England v South Africa, 2nd Test , Leeds, 18-22 July

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

holcs wrote:

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:Still disagree about Vaughan's catch.

We were talking about this again yesterday.

The fact that the ball ended up well inside his finger by the time he stopped sliding means it is pretty certain that he had them underneath it at the point he took the catch.

Had he not done so, the ball would have had to have 'popped up' from the grass at some point and into his hands from the point he clutched it, to the point he came to a rest.

It doesn't.

Oh I am sure it was reasonably well nestled in his fingers by the end of the catch, but the angles are all wrong, His fingers were pointing fully down, and the ball was not in the palm of his hands! Impossible for him to get his fingers completely under the ball.

Provides a huge amount of doubt, and therefore is not out! I'm sure last time I looked the batsman got the benefit (although try telling that to many a league umpire these days)!!

You've missed the point.

Had he not had his fingers under the ball from the off it would have had to have popped up at some point.

It didn't.

Meh! Not sure Bob. Think the ball stayed where it was on the ground and his hands wrapped up and round the ball!

The whole point is, with so much debate about the catch, the correct call was not out!

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

Demelza wrote:My point about him being the only full time South African was that it may seem that he's always full on about his national side. I simply meant that he's the main one that can put their point across.

My point concerning Danny is that I know he's often conversed with taipan behind the scenes and I found his comment earlier to be rather uneccesary, as I did yours. He's had several hurtful digs at me and then the next min, he's 'aving a larf.

I've never said that taipan has been victimised and he certainly never has!

Okay, just briefly, D:

1. I think it might prove to be unpleasant if we started to go "behind the scenes".

2. I think Danny's point that I am normally a peaceable and fair-minded forummer - I generally prefer to rise above the slanging, and in particular I really don't see the point of taking out private frustrations and aggressions on strangers (unlike some, perhaps) - is nevertheless of some interest. Why do you think that for once I would get fed up in (semi)public? Because I had been too long at the beer and TV?

Anyway, enough of this.

1.Yes, for more than one on here.

2. So you are using the pissed excuse?

3. I see you totally ignored my response to your initial post.

4. I, or no one on my behalf has ever claimed victimisation.

1. Briefly, I don't think you should be the one to sound grimly saturnine on that one, Nigel. ...

2. No, that was because you had actually opened a new thread to be "comically" smug about at the others here being "workers" while you watched the match and drank beer all day - remember? In other words, I was hoping you might want to plead advanced drunkenness for your own forumming behaviour, a snide-edged unpleasantness towards your fellow-forummers, especially male.

3. I eventually saw your post - I don't spend my life combing every page - I didn't reply to it. I didn't think it added anything essentially new.

Credit where credit is due, however. I did notice a better grace from you about the defeat to Oz in the rugby, and I thought you were learning. I thought you were getting rid of at least one chip - the weighty Australian chip - from your shoulders at last, and learning to be sociable.

4. Well, it's good to know that's one thing you don't claim in your tendency to extreme egocentricity. However, if you get the facts right, I was in fact responding to Deborah's defence of you as "the only full-time South African". I wasn't talking to you, or directing that defence to you (is that your egocentricty coming to the fore again?)

You now take the whole *tin* of biscuits, BTW. Congratulations!

But look, as I said to Debbie, I had had enough of this already. If you really want to keep turning and twisting as a self-styled "Forum Snake", then as Merlin suggested, maybe you should find yourself a hotel room. ... where superior toxins are safe from others.

With the sun out batting is meant to be easy at Headingley.

No excuse for the poms not to apply themselves today.

A lot rests on the shoulders of Bell, Cook and KP.

holcs wrote:

Meh! Not sure Bob. Think the ball stayed where it was on the ground and his hands wrapped up and round the ball!

The whole point is, with so much debate about the catch, the correct call was not out!

Having been referred - absolutely.

It should never have been referred, however.

Brass Monkey wrote:

holcs wrote:Oh deary me, watched a bit over the weekend:

Vaughan's catch in real time in the pub caused some debate, amongst the 4 of us, all cricketers, even before the replay. I for one said not out straight away, and having seen the replays, the angle of his hands and the ball, means unless he had ridiculously long fingers, the ball had to ground at some point. In saying that he would not have known,l and its no where near comparable to the disgraceful effort by AB.

Fark me Pattinson looks mediocre, bowls trundle pace, not a huge amount of movement, and generally about as potent, and a bottle of Volvic.

The Saffa's however yet again showed our batsman how to bat patiently and to build big scores. Thats now 3 of the 5 100's scored by them in excess of 130, and Amla was not out in his!



On the overall England team front, heard an alarming stat the MPV averages mid 20's in his last 12 tests............

I can see us getting done inside 4 and 1/2 days here! The selectors need shooting!

Agree to most extents.

The catch was out IMO, if it wasn't he wouldn't have known. Seen it many times and the softness of his fingers underneath the ball is indicated by the fact the ball stayed firm - no bobble.

But either way, only a f*cking joke would say Vaughan's was tantamount to AB's - it wasn't.

Pattinson - shit. Amazingly innocuous. TBH, it was like a right-armed David Lucas has made his debut and to worsen this, he's a f*cking squinty-eyed Aussie qunt. Haven't felt such disgrace at a selection ever - IDK Salisbury's 4th spell being the next one down the rung.

SA showed us how to bat, watchful, boring, long. Fair play, shows they've the mental capacity and cricketing brains for 'Test Cricket'.

Vaughan - ropey. Ropey against these for sure. Saying that, watching all those matches, he's batted a damn sight better than those stats suggest.

Done inside 4 and 1/2 days? Optimistic there, sir.

Dan, agree, MVP and AB's are poles apart! Just think there's too much doubt and the correct decidion was made. Hpowever not sure, Smiffy and Arthur stood on the edge of the ground sending him back was particularly good form.

