Before you read the remainder of this post, I'd like to ask the reader to think to himself on these questions:

How far does does modern hard-nosed professionalism in cricket infringe on the "Spirit of the game"? Does it have bounds? Should the players alone be responsible for setting an example? Or should umpires, match referees and other administrators overlooking the players' conduct during a game have the power to try and keep things in check?

The answers (or opinions) to these questions was something I expected former cricketers, commentators and writers to address after the recent run out involving Muralitharan. But the response to this incident has been low-key and the only article that I found trying to address this issue in the 'global' sense, rather than the incident in isolation, was one by Tony Cozier.

His sports editor, Michael Donaldson, had no such qualms. He blamed Muralitharan. "Muttiah Muralitharan was a fool," he charged. "He more than anyone knows that cricket is a ruthless game for professionals hell-bent on winning and you cannot give anybody an inch lest they run you out by a mile."

Former New Zealand wicketkeeper Ian Smith, now the foremost television commentator here, suggested that such issues could be diffused by more common sense umpiring. "At moments like this and in the spirit of the game, wouldn't it be better if umpires stepped in and asked captains: `Are you really keen to keep this appeal going? Is your appeal to have that man run out serious?' ", he wrote.

"That would put it back on the captains." For those defending McCullum's action, Geoff Longley posed a significant question. "It is interesting to speculate what the reaction would have been if the roles had been reversed," he wondered in the Press of Christchurch. It was a question that needed no response for the answer was obvious — and embarrassing.