Players claiming catches

[Dark Hunter]

Have to agree with Fiery here, he would have known that it was grassed. Watch the way he takes it, his hands aren't under the ball, they're pushing down on it. Any player would know from that feeling of pushing on the ball, that it had hit the ground.

 

[Fiery]

exactly

 

[Richard]

You know if you have grassed a catch or not. Played much cricket?

Watched much cricket? There's absolutely no way you always know for certain whether you've caught something. I've seen enough instances of fielders being unsure of a catch in 10 years to know that.

I've also just seen the Clarke one and while it was certainly not obviously-clean and although I only got one look I've seen plenty of worse "catch"es claimed.

 

[Johnners]

Didn't get to see it, but I've been told by plenty it was inconclusive, and certainly not as bad as it's being made out by some. Theres absolutely no way you could know if Clarke knew he did or didn't catch it Fiery.

EDIT: BTW, anyone got youtube of it yet?

 

[Fiery]

Didn't get to see it, but I've been told by plenty it was inconclusive, and certainly not as bad as it's being made out by some. Theres absolutely no way you could know if Clarke knew he did or didn't catch it Fiery.

EDIT: BTW, anyone got youtube of it yet?

Well we all know you're one of Australia's biggest cheerleaders. Maybe you should see it, before you comment.

 

[Richard]

FFS, there are many more biased Aussie supporters on CW than Clapo.

 

[Fiery]

FFS, there are many more biased Aussie supporters on CW than Clapo.

bollocks

 

[Dasa]

Well we all know you're one of Australia's biggest cheerleaders. Maybe you should see it, before you comment.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Absolutely dire. Almost as bad as Rashid Latif's and he got five matches. I hope Clarke gets the same.

Seeing as this is Latif's, I really hope it isn't.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, AWTA.

 

[Fiery]

Yeah, AWTA.

DWTA. Are you both making claims?

 

[Prince EWS]

Well we all know you're one of Australia's biggest cheerleaders.

And we all know you're one of Australia's biggest deathriders. I'm sorry to say, but this thread probably would have been taken a lot more seriously if was started by someone other than yourself, especially given New Zealand just lost the CH Trophy so you were always bound to try to turn your focus onto something else. I haven't seen the incident so I won't comment on it specifically, and I hate to play the man and not the ball so to speak, but I couldn't resist the irony of you attacking the credibility of someone replying to this thread..

Regarding the catch-claiming issue in general though, I never really figured out why it was such a cricketing taboo. Batsmen edge the ball and stand their ground; bowlers and keepers appeal when they know the batsman isn't out. If you look to rugby league as a random example, hands often "assist" the ball in coming loose and players stand deliberately offside. It's professional sport - it's not "cheating" as such from where I sit and I don't see how this catch-claiming business is any different to many other issues that are looked upon as being merely "sneaky" or "competitive" in cricket and other sports.

The only explanation I can come up for this being so harshly looked upon is exactly how hard it would be to rule on from an umpire's perspective in years gone by. Without the aid of technology, it could be quite hard to tell whether the fielder at second gully got his fingers around the bottom of the ball or not so this issue has always been one left to honour. If we can leave this to honour though, we not everything else? Why involve the umpires at all when we can just use technology later to brand players as cheaters and then ban them? As I said, this is professional sport; not a friendly match on a Saturday. Players will do their best to get away with what they can and the umpires are in place to adjudicate on the outcomes.

And before Fiery or someone else accuses me of being a biased Australian in that view, I suggest you take a look at my comments on Ian Bell's first test wicket in Pakistan where I said essentially the same thing.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think this runs the same line as if batsmen caught when he knows he nicked it..but still waits for the umpire to make a decision.. if you are going to start banning fake catches.. you may as well start banning batsmen..

I started a thread on the different types of cheating a year or so ago. I don't see any difference between claiming you've caught something you haven't (I haven't seen this particular incident) and claiming a catch when you know the batsman hasn't hit it or the batsman standing his ground when he knows he has. This was a consensus of opinion that in the latter two cases you're just forcing the umpire to make a decision which isn't as bad as claiming a grounded catch. To me it's all cheating on an equal footing but very difficult to prove unless it's as conclusive as the Latif effort.

 

[Richard]

And we all know you're one of Australia's biggest deathriders. I'm sorry to say, but this thread probably would have been taken a lot more seriously if was started by someone other than yourself, especially given New Zealand just lost the CH Trophy so you were always bound to try to turn your focus onto something else. I haven't seen the incident so I won't comment on it specifically, and I hate to play the man and not the ball so to speak, but I couldn't resist the irony of you attacking the credibility of someone replying to this thread..

Yeah, agreed TBH. Pro-team-X and anti-team-X biases are some of the most frustrating things in cricket (and I myself have been accused of both things towards pretty much every team in World cricket). It's particularly irritating, as you say, to see one blatantly guilty of such accuse another of being so.

