The boos, whistles and catcalls from the crowd told the story, as did New Zealand’s refusal to engage in the traditional handshakes that usually signal the end of a red-blooded contest. The Laws of Cricket can be arcane and are often misunderstood, but 23,000 people knew that something not right had happened when Grant Elliott was run out, having collided with Ryan Sidebottom, with New Zealand 26 runs short of victory.

According to the Laws, the umpires made the right decision. There is no question that the collision was accidental and, given that there was no wilful obstruction, the umpires had no alternative but to send Elliott on his way, once Paul Collingwood had upheld his appeal.

But it did not seem right or just or fair or, to bring in that much-misused phrase, “in the spirit of the game”. It was clear that Elliott would have made his ground but for the collision.

More to the point, had Elliott not done the right thing by getting up and sprinting to the non-striker’s end, the umpires would have had no option but to have called dead ball immediately.

England lost the match, but, more important, a good deal of self-respect in that moment. Collingwood will have an uncomfortable couple of days, replaying in his mind the moment that he upheld the appeal until Lord’s on Saturday, when the reaction of the most conservative crowd in England will let him know whether he has been forgiven.

Collingwood was outstanding in his honesty and contrition at the end of the game. Although he was slightly disingenuous in that he had more than a split second to come to a saner judgment, he recognised that he had made a wrong call and that an apology was essential. Thankfully, it was accepted.

Imagine, though, if England had won. It is difficult to imagine how Collingwood could have apologised with a straight face; difficult, too, to envisage how the New Zealanders might have felt able to accept it. When Graeme Swann’s errant throw missed the stumps and evaded four England fielders, the cricketing gods rendered a judgment of their own.

Five occasions when it just wasn’t cricket

1882 In the Test at the Oval that led to the creation of the Ashes, W. G. Grace controversially ran out Sammy Jones when the Australia batsman stepped out of his crease to pat down the wicket. Jones was not attempting a run.

1933 The Adelaide Test of what became known as the Bodyline series was when England’s aggressive tactics came to the boil. Bert Oldfield was struck on the head and Bill Woodfull was hit over the heart, both by Harold Larwood. Woodfull, the Australia captain, claimed that England were “not playing cricket”.

1974 In a Test in Trinidad Bernard Julien, of West Indies, dabbed the last ball of the day into the off side. Tony Greig, fielding for England at silly point, hit the wicket at the non-striker’s end and appealed for a run-out against Alvin Kallicharran, who had headed for the pavilion. Kallicharran was given out but reinstated the next morning after some bitter exchanges.

1981 New Zealand needed six off the last ball to tie a one-day international against Australia in Melbourne and Greg Chappell, the Australia captain, told his brother, Trevor, to ensure the win by bowling underarm.

2006 Needing one run for his hundred in a Test against New Zealand in Christchurch, Kumar Sangakkara steered the ball to fine leg. When Muttiah Muralitharan, his team-mate, had completed his run, he stepped out of his crease to congratulate Sangakkara and was run out by Brendon McCullum.

By the book

Law 42 deals with unfair play It is unfair for any member of the fielding side, by word or action, wilfully to distract or to obstruct either batsman after the striker has received the ball. It is for either one of the umpires to decide if any distraction or obstruction is wilful or not.

Law 27 deals with appeals The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only with the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls and before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play.

(Patrick Kidd)