It's the Raj mentality
As usual, the western media is making mountain out of a mole. Regardless of what Vaughan says, his reaction was to stop the ball going to the stumps, whether or not the ball was actually moving. Hence the Indian players were absolutely right in appealing.

As to his much-publicised statement that the Indians' behaviour was not in the best spirit of the game, does Vaughan remember the Test against Sri Lanka where Jayasuriya was given out wrongly (caught off the ground) and yet virtually the same English team did not recall him? For them to say that they would have recalled the batsman is like shooting in the air. The English should come out of the "Raj" mentality and accept the reality. Saumil Kapadia

It's the modern way
Having seen the dismissal, I am convinced it was a momentary aberration on Vaughan's part. Although it is naturally disappointing to see a team appeal for such a thing, in today's modern age it cannot be faulted. Vaughan was in the wrong, he handled the ball and deserved to be given out.

I would have been disappointed if England had not appealed under the same cicumstances. Can you imagine the Australians or South Africans being sporting in that situation and risk watching the batsman go on to make a big score ? I think not! Darren Talbot

It's England who are unsportsmanlike
There are just two things to say about Nasser Hussain's and England's attitude towards this controversy.

1. Nasser Hussain's so-called catch at gully against South Africa. Was it clean?

2. Last year at Kandy, Sanath Jayasuriya's bump catch. Who was celebrating with huddle? Where was the sportsmanship then? Fazly Wahab

Only a Viswanath would have called him back
Sportmanship and honour of the game etc gets evoked only when the opposition is the one involved. Can any Englishman cross his heart and say that if exactly the same happened with Tendulkar they would not have appealed, and then justified their action as following the rules by the book?

I know of only one man who would have called Vaughan back and that would have been Gundappa Viswanath, as he so magnanimously called back Botham in the Test at Bombay ... but that is an age where cricket was still a gentleman's game. Alas with sledging, charging umpires, claiming catches which kiss the ground, it is as gross as what transpires on a soccer field. Ramakrishnan, Singapore

Out - end of story
Vaughan was out, simple as that. The Wisden website had a story saying that it was a poor piece of sportsmanship by the Indian fielders - this was a poor piece of journalism.

I am Australian and watched it with neutral eyes. David Fleming

England would have appealed immediately
Was it a moment of madness from Vaughan? YES

Was it a poor piece of sportmanship from an Indian side desperate for a wicket? NO ... your above statement is utter nonsense.

Would England have done any differently? NO WAY ... they would have done the same thing In fact England players would have appeal immediately since they know the Laws better. Mohandas Menon, Bombay

It was a query, not an appeal
I feel that it was a bit of all three. First and foremost as a batsman of international status you do not handle the ball that is line with the stumps even if it is not going on to hit the stumps. Secondly there was just a query.... not an appeal from the Indian contingent 'coz even they knew that the ball was not travelling on to the stumps. Amit Shindore

A time of paradox
Just a few days back, we were being told by anyone and everyone that the law should be followed till the letter T. Remember the Tendulkar saga? Now all Englishmen are talking of the spirit of the game! We live in a time of paradoxes. Dr Ninad, Delhi

A matter of colour
India were not as desperate for a wicket as Tony Greig was way back in the 1970s when he ran out Alvin Kallicharran. There seems to be two standards for judging what is fair play - according to the colour of the skin. The latest exponent of this is of course Mike Denness. Let us not a forget that it is a British knight who still remains the only one out in a Test match for obstructing the field [Len Hutton, at The Oval in 1951, against South Africa]. That it was WG Grace who refused to leave the field after the umpire declared him out. That it was the Brits who invented Bodyline because it was the only way they knew how to win. Want any more examples? TR Ramaswami

Whoever appealed should be an umpire
I am surprised that any cricketer of today was so up to date with all the rules and regulations. Whoever appealed would probably make a better umpire than some we have seen lately. Vaughan was out. David Mitchell

Ramps got it right
The video is clear. Vaughan did two things: first he smothered, then he flicked. We cannot speculate about the direction the ball would have taken after pitching, because it was smothered, albeit unintentionally. The incident occurred on the field and should have been left there.

Vaughan's comments questioning Sarandeep's integrity were unwarranted. Vaughan may not have meant to smother it, but he did, instinctively. He should look at it from the bowler's point of view. All Sarandeep saw was Vaughan smothering the ball as it fell ... Vaughan got what he deserved. Ramps was sane enough to tell him to get off the field, and prevented the incident from exploding. Kiran Krishna

The wrong instinct
What do you mean, instinctively grabbed it? Surely a batsman's instinct is never to put a hand on the ball until it's firmly dead?

But looking at it, the only interpretation is that he thought it was going to roll back onto the stumps. Does he not know the law? Simon Sweetman

The rules are with India
Regarding sportsmanship, I would say that since the rules say that you can appeal against such a situation, the Indians were right. I don't think that it is poor sportsmanship. In the similar situation England may have done the similar thing. Rajarshi Ghosh, India

Vaughan should know the rules
Michael Vaughan is a professional cricketer and should be familiar with the rules. It is not a case of should India appeal or otherwise, whether England would appeal I don't know, but Australia would, and they're quite good at the game. Cliff Le Baigue

Giles incident shows England's hypocrisy
It's quite funny to see Hussain's comments on sportsmanship. Now on the second day, Kumble was unlucky not to get to his 300th Test wicket, denied by umpire Jayaprakash, after Giles had played the ball on to his boots and the catch was taken at short leg! Now Giles knew he was OUT. So in the spirit of sportsmanship should Giles have walked? Michael Thomas

Can Nasser Hussain & Vaughan give their opinions on this?

The present match referee, Denis Lindsay, had earlier punished Ridley Jacobs of West Indies for not calling a batsman back when he knew a stumping was not proper. The Pom press praised the guy for applying the new "spirit of the game" clause. Will the ref use the same clause here against Giles?

What do you think? Join in the debate by e-mailing feedback@wisden.com. Please note that we reserve the right to edit e-mails, and that views published are those of the reader concerned, not of Wisden Online.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd