Just watched a full replay of the Indian 2nd dig

and couldn't see much to bitch about except the Dravid dismissal . . .


Clarke catch looked better than 50-50 . . . he said he caught it so it's out according to the playing conditions.

Ponting clearly had the ball firmly in his grasp before hitting the turf . . . part of the ball hit the ground when he landed, no doubt, but watching it again and again I'm pretty sure he also had a finger or two under the ball . . . I doubt Ponting would have known either way and it is his right to ask the question. Farkin brilliant effort either way.

Really couldn't see much aggro or over appealing . . . expected to see a lot more, but in the clear light of day there was not much to complain of.

Re the Dravid dismissal, he had the pat behind his pad, Gilly would only have seen the back of the bat covering the pad and a deflection. Worth an appeal. Seen a lot worse appeals . . . including Harby against Ponting when the knick was obvious (except to Benson).

Of course, I'm a one-eyed, racist, corrupt, cheating, convict cunut . . . but I stick by the above and you can all go fark yourselves.

tac wrote:Of course, I'm a one-eyed, racist, corrupt, cheating, convict cunut . . . but I stick by the above and you can all go fark yourselves.

We already knew that you flatugunt.

Pontings 'catch' was embarrising.

Total hypocracy of the highest order.

Batfink Begins wrote:

tac wrote:Of course, I'm a one-eyed, racist, corrupt, cheating, convict cunut . . . but I stick by the above and you can all go fark yourselves.

We already knew that you flatugunt.

I gave you that insult, Thatcherite!

tac wrote: part of the ball hit the ground when he landed, no doubt,

Yes, the outside part.

JamJar wrote:Pontings 'catch' was embarrising.

Total hypocracy of the highest order.

Not as embarrassing as your spelling. I take it you're a subi?

Regarding the Ponting catch i've no doubt he felt he had it under control by the time it was rubbed along the floor.

Agree with tac (Doctor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I could only see the Dravid decision as a real shocker and said so at the time.

bliksem wrote:

tac wrote: part of the ball hit the ground when he landed, no doubt,

Yes, the outside part.

Really? I thought he cut it half and rubbed both halves in the dirt, bounced them twice and then claimed the catch . . . but that's because I read the subi press.

JKLever wrote:Regarding the Ponting catch i've no doubt he felt he had it under control by the time it was rubbed along the floor.

Agree with tac (Doctor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I could only see the Dravid decision as a real shocker and said so at the time.

If he had it under control, why was it rubbed along the floor?

bliksem wrote:

JKLever wrote:Regarding the Ponting catch i've no doubt he felt he had it under control by the time it was rubbed along the floor.

Agree with tac (Doctor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) I could only see the Dravid decision as a real shocker and said so at the time.

If he had it under control, why was it rubbed along the floor?

In my view he wasn't in control. I'm saying he himself probably felt the ball go in and thought nothing of it.

It's a shame the umpire was too incompetent to see Dhoni glove the ball or this would be an even juicier argument.

I would have given it out.

Well if we're sharing opinions about the 2nd innings then i stand by my earlier post and say that for the Clarke catch, to me and my friends, looked to have dropped slightly short. And i'm going by the camera angle from behind and between the legs (known as the Nicholas angle).

tac wrote:
I gave you that insult, Thatcherite!

Nope. You gave me a link which gave me 200 insults. Out of that I picked out ejacugunt, to which I have tweaked it. Therefore, I am on the pedestal of brilliance, whilst you are simply doing f@nnyf@rts.

It was off a no-ball apparently,so imagine,would have been 2 umps gone.
Is he talking about this catch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISotZ99GkHc

Henry Nolonga wrote:Well if we're sharing opinions about the 2nd innings then i stand by my earlier post and say that for the Clarke catch, to me and my friends, looked to have dropped slightly short. And i'm going by the camera angle from behind and between the legs (known as the Nicholas angle).

Forum gold!

noelene wrote:It was off a no-ball apparently,so imagine,would have been 2 umps gone.
Is he talking about this catch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISotZ99GkHc

No. you spankmonkey.

I am almost afraid to ask.What's a spankmonkey?

I'm not touching that....

I think I know now.It's all good.I think.

lardbucket wrote:It's a shame the umpire was too incompetent to see Dhoni glove the ball or this would be an even juicier argument.

I would have given it out.

and you would have been wrong as well

3. A fair catch
A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.

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.

(b) the ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in his clothing or, in the case of the wicket-keeper, in his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder. See Law 23 (Dead ball).

(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.

The One wrote:

lardbucket wrote:It's a shame the umpire was too incompetent to see Dhoni glove the ball or this would be an even juicier argument.

I would have given it out.

and you would have been wrong as well

3. A fair catch
A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.

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.

(b) the ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in his clothing or, in the case of the wicket-keeper, in his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder. See Law 23 (Dead ball).

(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.

The point is, who saw that without the slow mo close-ups? Cricket is played and umpired in real-time . . only the sooking occurs in slow-mo . . .

I know that now, TO, I dug it out myself the other day.

I'm only saying that at the time I would have given it out, because I believed it was out.

Got a link on you tube to the catch,because from what I saw there was no telling if the ball touched the ground.I am prepared to take his word that it didn't,or he thought it didn't.It was one of those ones that could have gone either way,and been argued about forever.

Come on, it was pretty obvious. Ponting looked like he'd just finished doing a press-up in his appeal.

tac wrote:

The One wrote:

lardbucket wrote:It's a shame the umpire was too incompetent to see Dhoni glove the ball or this would be an even juicier argument.

I would have given it out.

and you would have been wrong as well

3. A fair catch
A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.

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.

(b) the ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in his clothing or, in the case of the wicket-keeper, in his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder. See Law 23 (Dead ball).

(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.

The point is, who saw that without the slow mo close-ups? Cricket is played and umpired in real-time . . only the sooking occurs in slow-mo . . .

where have you been since 1992? wasnt the first time a catch was referred to the third ump