Should Bell have been given out ? I think he should..
Yes, he should, and the decision should have stood. The law is absolutely clear. Instead, we now have a stupid precedent, set in the spurious name of "sportsmanship", and endorsed by the umpires and team managers. No good will come from this.
From the news story, he was given a four, which was then rescinded. I feel that the four should have stood or, if, on appeal, it was, rightly, rescinded, he should not have been given out as the play would not have gotten him out anyway. i.e. ball not caught, not run out - ball did not hit the stumps whilst he was out of his crease. Why should he be given out?
The poor bloke made an honest mistake, he thought it was lunchtime and was wandering off to the bar for a few beers.
To be fair, he was given out.
In the "Spirit of the Game", the Indian team withdrew their appeal, and good for them.
Not the sort of gentlemanly conduct I expect to see in the football over the next few months.
Well, there was Giggsy, I didn't actually see him doing it, but it was reported in the papers.
Why was he given out? He was not caught, nor was he run out?
In that case, he should be out! The report that I saw did not make that clear, at least, to me!
He was found to be totally innocent of any wrongdoings and it was decided that he shouldn't have been outed, so they let him off and let him back in again, apparently.