Brendon McCullum accuses George Bailey of withholding the spirit of cricket

In the high clash Big Bash League (BBL) game between the Brisbane Heat and the Hobart Hurricanes, Alex Ross was dismissed for obstructing the field. Brisbane skipper Brendon McCullum wasn’t quite amused. He accused opposition skipper George Bailey of playing against the spirit of cricket.

The controversy arose as Ross was given out for obstructing the field even though visuals suggested it wasn’t deliberate. Initially, the appeal was for the run out but Bailey immediately extended it to obstructing the field after he noticed a possible obstruction.

Bailey failed to upheld spirit of cricket

McCullum mentioned that he was frustrated with the decision looking from their perspective. While he admitted that no one was righteous in their stance regarding the spirit, the Brisbane skipper accused Bailey of missing the opportunity to stand up to the spirit of cricket.

“Personally I don’t think it was the right decision. We are not righteous in our stance on the spirit of the game but every now and then you get a chance to stand up to the spirit of cricket and tonight George and the Hurricanes missed that opportunity. He is quite entitled to do it differently. In time I feel he will regret not making another choice,” the former Kiwi skipper said.

Following the game, there was an animated discussion between McCullum and Bailey. When asked if the debate reached a conclusion, he remarked that both had different opinions. Stating his outlook, McCullum described it as a grey area and compared it to Mankad.

“We debated the philosophical merits of one another points but in the end my view of it and his view of it may have altered. I don’t really care what the rules are. To me it is one of those grey areas like the Mankad. To me it falls into the spirit of the game and I was making that point to George,” he added.

He stated that maintaining the spirit of the game was more important than winning it. He indicated that Alex Ross was running away from the path of the ball and not impeding it.

“Sometimes there are opportunities which are more important than the two points. He was trying to veer away from the ball and if you look at the rules it is about wilfully obstructing the field. He was running away from the path of the ball. He was not impeding the ball. I was disappointed the appeal for upheld,” Baz mentioned.

I appealed when I saw Ross changed his line

George Bailey admitted that he appealed for obstruction. He mentioned that while initially, the appeal was for a run out, they expanded it after he noticed Alex change his line of running drastically.

“I am learning for the rule as we speak. I appealed for the run out then when I saw on the replay Rossy changed his line we asked them to consider for obstructing the field as well,” Bailey said justifying his part.