going to let it go; they argued that the Hot Spot was not good enough, that it didn't catch the fainter nicks. Michael Vaughan, however, took it to another level by tweeting: "Has Vaseline on the outside edge saved the day for Laxman?"

 It brought into the open rumours about the use of this substance by batsmen to negate the Hot Spot. It apparently softens the blow, especially if it's only a faint touch, making it difficult for the Hot Spot to catch it. It anyway can only detect contact between two solid substances, like bat and ball, bat and pad etc.

 Not surprisingly, the local media went into over-drive. Almost all the newspapers, with late deadlines raked it up, alleging that something was amiss. What, of course, was being left unsaid was that they were calling Laxman a cheat, that they were questioning his integrity as a player.

 Expectedly, it created a huge furore back home. Former India players responded angrily, with Sunil Gavaskar even suggesting that Laxman should take Vaughan to court. Sanjay Manjrekar said that Vaughan was only seeking attention.

 Vaughan, realizing that he had stirred a dangerous pot this time, claimed that he was joking on Sunday. "Friends from India, I didn't accuse VVS of using Vaseline," he wrote. "Even if batsmen do, it's not cheating," he added. There is, of course, no law against applying stuff on the bat, unlike on the ball.

 On Saturday, though, England's players were absolutely sure that Laxman was out. Stuart Broad had a long chat with umpire Rauf, trying to figure out what caused the noise. Replays had already confirmed that there was no contact between pad and pad either.

 Later at the press conference, he revealed that he had cheekily felt Laxman's bat when the ball went past his bat. "There was no sign of liquid though," he said. He, however, claimed that Hot Spot was not showing the really faint edges. It is a bit of a flaw."

 Maybe, India should get this banned too. If a thin layer of Vaseline can fool it, it can't be a good tool.

Dhoni's 'generous but illogical' gesture hailed

London: A generous but illogical gesture - this is how the English media and former players described Indian skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni's decision to call back Ian Bell after he was controversially run out in the ongoing second Test here.

Dhoni allowed Bell, who was run out after walking off the crease assuming that the ball had crossed the boundary, to play on after tea break.

The Indian captain was hailed for upholding the spirit of the game by many but there were others who felt Bell should have paid for his carelessness and that included legendary English all-rounder Ian Botham.

"It was the right decision by the umpires, they did everything spot-on. Bell had wandered off. He was out and he should have stayed out, in my opinion," Botham wrote in Daily Mirror.

"I can understand why MS Dhoni withdrew his appeal and decided to go along with the spirit of the game, but I would have had no problem if he had upheld it and sent a message about dopey cricket.

"If it was me I'd have run him out and let him think long and hard about remaining in his crease until the ball is dead while sitting on the balcony watching others score the runs he should have," he said.

Even former Australian spinner Shane Warne agreed that Bell was at fault in the episode. "What a last delivery before tea? huge controversy. Much as we don't like to see dismissals like that, Bell made a careless mistake," he said.

On the other hand, England spinner Graeme Swann could not understand what the fuss was all about.

"The big issue about "the run out that wasn't" hasn't been mentioned yet. I had already started a cheese sandwich, so it was definitely tea," he joked.

The English papers, meanwhile, felt Dhoni was well within his rights to reject England's request for a reprieve for Bell, who scored a hundred.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, former player Derek Pringle said, "The hurrah's for good sportsmanship were quick to follow India's generous and illogical decision, but Test cricket, as its participants are at constant pains to remind us, is meant to be tough, something India's bowlers have certainly discovered after England amassed 441-6 in their second innings."

"The spirit of cricket has its place but it was not being abused here. Bell, who'd played superbly to that point, should have remained dismissed, following his naive presumption that a leg-side flick from Eoin Morgan, which had been clumsily fielded at long leg by Praveen Kumar, had gone for 4."

"His reprieve, after Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss visited India's dressing-room during the tea break to plead his case and ask Mahendra Singh Dhoni to withdraw his appeal, should be measured not in runs (Bell added only 22 more before Yuvraj Singh dismissed him fair and square), but in the improved relations between the two Boards."