As for MPV's fom, I'd agree I was surprised when I heard those stats to be honest. Just thought it was an interesting point, considering Bell and Wobbles prior form and the amount of scrutiny they were under also.

I get the feeling someone will get a 100 for us, just not sure who I'd back at the minute bar KP!

Red wrote:With the sun out batting is meant to be easy at Headingley.

No excuse for the poms not to apply themselves today.

A lot rests on the shoulders of Bell, Cook and KP.

Sage.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:
You've missed the point.

Had he not had his fingers under the ball from the off it would have had to have popped up at some point.

It didn't.

The real crux of the issue is that it's immaterial whether it was grounded or not. The facts are it was unlike the AB dismissal in regards that the square leg umpire could not see - so it was referred to the 3rd umpire.

This isn't the case for the Vaughan one. It was given out. The umpire could see. A 3rd umpire referral should'nt have happened.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

holcs wrote:

Meh! Not sure Bob. Think the ball stayed where it was on the ground and his hands wrapped up and round the ball!

The whole point is, with so much debate about the catch, the correct call was not out!

Having been referred - absolutely.

It should never have been referred, however.

Not once Amla walked correct! Its not as if he was given out, but then if Bowden has nodded his head, then maybe he was given out??

However, I most certainly would have stayed put myself! And i'm a walker!

KP did the same last year against the Indians!

The umpire didn't raise his finger, he didn't give it out.

Demelza wrote:

JKLever wrote:I'm making a 'Patto' effigy doll as I type....

Don't bother about the eyes.

Ho yeah!

bliksem wrote:The umpire didn't raise his finger, he didn't give it out.

How often does an umpire raise his finger for an outfield catch?

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

Demelza wrote:My point about him being the only full time South African was that it may seem that he's always full on about his national side. I simply meant that he's the main one that can put their point across.

My point concerning Danny is that I know he's often conversed with taipan behind the scenes and I found his comment earlier to be rather uneccesary, as I did yours. He's had several hurtful digs at me and then the next min, he's 'aving a larf.

I've never said that taipan has been victimised and he certainly never has!

Okay, just briefly, D:

1. I think it might prove to be unpleasant if we started to go "behind the scenes".

2. I think Danny's point that I am normally a peaceable and fair-minded forummer - I generally prefer to rise above the slanging, and in particular I really don't see the point of taking out private frustrations and aggressions on strangers (unlike some, perhaps) - is nevertheless of some interest. Why do you think that for once I would get fed up in (semi)public? Because I had been too long at the beer and TV?

Anyway, enough of this.

1.Yes, for more than one on here.

2. So you are using the pissed excuse?

3. I see you totally ignored my response to your initial post.

4. I, or no one on my behalf has ever claimed victimisation.

1. Briefly, I don't think you should be the one to sound grimly saturnine on that one, Nigel. ...

2. No, that was because you had actually opened a new thread to be "comically" smug about at the others here being "workers" while you watched the match and drank beer all day - remember? In other words, I was hoping you might want to plead advanced drunkenness for your own forumming behaviour, a snide-edged unpleasantness towards your fellow-forummers, especially male.

3. I eventually saw your post - I don't spend my life combing every page - I didn't reply to it. I didn't think it added anything essentially new.

Credit where credit is due, however. I did notice a better grace from you about the defeat to Oz in the rugby, and I thought you were learning. I thought you were getting rid of at least one chip - the weighty Australian chip - from your shoulders at last, and learning to be sociable.

4. Well, it's good to know that's one thing you don't claim in your tendency to extreme egocentricity. However, if you get the facts right, I was in fact responding to Deborah's defence of you as "the only full-time South African". I wasn't talking to you, or directing that defence to you (is that your egocentricty coming to the fore again?)

You now take the whole *tin* of biscuits, BTW. Congratulations!

But look, as I said to Debbie, I had had enough of this already. If you really want to keep turning and twisting as a self-styled "Forum Snake", then as Merlin suggested, maybe you should find yourself a hotel room. ... where superior toxins are safe from others.

1. Neither should you.

2. That was a joke, as most others understood. I take it you are now trying to with draw the drunkeness defence?

3. Except the fact that you were talking total bollocks?

PMSL what Aussie chip? In fact I get on pretty well with most of the Aussies here. In fact I have even congratulated Indians in the past when they have defeated us.

4. Who is Deborah?

bliksem wrote:The umpire didn't raise his finger, he didn't give it out.

He didn't have to - he signalled to the batsman that the catch was good.

After the catch was taken you can see Bowden nodding his head at Amla crouching from behind the stumps*, this was in response to Amla nodding at the Umpire querying whether the catch was good. Bowdens nod said it was and off he trudged....

(* from 1 particular angle)

holcs wrote:

taipan wrote:

holcs wrote:
Very true. Which way why it was strange that between 4 of us in the pub watching it real time, 2 of us said out, and 2 said not out.

Funnily enough in the pub where I was watching, there were also 4 of us, and we all said not out.

Yeah but all 4 of us were English!!!!!!

Don't come here with that "fair play" story, Charlie!

bliksem wrote:The umpire didn't raise his finger, he didn't give it out.

He didn't? Apologies, my mistake. A nod isn't 'the finger'. I thought the finger would've followed the nod.

Brass Monkey wrote:

bliksem wrote:The umpire didn't raise his finger, he didn't give it out.

He didn't? Apologies, my mistake. A nod isn't 'the finger'. I thought the finger would've followed the nod.

And she still wants to marry you?

-------
Suite à un grand nombre de réponses, ce sujet a été automatiquement divisé. Vous pouvez retrouver la suite de ce sujet ici :
http://www.flamingbails.com/viewtopic.forum?t=3451