Just watched a full replay of the Indian 2nd dig

The One wrote:

tac wrote:

India were 1/171 and Ponting didn't claim this . . .

honourable from punter. i think most appreciated that

But you can't believe that he thought he caught the other cleanly . . .

Can't have it both ways. He claimed what he thought was out and didn't claim what he thought wasn't out.

I think he was wrong on both though.

the catch he didn't claim looked out to me, the other one he thought he caught wasn't.

In other words players have no freakin idea, all marginal catches should either be given out by the on field umps or given not out by the on field umps.

But tac, if he's as dumb as some people say ...

Wow forgot about that latif one.

There was also one the WI claimed in the champs trophy i think where the ball bounced a good foot in front, think it was bravo.

it's amazing that the ones in this seres have created world wide headlines...

tac wrote:

The One wrote:

tac wrote:

India were 1/171 and Ponting didn't claim this . . .

honourable from punter. i think most appreciated that

But you can't believe that he thought he caught the other cleanly . . .

Can't have it both ways. He claimed what he thought was out and didn't claim what he thought wasn't out.

i didnt say I dont believe him, but i can understand some who might have that view. when caught and grounded like that its quite unlikely the fielder doesnt know. he genuinely may not have known, but i cant get inside punter's mind (scary thought that!)

please don't yell wrote:Wow forgot about that latif one.

There was also one the WI claimed in the champs trophy i think where the ball bounced a good foot in front, think it was bravo.

it's amazing that the ones in this seres have created world wide headlines...

latif was banned for a few matches for that catch, so not the best example to cite when ponting was not officially hauled up for it

didnt see the windies one, so cant comment

What about this one?

Why is a fielder negating a 'catch' deemed as honourable ??

By stating that said fielder is honourable in that circumstance, does it then imply that on other occasions he could be deemed a cheat if appealing for a similar 'catch' ??

There are times when the fielder truly has no idea whatsoever whether the ball carried cleanly into his hands clear of the grass. Diving, focusing, collecting, rolling over ... all this done within a microsecond whilst handling a ball coming at him in excess of 60mph ...

So ... when he appeals for a ball that may have been grassed ... is he then deemed a cheat and not therefore honourable?!!

Ponting is pretty consistent with his behaviour; even the occasion he really lost his rag resulted from his perception that someone else was stretching the rules.

I don't think he's Macchiavellian enough to instantly disown one catch which was very close to OK and appeal for another vigorously for any reason other than he knew the first one wasn't right and he thought the second one was.

tac wrote: Can't have it both ways. He claimed what he thought was out and didn't claim what he thought wasn't out.

Fair point and I did think of it. First the, to me, complete ridiculousness of the second appeal is the reason. I just cannot see how he could have claimed that (forget what the umpires saw or what we saw etc).

On a more general note, it isn't in my opinion a question of having it both ways. Kumble was a great guy with a honourable record for Australian forummers till now. Now he is being derided (and it could be that this too is fair). I might as well tell Aus forummers they can't have it both ways.

lardbucket wrote:But tac, if he's as dumb as some people say ...

I wonder who the people are that says he's dumb?Poor old Symonds has that reputation amongst the players,not Ponting.What was that story about Symonds and the porno channel?Something about it having written disabled on the guide,and Symo was shocked that they had porn of disabled people on there.

See in that case it clearly hit the ground but there is no way the fielder would ahve known.

It's a mistake but not malicious from sri lanka.

tac wrote:What about this one?

Dar sure got that wrong.Sack him.

furriner wrote:

tac wrote: Can't have it both ways. He claimed what he thought was out and didn't claim what he thought wasn't out.

Fair point and I did think of it. First the, to me, complete ridiculousness of the second appeal is the reason. I just cannot see how he could have claimed that (forget what the umpires saw or what we saw etc).

On a more general note, it isn't in my opinion a question of having it both ways. Kumble was a great guy with a honourable record for Australian forummers till now. Now he is being derided (and it could be that this too is fair). I might as well tell Aus forummers they can't have it both ways.

Kumble isn't being derided.

He had a shocking day, spat the dummy, threw all his toys out of the cot, and unleashed a spray in a red mist moment. He was wrong about many (not all) of the things he said and there will be a softening of his views (at least in public!) over coming days.

Jokes aside i think it just shows the problem we have with one country right now.

All these posted incidents might have set of a cataclysmic chain of events...except India wasn't involved in them so they get forgotten.

tac wrote:What about this one?

Umpires cock-up... despite Dar being confident.
Judging from Dar's motions ... he was possibly referring to Silvas flick up to Jaya
but AFTER the ball went to ground - something he clearly missed.
Should have referred techno on this one ....

furriner wrote:On a more general note, it isn't in my opinion a question of having it both ways. Kumble was a great guy with a honourable record for Australian forummers till now. Now he is being derided (and it could be that this too is fair). I might as well tell Aus forummers they can't have it both ways.

You noticed that didn't you, they will fawn on a culture as long as it suits them but then scorn and mock it at the slightest aberration. That is aussie national character.

So don't take their praise too seriously.

lardbucket wrote:

furriner wrote:

tac wrote: Can't have it both ways. He claimed what he thought was out and didn't claim what he thought wasn't out.

Fair point and I did think of it. First the, to me, complete ridiculousness of the second appeal is the reason. I just cannot see how he could have claimed that (forget what the umpires saw or what we saw etc).

On a more general note, it isn't in my opinion a question of having it both ways. Kumble was a great guy with a honourable record for Australian forummers till now. Now he is being derided (and it could be that this too is fair). I might as well tell Aus forummers they can't have it both ways.

Kumble Ponting isn't being derided.

He had a shocking day, spat the dummy, threw all his toys out of the cot, and unleashed a spray in a red mist moment. He was wrong about many (not all) of the things he said and there will be a softening of his views (at least in public!) over coming days.

Works both ways.

Aussies never fawn on any culture.We gave that up years ago.

Furriner kumble is still a great player and a top bloke(tactically inept skipper though which suprised me)

But he made a real goose of himself after the match but as lardy said he will know that and no doubt will take steps to rectify things.

in that the hand was the other way round, hand under the ball, pontings had the hand over the ball when it hit the ground. another reason to use the third ump

How about claiming this one?

please don't yell wrote:Jokes aside i think it just shows the problem we have with one country right now.

All these posted incidents might have set of a cataclysmic chain of events...except India wasn't involved in them so they get forgotten.

lol! are you saying this is the first time india has had the worse of the decisions in a test, or not the first time the ump has been changed after such a test?

But kumble knows as his words to ponting showed just how much power India has in cricket, he would have known the chain of events his comments would set off amongst the fanatics in india.

certainly former skippers like sashin have been aware of just how many in Indian use cricket as a way to spread nationalism or to push their own agenda's so they have chosen their words with care kumble had a brain snap as im sure he wasn't being purposely malicious but rather emotional.

The One wrote: another reason to use the third ump

In pontings case there was no reason to use the third ump.