Just watched a full replay of the Indian 2nd dig

The Don99 wrote:I think the key difference between Punter's "catch" and those of others (excluding latif of course!), is that RP is the only skipper serously advocating taking the word of the fielders at all costs. Obviously it then leaves a sour taste when the aformentioned player claims a dodgy "catch" at a crucial stage in the game - there is no way that Punter knew for sure that he had control of the ball (and replays show he didn't), and therefore he should not have claimed the catch (given the pre-series pact).

I agree, if it were anyone else then they would be quiet correct to claim a dubious catch in the modern game.

But Ponting has gone against the spirit of his own laws by claiming such a doubtful catch.

JamJar wrote:But Ponting has gone against the spirit of his own laws ....

Never heard of this before. What is it exactly ?

*Buckaroo* wrote:

JamJar wrote:But Ponting has gone against the spirit of his own laws ....

Never heard of this before. What is it exactly ?

Letting the fielder decide in on whether a catch is clean....

JamJar wrote:

But Ponting has gone against the spirit of his own laws by claiming such a doubtful catch.

FFS ... gie it a rest.
The Punter believed he'd snaffed it clean so he asked .. slow-mo proved otherwise.
What's wrong with that?

Not as bad as Dhoni claiming KP's scalp last series Eng v India ...
now that one DID ground, Dhoni knew it, maybe not - nonetheless, he appealed - slow mo proved otherwise.

Makes Dhoni a cheat ... right??

Merlin wrote:

JamJar wrote:

But Ponting has gone against the spirit of his own laws by claiming such a doubtful catch.

FFS ... gie it a rest.
The Punter believed he'd snaffed it clean so he asked .. slow-mo proved otherwise.
What's wrong with that?

Not as bad as Dhoni claiming KP's scalp last series Eng v India ...
now that one DID ground, Dhoni knew it, maybe not - nonetheless, he appealed - slow mo proved otherwise.

Makes Dhoni a cheat ... right??

No more of a cheat than Symonds for not walking???

But then Dhoni has never been a crusade about letting the players decide if the batsman out or not!

So a cheat yes, a hypocrite no.

Merlin wrote:

JamJar wrote:

But Ponting has gone against the spirit of his own laws by claiming such a doubtful catch.

FFS ... gie it a rest.
The Punter believed he'd snaffed it clean so he asked .. slow-mo proved otherwise.
What's wrong with that?

Not as bad as Dhoni claiming KP's scalp last series Eng v India ...
now that one DID ground, Dhoni knew it, maybe not - nonetheless, he appealed - slow mo proved otherwise.

Makes Dhoni a cheat ... right??

No, because he never advocated taking the fielders word. Or something like that.

But Dhoni doesn't openly speak about the need for fielders to be honest and how the opposition should take the fielder's word on dubious catches. There is some hypocrisy when Ponting is found to go against the ideals he is seeking. He might not have cheated as such, but there is no way that he knew for sure that he was in complete control of the ball before touching the ground. He claimed a dubious catch and the umpires would have been obliged to give it giving the pre-series agreement.

The Don99 wrote:But Dhoni doesn't openly speak about the need for fielders to be honest and how the opposition should take the fielder's word on dubious catches. There is some hypocrisy when Ponting is found to go against the ideals he is seeking. He might not have cheated as such, but there is no way that he knew for sure that he was in complete control of the ball before touching the ground. He claimed a dubious catch and the umpires would have been obliged to give it giving the pre-series agreement.

That's a fair point, but I think Ponting genuinly believed it was a clean catch.

He nevertheless appealed for a "dubious" catch.
Bad ... very bad ... form IMO.

Lotsa videos on this thread; here's an image.

I have nothing to say about the Clarke catch (and this is not a new opinion). Foreshortening etc, Kumble agree with Ponting to accept the fielder's word etc, cry me a river. Fair enough. Happens all the time.

But it is difficult for me to accept that Ponting did not know the ball had touched the ground.
What would have been your reaction had an Indian or Pakistani claimed this catch?

The Don99 wrote:But Dhoni doesn't openly speak about the need for fielders to be honest and how the opposition should take the fielder's word on dubious catches. There is some hypocrisy when Ponting is found to go against the ideals he is seeking. He might not have cheated as such, but there is no way that he knew for sure that he was in complete control of the ball before touching the ground. He claimed a dubious catch and the umpires would have been obliged to give it giving the pre-series agreement.

AS he was 'not sure' ... he naturally appealed.

I fail to see what was wrong with that appeal??

Of course, I'm a one-eyed, racist, corrupt, cheating, convict cunut .

Don't know about racist, corrupt and cheating, but the other descriptions are spot on.

Merlin wrote:

The Don99 wrote:But Dhoni doesn't openly speak about the need for fielders to be honest and how the opposition should take the fielder's word on dubious catches. There is some hypocrisy when Ponting is found to go against the ideals he is seeking. He might not have cheated as such, but there is no way that he knew for sure that he was in complete control of the ball before touching the ground. He claimed a dubious catch and the umpires would have been obliged to give it giving the pre-series agreement.

AS he was 'not sure' ... he naturally appealed.

I fail to see what was wrong with that appeal??

1st rule of umpiring, Where there's doubt then not out.

Given his stance on this issue, he should not have appealed.

furriner wrote:

Lotsa videos on this thread; here's an image.

I have nothing to say about the Clarke catch (and this is not a new opinion). Foreshortening etc, Kumble agree with Ponting to accept the fielder's word etc, cry me a river. Fair enough. Happens all the time.