"Under Law 27.8, the reprieve shouldn't have been allowed anyway, as any player must be recalled before they have left the field of play," he explained.

The writer seemed to suggest that Dhoni's decision was governed more by the bilateral Board ties.

"...when there is potential horse trading to be done at Board level, laws can obviously have a coach and four driven through them. India usually adopt a hard line on such matters though with Duncan Fletcher being a former England coach, perhaps a more conciliatory tone was struck.

"Perhaps they were feeling guilty that the wicket arose, not through any good play on their part, but by the incompetence of their fielding and Bell's doziness. Bell was guilty of breaking the schoolboy dictum of never leaving your crease unless taking a run or the ball is dead, neither of which was the case here."

The Daily Mail said India should not have bothered about the boos at Trent Bridge as they had not done any wrong by dismissing a careless player.

"We almost had an international incident on our hands when Ian Bell was dismissed as he prematurely walked off for tea at Trent Bridge believing that Eoin Morgan had flicked the last ball before the interval for four.

"That we did not was due to an extraordinary piece of sportsmanship from Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Duncan Fletcher that is being hailed as a victory for the spirit of cricket.

"But, frankly, it was one that they did not have any need to make. India had done nothing wrong," the newspaper said.

"England might have been furious and the majority of the 17,500 crowd indignant when Abhinav Mukund casually removed the bails as Bell headed towards the pavilion with 137 of the most elegant, exquisite runs that you will ever see to his name. But England really had no cause for complaint.

"Bell was inexplicably dozy not to check that the ball had reached the boundary before he left his ground after Praveen Kumar had made a pretty hapless attempt at stopping it reaching the red marker."

The newspaper said Dhoni should not have accepted England's request. "Bell was out of his ground, no sharp practice had taken place and India had nothing to feel guilty about. (Eoin) Morgan had even gestured to Bell to return to his ground before realising that he was too late and decided instead that he had better walk off nonchalantly too.

"Dhoni and coach Fletcher would have had every right to show Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower the door when they asked at tea for India to withdraw their appeal."

The Daily Mirror stated rather matter of factly, "India took the moral high ground, but were brought back to earth on another day of English dominance."

But The Guardian and The Independent were effusive in their praise of Dhoni's gesture.

"...in a game that has at times become increasingly dishonourable it required an honourable act by India's captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni and his team to enable Bell to complete an innings that appeared to have been curtailed by his own doziness.

"Bell will have learned that in cricket, as in other sports, you play to the metaphorical whistle. He will not always get favours like this. There was some judicial balance in the fact that he capitalised only to the tune of 22 more runs before edging to slip," said The Guardian.

"Dhoni and his team had been booed off the field but with one act of good sportsmanship he won over a capacity crowd of 17,000 and also ensured there would be no lingering bitterness," added The Independent.

Ian Bell controversial Runout

Nottingham: The ICC on Sunday ruled that the run out decision of Ian Bell on the third day of the second cricket Test here was correct and applauded Indian team's fine gesture to recall the England batsman by withdrawing their appeal.

ICC Chief Executive Haroon Lorgat praised India, the England team and the match officials at Trent Bridge, for the way they upheld the "Great Spirit of the Great Sport of cricket".




At the end of the afternoon session, Bell was given run out after leaving his crease in the belief that tea had been called by on-field umpires Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus.

"On appeal, after consultation with television umpire Billy Bowden, Bell was given run out, which was the technically correct decision under the letter of the law of the game," the ICC said in a statement.

"Absolute credit must go to Team India, the England team and the match officials - Ranjan Madugalle, Asad Rauf and Marais Erasmus as well as the off-field umpires Billy Bowden and Tim Robinson - for the superb way that they all handled a tricky situation," Lorgat said in the statement.

"While the initial appeal and umpire decision may have been acceptable to the letter of the law, the decision by India captain M S Dhoni and his team -as well as the Team India coaching staff - to withdraw the appeal shows great maturity.

"To see players and officials uphold the Great Spirit of cricket, which has underpinned the game for more than a century, is very special. I am indeed grateful for the way that the teams and match officials handled what was clearly a difficult situation and their behaviour reflects well on everyone," he said.