'Inzamam ... you bring it upon yourself '

Inzamam-ul-Haq makes his way off after being given out at Peshawar © AFP

The question of ethics itself is unethical. This is an India-Pakistan series. Nobody should ask for any quarters and none should be given. That applies to both teams. Wasim Akram was not wrong when he appealed for Sachin's wicket. It was too important a wicket to ignore. Nor is Dravid. Let's play, folks. Bodhi

I think Inzamam had every right to ask the umpires and even explain why he blocked the ball, which he did. This is because we all know the umpires get it wrong on simple catches sometimes and especially following the Faisalabad Test [against England] decision that went against him, Inzamam had to clarify things. Yasir Zia

That Inzamam was not attempting a run is one argument and valid at that. To the extent he regained his crease and looked down to make sure he was in, is something any batsmen would do to guard against a subsequent run-out attempt. An equally important point to note is that, even if a run was being attempted, had he not put up his bat, or vanished into a magician's hat for that matter, all the ball would have managed to hit would be the pitch dust. The ball was not even going towards the stumps. It was way out and on top of that, there wasn't even anyone behind the stumps to collect it. The keeper and the first slip were still a few paces back, so there was no chance of a run-out which Inzamam was obstructing. Putting up his bat was a willful action, not a willful attempt to avoid a run-out since there wasn't a possibility of it to begin with. Mian

If you look at the replay, you will see that Inzamam started to turn back before the throw and then stuck out his bat when he saw the ball coming. But what follows is even more interesting. After `hitting' the ball, Inzamam regained his crease and then looked down to see where he is relative to the crease. That is quite clearly an indication that he probably realised he was in trouble if an appeal had been made. It was, and he was given out. Ravi Kumar

It seems that this time too Inzamam's ghost writer has had the last say. It doesn't sound like Inzamam to grumble too much about such decisions or take up so martial a stance about it. The gentle giant would more or less have forgotten about the incident in normal circumstances. Perhaps someone with poison in his pen has given the cricket world another unnecessary conflict to crow about. Patrick C

The only word I can find to describe india's appeal is 'disgusting'. No way Inzamam was going for a run and no way the ball was going towards the stumps. In fact Inzamam was just preventing the ball from hitting him. I agree with his statement that the appeal was unsporting and against the game's spirit. Sajid

I fully agree with the comments of Osman Samiuddin. He is spot on! Moin Khan must also recall the Chennai Test in 1999 and the manner in which Ganguly was `caught' by him. And, of course, we all know Tendulkar's run out in the Kolkata Test. Moin needs to learn the meaning of the spirit of the game and Inzamam needs to learn the rules of the game. Aditya

Of course the laws are there for all to see and read. And of course he was out, and there is no doubt about that. And yet, there is something about the spirit of the game and sportsmanship which seems lacking here. Osman draws comparison between the events in Peshawar to the Sachin Tendulkar run-out in the earlier series. The difference is, Tendulkar was out taking a run, there was the intent for the run and possibility of a run-out. In Inzamam's case, he was not even attempting a run. He would have made it back to the crease if he had tried to - that is, there was no real chance of him being run out. If he had tried making his ground, the ball may have hit him. If Inzamam had tried to avoid the ball as he did in Faisalabad and found short, would he be out? Inzamam said as much, "if I leave the ball I am out, and if I stop the ball I am out." The question is of intent. What was Inzamam's intent? To prevent himself being run-out? No, it was to prevent the ball from hitting him. Azeez Talha

I saw the clip on Google. It is quite obvious that Inzamam was not attempting a run. Rather, continuing with his forward momentum he left his crease and was watching the ball. This 'forward' movement is made by most if not all batsmen in ODIs, and is very different to someone attempting a run. So the fact that he wasn't taking a run the Indians should not have appealed against him irrespective of his action of stopping the ball with his bat which I think was more of an instinctive reaction rather than a deliberate attempt to protect his wicket. Needless to say, if you judge him in accordance with the laws of the game then he did obstruct, and the umpires had to give him out as an appeal was made. Aleem

No doubt that Inzamam was out as per the rules of cricket. But Rahul Dravid and his men should talk to their own conscience. Perhaps, with Inzamam's class and current form that was the only way that the `great' Greg Chappell and the rest of India could have gotten rid of him. Deen Steen

Well, I am not sure what makes you conclude that Inzamam's actions were those of an irresponsible person. Both teams, India and Pakistan, when playing against each other would accept a win even if they have to go against the spirit of the game (such is the context). Let's not get into the history, because Indians are sore losers and it has been widely accepted. Minor incidents do occur in the heat of the moment, and to any individual who watches the game to see Indians appealing was just ridiculous. As far as Tendulkar's run out is concerned, the Indians should have protested or asked for a reconsideration of the decision instead of abiding by it. The Pakistanis weren't the ones who gave the verdict. Like you mentioned, it was the umpires' decision. Sunny

Everyone seems to relate this to Tendulkar's dismissal. But no one gives former Pakistan captain Imran Khan the credit during the 1989 series: the touring Indian captain Srikanth was adjudged lbw by the umpire and he showed his dissent. Imran then had him called back and he was clean bowled next ball - that is the spirit of the game. Hussnain Bhalli

I looked at the replay and believe that Inzamam was just protecting himself. He was just avoiding the ball as he did against England and that time too he was given out. I can understand Inzamam's frustrations. I believe the rules of cricket shouldn't be so complicated that a man who has played as many matches as Inzamam does not understand. This shows how desperate the Indians were for a wicket and how low they stooped to get it. I sympathize with Inzamam and hope this sort of thing does not repeat itself. Basil

I am a big fan of Inzamam and thought he was harshly given out against England this winter. And in this case he was clearly out of the crease, made no attempt to get back and was definitely obstructing. Not sure what he can argue about - the law's pretty clear and ignorance is no defence. Dan James

Inzamam - cop it sweet. You bring it upon yourself with your abysmal running between wickets. Sometimes I think you bait the opposition; for what purpose I don't know - maybe for an overthrow, but you'd be too lazy to take advantage of it anyway. Roman Fedrich

Unsportsmanlike, Inzamam says, "deplorable" Moin Khan adds. Where was their good sense when they joined the entire Pakistan Team in unison and with full throated ease along with their captain Wasim Akram to appeal against Sachin Tendulkar in the '99 Test at Calcutta when he collided with Shoaib in the second innings after grounding his bat. Sachin was not out then according to both the law and spirit of the game, whereas Inzamam was quite a few paces out of the crease and had a good chance of getting run out if he hadn't patted the ball with his bat. Arindam Bose

I am sorry to say Inzamam needs to go back to the school and start again about basics of the game. If he doesnot know a law that is not anybody problem. Sahil Saif

His act of sticking his bat out to prevent the ball from hitting the stumps is equally unsporting. If he had been attempting to regain his crease by grounding his bat and the ball hit the bat, an appeal in those circumstances could have been considered unsportsmanlike. But that was not the case; he was caught out of his ground, and he used his bat to prevent himself from being run out. Mahesh

Love the way Inzamam says it was unsporting for India to claim when he obstructed, wasn't his action of obstructing the ball unsportsmanlike? Inzamam, please refer to the old adage, "don't point a finger at anyone as there are three more pointing back at you". Rory Hendricks