 

[Fiery]

And we all know you're one of Australia's biggest deathriders. I'm sorry to say, but this thread probably would have been taken a lot more seriously if was started by someone other than yourself, especially given New Zealand just lost the CH Trophy so you were always bound to try to turn your focus onto something else. I haven't seen the incident so I won't comment on it specifically, and I hate to play the man and not the ball so to speak, but I couldn't resist the irony of you attacking the credibility of someone replying to this thread..

Regarding the catch-claiming issue in general though, I never really figured out why it was such a cricketing taboo. Batsmen edge the ball and stand their ground; bowlers and keepers appeal when they know the batsman isn't out. If you look to rugby league as a random example, hands often "assist" the ball in coming loose and players stand deliberately offside. It's professional sport - it's not "cheating" as such from where I sit and I don't see how this catch-claiming business is any different to many other issues that are looked upon as being merely "sneaky" or "competitive" in cricket and other sports.

The only explanation I can come up for this being so harshly looked upon is exactly how hard it would be to rule on from an umpire's perspective in years gone by. Without the aid of technology, it could be quite hard to tell whether the fielder at second gully got his fingers around the bottom of the ball or not so this issue has always been one left to honour. If we can leave this to honour though, we not everything else? Why involve the umpires at all when we can just use technology later to brand players as cheaters and then ban them? As I said, this is professional sport; not a friendly match on a Saturday. Players will do their best to get away with what they can and the umpires are in place to adjudicate on the outcomes.

And before Fiery or someone else accuses me of being a biased Australian in that view, I suggest you take a look at my comments on Ian Bell's first test wicket in Pakistan where I said essentially the same thing.

You can write as many paragraphs as you like, D.H.Lawrence. The fact is the little Aussie bugger cheated. He claimed a catch that wasn't!.....(need any more full stops?)

 

[BoyBrumby]

And we all know you're one of Australia's biggest deathriders. I'm sorry to say, but this thread probably would have been taken a lot more seriously if was started by someone other than yourself, especially given New Zealand just lost the CH Trophy so you were always bound to try to turn your focus onto something else. I haven't seen the incident so I won't comment on it specifically, and I hate to play the man and not the ball so to speak, but I couldn't resist the irony of you attacking the credibility of someone replying to this thread..

Regarding the catch-claiming issue in general though, I never really figured out why it was such a cricketing taboo. Batsmen edge the ball and stand their ground; bowlers and keepers appeal when they know the batsman isn't out. If you look to rugby league as a random example, hands often "assist" the ball in coming loose and players stand deliberately offside. It's professional sport - it's not "cheating" as such from where I sit and I don't see how this catch-claiming business is any different to many other issues that are looked upon as being merely "sneaky" or "competitive" in cricket and other sports.

The only explanation I can come up for this being so harshly looked upon is exactly how hard it would be to rule on from an umpire's perspective in years gone by. Without the aid of technology, it could be quite hard to tell whether the fielder at second gully got his fingers around the bottom of the ball or not so this issue has always been one left to honour. If we can leave this to honour though, we not everything else? Why involve the umpires at all when we can just use technology later to brand players as cheaters and then ban them? As I said, this is professional sport; not a friendly match on a Saturday. Players will do their best to get away with what they can and the umpires are in place to adjudicate on the outcomes.

And before Fiery or someone else accuses me of being a biased Australian in that view, I suggest you take a look at my comments on Ian Bell's first test wicket in Pakistan where I said essentially the same thing.

That's precisely what it is. Just because other sports shroud their cheats in more cuddly euphemisms (I regularly hear footballers who dive described as "earned a penalty" or "being cute") doesn't alter that essential fact.

Just because other sports have gone down that route it doesn't mean cricket should; I mean no other sport (AFAIK) has every been used a synonym for "fair play".

 

[Fiery]

That's precisely what it is. Just because other sports shroud their cheats in more cuddly euphemisms (I regularly hear footballers who dive described as "earned a penalty" or "being cute") doesn't alter that essential fact.

Just because other sports have gone down that route it doesn't mean cricket should; I mean no other sport (AFAIK) has every been used a synonym for "fair play".

So wtf Brumby? Are you agreeing with him that's it's OK to cheat or what?

Where the **** has our game gone?

 

[Prince EWS]

That's precisely what it is. Just because other sports shroud their cheats in more cuddly euphemisms (I regularly hear footballers who dive described as "earned a penalty" or "being cute") doesn't alter that essential fact.

Just because other sports have gone down that route it doesn't mean cricket should; I mean no other sport (AFAIK) has every been used a synonym for "fair play".

Even if you remove the comparisons to other sports, though, I think the issue is overblown even when compared to other issues in cricket. Not all batsmen walk and they are not chastised for it - nor are bowlers or wicket keepers who appeal for wickets they know are not out. I know it's significantly easier for umpires to make a call on that, but when we're dealing with principle alone - which we are in this matter - then it really is a double standard.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

You know if you have grassed a catch or not. Played much cricket?

Yes I have - and I don't believe he would have known.

 

[Fiery]

Michael Clarke = Cheating ****...today.