But it is difficult for me to accept that Ponting did not know the ball had touched the ground.
What would have been your reaction had an Indian or Pakistani claimed this catch?

Hindsight is a beautiful gift furry.
But, in all honesty, and (without blowing myself off) having been in similar circumstances ...
taking a close to the bat "catch" like that over-injects the adrenalin, and the subsequent
wild excitement in belief that it was clean over-rides all else ... and you DO honestly believe
you've done it.

Not cheating IMO, just euphoria.

At international level, multiply that feeling a hundred fold...

Merlin wrote:

The Don99 wrote:But Dhoni doesn't openly speak about the need for fielders to be honest and how the opposition should take the fielder's word on dubious catches. There is some hypocrisy when Ponting is found to go against the ideals he is seeking. He might not have cheated as such, but there is no way that he knew for sure that he was in complete control of the ball before touching the ground. He claimed a dubious catch and the umpires would have been obliged to give it giving the pre-series agreement.

AS he was 'not sure' ... he naturally appealed.

I fail to see what was wrong with that appeal??

Before the series there was an alleged agreement - fielders would have the final say and their word should be taken. Therefore Ponting, despite knowing this, appealed for a catch which at best can be explained as "dubious". He could not have been certain that he took the "catch" (replays show he didn't), yet despite this doubt he appealed and the umpires should have been obliged to give it. When you are a firm outspoken believer that fielders should have the definitive say on the validity of catches, you then come across lacking integrity IMO when shown to claim a dodgy catch.

Furthermore his subsequent denial - "there is no way i grounded that ball" - despite replays showing otherwise, further brings his actions into the spotlight IMO.

furriner wrote:

Lotsa videos on this thread; here's an image.

I have nothing to say about the Clarke catch (and this is not a new opinion). Foreshortening etc, Kumble agree with Ponting to accept the fielder's word etc, cry me a river. Fair enough. Happens all the time.

But it is difficult for me to accept that Ponting did not know the ball had touched the ground.
What would have been your reaction had an Indian or Pakistani claimed this catch?

He has 2 other fingers that I can't see. This picture proves nothing. In fact makes me think maybe the catch was good afterall

PearlJ wrote:He has 2 other fingers that I can't see. This picture proves nothing.

this raises a lot of questions. What do you see when you look yourself in the mirror .. or exactly how much is visible ?

*Buckaroo* wrote:

PearlJ wrote:He has 2 other fingers that I can't see. This picture proves nothing.

this raises a lot of questions. What do you see when you look yourself in the mirror .. or exactly how much is visible ?

What do you see in your mirror? Aliens?

PearlJ wrote:

*Buckaroo* wrote:

PearlJ wrote:He has 2 other fingers that I can't see. This picture proves nothing.

this raises a lot of questions. What do you see when you look yourself in the mirror .. or exactly how much is visible ?

What do you see in your mirror? Aliens?

That would be pretty scary. As of now I just see my complete face in the mirror,

PearlJ wrote:

furriner wrote:

Lotsa videos on this thread; here's an image.

I have nothing to say about the Clarke catch (and this is not a new opinion). Foreshortening etc, Kumble agree with Ponting to accept the fielder's word etc, cry me a river. Fair enough. Happens all the time.

But it is difficult for me to accept that Ponting did not know the ball had touched the ground.
What would have been your reaction had an Indian or Pakistani claimed this catch?

He has 2 other fingers that I can't see. This picture proves nothing. In fact makes me think maybe the catch was good afterall

Not much more to be said, then.

*Buckaroo* wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

*Buckaroo* wrote:

PearlJ wrote:He has 2 other fingers that I can't see. This picture proves nothing.

this raises a lot of questions. What do you see when you look yourself in the mirror .. or exactly how much is visible ?

What do you see in your mirror? Aliens?

That would be pretty scary. As of now I just see my complete face in the mirror,

You are looking in a mirror now?

tac wrote:

The One wrote:

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

It was given NOT OUT!

Which is not the ****** point at all.

noelene wrote:I maintain that you cannot tell whether his hand was off the ground.Close in camera cannot tell you that for certainty.What if he says to you my hand was not on the ground?

You can but for that you'd have to open both eyes and not be .

holcs wrote:

holcs wrote:Speaking as someone who fields close to the bat, and plays an OK standard of cricket (i'm not jacking myself off here by the way)......

You don't actually always know whether the ball has touched the turf or not. In fact generally the person that knows is the bloke next to you at slip etc...

Problem is, those low catches you watch the ball until the very last minute but then you loose it. If its coming quick you really don't have much of an idea, but it FEELS as if its gone in cleanly.

Now you can't say thats cheating, its just an unknown.

Also when diving to take a catch, again it goes in cleanly, but then you concentrate so much on keeping it in when you land that actually you do not have any idea you have grounded the ball. But you do know that it has gone in clean and stayed in clean!

I have played cricket as well and it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below OK standard, but whenever I dive to take a catch I ALWAYS go palm up whenever possible. When I can't, I know I'm not doing it completely right so there is that little bit more awareness of where the ball goes and if it touches the ground.

I wouldn't have a problem with Ponting and Clarke's 'catches' if it wasn't for the pact. Since there is a pact you owe the opposition to be honest enough to say you didn't catch it or atleast that you weren't sure. And I do find it hard to believe that they could have been sure. I can accept it however, because otherwise it would have been plain hypocrisy on my part. And not because of the Dhoni claim either.

And furri, even with the foreshortening, that only brings into doubt the first part where the ball drops short, not the second part where he grounds it.