Holy carp. Did Jumbo really say that?

doremi wrote:

please don't yell wrote:The clarke catch was completely clean.

Bullshit. It bounced just before he took and he grounded it rolling over after the dive.

doremi wrote:

Bullshit. It bounced just before he took and he grounded it rolling over after the dive.

That's an exact quote from an indian online newspaper and sorry that is bullshit.

Im starting to wonder if you even watch the games live.

grounded rolling after the dive? Where on earth did that come from?

Strangely enough ...it's OK* to stand and wait for the umpire to give you out even though it is obviously out ...

*...as per the Laws of Cricket and the ICC Code of Conduct ...

....it does make the player look stupid though ...again ...not a crime

embee wrote:

....it does make the player look stupid though ...again ...not a crime

Exactly clark's a dumbarse but he didn't break any laws.

Oh I watch the match alright. Difference is I try and keep both eyes open.

doremi wrote:Oh I watch the match alright. Difference is I try and keep both eyes open.

Nonsense. Go back and read what you've posted over the last 5 days.

No-one said he committed a crime, so you can all relax there.

And Doremi is right - Clarke did ground the ball when he rolled over. They showed that in the replay over and over again. That is quite clear from the slo-mo.

..

please don't yell wrote:I don't think anybody was defending clarke he was stupid doing what he did. but there is a clear difference between waiting for the ump to give you out and objecting to the validity of a catch you know is clean.

Well correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure that Ganguly departed as soon as Benson actually did raise his finger. It's just that Benson looked like a startled rabbit for about 30 seconds before asking Ponting (of all people) if the ball had carried, and when Ponting raised his finger and said,"You're out", Benson then raised his own finger and did the same thing to Ganguly. So it could be argued that Ricky Ponting indirectly gave Sourav Ganguly out caught at slip, which was bullshit weak umpiring from Benson at it's finest.

On the Ponting and Harris catch; the key bit of the rules is;

The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.

So far all the commentators, ex-players and pundits have said if the ball touches the turf as you land it should be not out. It is unlikely that an umpire will see it so they were saying how you have to rely on the fielder.

I can't see the difference between this and catching the ball firmly and having the ball under control and then stepping over the boundary. As we all know that is not out and given as a 6.

For the diving catch, I think the arguement would be that you need to keep your knuckles facing the ground to prevent the ball from touching the turf. If you can't do that then you are not in control of your own movement.

You often see fielders taking low catches making an effort to keep their palm facing upwards if they topple over so as not to ground the ball. Why do they bother if Lardy's arguement applies?

Henry wrote:

please don't yell wrote:I don't think anybody was defending clarke he was stupid doing what he did. but there is a clear difference between waiting for the ump to give you out and objecting to the validity of a catch you know is clean.

Well correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure that Ganguly departed as soon as Benson actually did raise his finger. It's just that Benson looked like a startled rabbit for about 30 seconds before asking Ponting (of all people) if the ball had carried, and when Ponting raised his finger and said,"You're out", Benson then raised his own finger and did the same thing to Ganguly. So it could be argued that Ricky Ponting indirectly gave Sourav Ganguly out caught at slip, which was bullshit weak umpiring from Benson at it's finest.

Two different issues though, the two teams had an agreement to trust the fielders on catches.

kumble was suggesting that clarke staying at his crease broke that agreement, which is ridiculous as clarke at no time questioned the catch but rather forced the ump to give him out for hitting it.

I thought that was all rather simple to grasp but i guess not.

And as i said im not in any way defending clarke for making the ump give him out, he was stupid for doing so but they didn't make an agreement to all do a Gilchrist and walk when they hit it they made an agreement on catches.

from the age

Ponting last night revealed that he had struck a pre-series agreement with Kumble to accept the fielder's word on low catches, but it is in danger of being scrapped. "I'm sure we will have to review it," Kumble said.

He singled out Michael Clarke for standing his ground after nicking a ball to first slip on day four. "When you nick it to first slip and then wait, it says it all."

Peter English is an Aussie isn't he.

please don't yell wrote:Two different issues though, the two teams had an agreement to trust the fielders on catches.

kumble was suggesting that clarke staying at his crease broke that agreement, which is ridiculous as clarke at no time questioned the catch but rather forced the ump to give him out for hitting it.

I thought that was all rather simple to grasp but i guess not.

This is Sourav Ganguly we are talking about. If he was captain, he would have told Ponting to shove his agreement where the sun doesn't shine. Besides, Australia had been the beneficiaries of most of the decisions in the game at that point, so i'm not surprised that Ganguly decided to stand there.

How do we know that Clarke didn't question the catch when he was batting? He edged to slip, and stood there. Ganguly edged to slip, and he stood there. What's the difference?

Well for one clarke actually walked when the ump finally gave him out.

Anyway stop being a pedantic bore trev, the Clarke one wasn't a low down catch.

We all know clarke was a tool for not walking but he was waiting for bucknor to confirm he edged it not to confirm a catch that was nowhere near the grass.

Well for one clarke actually walked when the ump finally gave him out

So did Ganguly! Like I said, it was about 40 seconds before Benson finally raised his finger, and Ganguly walked off straight away.

Not sure why you keep bringing up ganguly though.

Two different issues i was talking about kumble's assertion that clarke broke the agreement by standing when he edged it, as i said before they didn't have a walking agreement they had a catches agreement.

Kumble himself didn't mention clarke's catch at all.

I guess it really is difficult to understand, or im speaking swahili or you're just a plank.

For all the bitching about umpires from officials, when players don't walk or appeal when they know it isn't out - they don't have a leg to stand on.

Want better umpires, get better morals

Kumble was spot on in his comment. Symonds, Punter and umpires have been anything but sporting. I can't get over the last Ganguly dismissal yet nor Ponting's reaction when he was given out first innings, and to think they hauled up Yuvraj for dissent.

Henry wrote:Hang on a minute.

One of crickets most respected warriors who has a previously exceptional record of fair play and integrity feels the need to say this about the current Australian team. Instead of suddenly calling him a sook, maybe you should open your eyes and wonder if he might, just might, be telling it how it is.

..

Pretty much.

embee wrote:Strangely enough ...it's OK* to stand and wait for the umpire to give you out even though it is obviously out ...

*...as per the Laws of Cricket and the ICC Code of Conduct ...

....it does make the player look stupid though ...again ...not a crime

Not a crime ... within the laws ... yes.

Kumble is (and so are we) talking about spirit of the game here. And last I checked, law and spirit had slightly different interpretations and boundaries in cricket. So not only does it make him look stupid, the fact that he was willing to wait there hoping the deaf and blind bats officiating just might let him off shows that he was:

1) trying to take advantage of the law, which to me is clearly against the "spirit" of the game,

2) Questioning the integrity of the Indians, esp. in a case where if he knew his rules he was clearly out. Clearly, "spirit" has a lot to do with the relationship with the two teams, and he was blatantly breaching it.

His comment is only justifiable if it is true that Australia knowingly cheated. They may have thought they caught that catch cleanly. Who knows.

It wasn't about the catch lll, it was about clarke standing at the crease when he edged to slip.

Read the quote from kumble early on in the thread, only issue i have is clarke was not disputing the catch but simply staying put till the umpire confirmed an edge.

Stupid but competly different to disputing the catch, the catch itself wasn't a disputable one anyway.

As i have already said the two teams made a pact to trust the fielders on catches they did not make a pact that they had to walk when they hit it.