Michael Clarke backs cheat in Phillip Hughes row

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/other_international/australia/9339930.stm

BBC made a mistake with the headline so I've corrected it for them.

clarke is right. it was as clean as this one

As the commentators keep saying though, two dimensional TV pictures are very misleading. Apparerently some trick of the light or camera means that as the ball lands in the hand, the fingers under it look exactly, and very unfortunately, like a great big bit of green grassy pitch with a ball bouncing off it. Meanwhile, the bit of ground near the bouncing ball suddenly assumes the precise form of a man's fingers desperately grasping for something not quite within their reach.

ever hopeful wrote:As the commentators keep saying though, two dimensional TV pictures are very misleading. Apparerently some trick of the light or camera means that as the ball lands in the hand, the fingers under it look exactly, and very unfortunately, like a great big bit of green grassy pitch with a ball bouncing off it. Meanwhile, the bit of ground near the bouncing ball sauddenly assumes the precise form of a man's fingers desperately grasping for something not quite within their reach.

Usually that is the case, but the one from Hughes very obviously bounced with his hands nowhere near underneath it.

I think eh might be taking the piss there, Vilks.
Unless you're doing a sneaky double NSR on me..

That's the thing though .... the technology can't always prove that a catch has been taken cleanly -

but it doesn't lie when it's clear it has not .....

Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.
Must not use irony on Flamingbails.

Doh .

Michael Clarke says "um" a lot.

Also, most Australians seem to like starting sentences with "Look". Makes them sound a bit defensive somehow.

Which is better than sounding agressive to be fair.

Not surprising from Hughes and Clarke given that they have watched and learnt from guys like Steve Waugh who used to be euphemistically referred to a "pushing the envelope too far" even by their own press.

Not surprising because Clarke himself is one.

"Team-mate backs team-mate" is the most pointless exercise in the game.

What's Clarke going to do? Label Hughes a dirty, rotten cheat? Be honest??? Heaven forbid....

Might be a case of mistaken identity, Trev, but I could have sworn you have had a go at Gillard for telling the press she did not want Rudd's job and was not challenging him, and then turning around and removing him.

What do you expect her to say, the truth??? heaven forbid

Me? Really? I don't remember doing that. didn't really get involved on the Aus Election thread.

Clarke's been known to claim 'catches' which clearly aren't. But then again Strauss claimed one of Hughes which bounced as well so Botham's on shaky ground with his allegations.

Red wrote:Clarke's been known to claim 'catches' which clearly aren't. But then again Strauss claimed one of Hughes which bounced as well so Botham's on shaky ground with his allegations.

Botham doing what the tabloid masters pay him to do.

It was absolutely clear from Hughes's body language that he wasn't sure. Anyone claiming otherwise has an agenda.

It wasn't the fact that Hughes's initial reaction was one of doubt. It's the fact that he then seemed to get sucked in by his hysterical teammates and then tried to claim the catch.

Botham obviously has a short memory. He's blotted out Strauss's own cheating episode.

Henry wrote:It wasn't the fact that Hughes's initial reaction was one of doubt. It's the fact that he then seemed to get sucked in by his hysterical teammates and then tried to claim the catch.

Trev - yes, he half heartedly tossed the ball in the air & played handsies with his team mates, but htf is that different to any other appeal?

Cook didn't take umbrage.

Wonder what Botham thinks of the Bell "not out", and his refusal to walk.

Blackadder wrote:Wonder what Botham thinks of the Bell "not out", and his refusal to walk.

That doesn't play to his audience.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Henry wrote:It wasn't the fact that Hughes's initial reaction was one of doubt. It's the fact that he then seemed to get sucked in by his hysterical teammates and then tried to claim the catch.

Trev - yes, he half heartedly tossed the ball in the air & played handsies with his team mates, but htf is that different to any other appeal?

Because he knew he hadn't caught it. If he had any balls he would have waved his hands immediately and said "it didn't carry." and ignored all the high fives that were coming his way.

Just like he didn't even yell out "noo!" as Watson came charging back for the second run today. The man is timid.

Henry wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Henry wrote:It wasn't the fact that Hughes's initial reaction was one of doubt. It's the fact that he then seemed to get sucked in by his hysterical teammates and then tried to claim the catch.

Trev - yes, he half heartedly tossed the ball in the air & played handsies with his team mates, but htf is that different to any other appeal?

Because he knew he hadn't caught it. .

His body language said " I don't know".

The following was lifted from the Sydney Morning Herald

''It was very close, and to be fair to Phil Hughes, he said straight away, 'I wasn't sure,''' Cook said. ''Obviously I was going to hang around on 99, you've got to be dragged off, so they went upstairs, and I think the right decision was made.''