Just watched a full replay of the Indian 2nd dig

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

Pearl, the ball is in his right hand!

JamJar wrote:

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

Pearl, the ball is in his right hand!

:laule:

JGK wrote:

Mick Sawyer 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?

What about the fact that this shot is just a fraction of a second after his face (grill on the visor) smashed into the ground. With the point made earlier WRT him disclaiming the 1/171 opportunity, why's it so hard to believe that this was an honest error?

Darrell Hair was on Sydney radio this week saying that the Ponting "catch" would have been out if it had hit the glove. Whether technically it is or not I have no doubt that all umpires would have given it out.

Sounds like it's just as well Hair is no longer umpiring tests. The law is quite specific that a catch is only completed when the fielder is in complete control of the ball and their own motion. A fielder diving for a catch cannot satisfy both criteria until he has landed so Ponting never completed that catch.

The fact that he apparently thought he did is good evidence against the idea of accepting the fielder's word when deciding an appeal.

ten years after wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"and couldn't see much to bitch about except the Dravid dismissal . . . "

You know tac, I watched that again last night I can completely understand how the error was made. I've heard plenty of complaints from people saying that he had the bat tucked in behind the pad. What those critics missed while watching the bat was the fact that it passed less than the width of a cigarette paper from his left glove.

Who supplies your cigarette papers?

Both gloves were at least a foot from the ball.

Not when the ball went past them on the way into the keepers gloves.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

ten years after wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"and couldn't see much to bitch about except the Dravid dismissal . . . "

You know tac, I watched that again last night I can completely understand how the error was made. I've heard plenty of complaints from people saying that he had the bat tucked in behind the pad. What those critics missed while watching the bat was the fact that it passed less than the width of a cigarette paper from his left glove.

Who supplies your cigarette papers?

Both gloves were at least a foot from the ball.

Not when the ball went past them on the way into the keepers gloves.

Look at the 3 minute make of this (posted earlier by Doremi)





Never closer than a foot.