Players claiming catches

[ohtani's jacket]

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.

The difference -- and I'm not saying it's right -- is that people assume the fielder knew whether it was a catch or not, and therefore it's more of a blatant act than letting the umpire decide if it's out or not.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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

Where the **** has our game gone?

No, just the opposite. PEWS was saying players who claim catches aren't "cheating as such", but I was saying that's exactly what they are doing, however one couches it.

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.

Well, how blameworthy one sees the cheating as is a judgement call, obviously. I don't see claiming a grassed catch as the same as standing one's ground tho. Waiting for an umpire's decision only enters the realm of willful deception where, as with Sangakarra in the first innings, the batsman shakes his head or makes some other indication to suggest he hasn't edged the ball (or maybe has in the case of LBW shouts).

 

[Prince EWS]

The difference -- and I'm not saying it's right -- is that people assume the fielder knew whether it was a catch or not, and therefore it's more of a blatant act than letting the umpire decide if it's out or not.

And a batsman does not usually know if he's edged it? And a bowler does not sometimes know if a batsman got an inside edge onto his pad, or hit the ground with a bat?

I really don't see much of a difference at all on principle alone, so I've always been somewhat bermused by the reactions to it.

 

[Richard]

Well, how blameworthy one sees the cheating as is a judgement call, obviously. I don't see claiming a grassed catch as the same as standing one's ground tho. Waiting for an umpire's decision only enters the realm of willful deception where, as with Sangakarra in the first innings, the batsman shakes his head or makes some other indication to suggest he hasn't edged the ball (or maybe has in the case of LBW shouts).

Clarke never even "claimed" the catch as such today, he merely didn't suggest he thought he'd grassed it.

That's the same as standing your ground, really. If he'd made a clear "I've caught this" indication then that would be analogous to touching your shoulder after the ball's hit your glove.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Clarke never even "claimed" the catch as such today, he merely didn't suggest he thought he'd grassed it.

That's the same as standing your ground, really. If he'd made a clear "I've caught this" indication then that would be analogous to touching your shoulder after the ball's hit your glove.

Sorry, haven't seen the incident. But unless he shrugged or spread his palms to suggest he wasn't sure then he was claiming the catch, surely?

 

[Richard]

No more than a batsman who doesn't walk off having nicked one.

As I've always said - a batsman who stands his ground is, obviously, hoping to be given not-out. Some people seem to neglect this, which is nought but blatant fact really (no, not me putting my opinion across as such ). Similarly, a fielder who is not shrugging or displaying "dunno" is hoping it'll be given out.

Both are cheating AFAIC, though obviously it is worse if you actually make a "yay, I've caught this" or a "it hit my arm, even though I know it actually hit my glove, Ump" gesture.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

And a batsman does not usually know if he's edged it? And a bowler does not sometimes know if a batsman got an inside edge onto his pad, or hit the ground with a bat?

I really don't see much of a difference at all on principle alone, so I've always been somewhat bermused by the reactions to it.

Eh, as far as I'm concerned if a bowler appeals then it's up to the umpire to judge whether it's out or not. That's why we have umpires. Everyone knows that a bowler will appeal whether he thinks it's out or not. If the umpire makes an incorrect decision it's an umpiring mistake not cheating from the bowler. Likewise standing your ground. It's up to the umpire. Maybe he knows he edged it, maybe he doesn't. Standing your ground isn't cheating. It's hoping for the best maybe, but the batsman is entitled to do it. Claiming a catch has worse connotations. There's a world of difference between whether it was really caught behind or LBW and whether it was a catch. One is a judgement call. The other is supposed to be conclusively out.

 

[Richard]

A did-he-hit-it\did-he-not is every bit as conclusive as did-it-carry.

It never ceases to amuse me the stuff people come-up with to try to make non-caught catches out to be a sin against humanity and standing your ground perfectly legitimate.

 

[Prince EWS]

Eh, as far as I'm concerned if a bowler appeals then it's up to the umpire to judge whether it's out or not. That's why we have umpires. Everyone knows that a bowler will appeal whether he thinks it's out or not. If the umpire makes an incorrect decision it's an umpiring mistake not cheating from the bowler. Likewise standing your ground. It's up to the umpire. Maybe he knows he edged it, maybe he doesn't. Standing your ground isn't cheating. It's hoping for the best maybe, but the batsman is entitled to do it. Claiming a catch has worse connotations. There's a world of difference between whether it was really caught behind or LBW and whether it was a catch. One is a judgement call. The other is supposed to be conclusively out.

It's still up to the umpire to make a decision on whether the catch was taken, though. I don't see a player claiming a catch as anything other than an appeal, really, and appeals happen all the time when those appealing know the wicket should not be given.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

It's still up to the umpire to make a decision on whether the catch was taken, though. I don't see a player claiming a catch as anything other than an appeal, really, and appeals happen all the time when those appealing know the wicket should not be given.

If the umpire gives it out, but replays show it wasn't taken, it's going to look infinitely worse than a poor LBW decision or a caught behind that shouldn't have been given out, and that's why people get upset. The first two are part of the game. The latter isn't supposed to be part of the game, as bore down by the gentleman's agreement of 1502.

Look, I'm not condemning it as such, just rationalising why people find it disgraceful. In the context of today's game it didn't mean squat, apart from being unfair on Hopkins if it wasn't out. For LBW decisions or caught behinds there's some benefit of the doubt for times when the bowler truly is convinced it's out or the batsman really doesn't believe he nicked it or thinks it was bat and pad or whatever. There's not supposed to be any doubt over a catch. That's how cricket works.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No more than a batsman who doesn't walk off having nicked one.

As I've always said - a batsman who stands his ground is, obviously, hoping to be given not-out. Some people seem to neglect this, which is nought but blatant fact really (no, not me putting my opinion across as such ). Similarly, a fielder who is not shrugging or displaying "dunno" is hoping it'll be given out.

Both are cheating AFAIC, though obviously it is worse if you actually make a "yay, I've caught this" or a "it hit my arm, even though I know it actually hit my glove, Ump" gesture.

Yes, you are. My opinion (and I'm happy to admit to it being such, just an opinion) is outlined here:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=319337&postcount=21

You take a contrary position, fine, I've no issues with that. But please don't go down the route route of presenting your opinion as fact again, it strangles debate and is quite annoying.

 

[Josh]

One of the worst claimed catches I have ever seen, today; and the fact the commentators backed him up makes it worse.

Shame on Australia, shame on Michael Clarke.

 

[honestbharani]

Have not seen the incident in question but there are few things that I hate than the blatant cheating of claiming a catch you know you didnt take.

I disliked Steve Waugh for the longest time for his claimed catch against Lara all those years ago. Then I watched a number of replays this year and it roles along his body and was a good, if unsual, catch.

u must see his claimed catch of Srikkanth in his debut ODI series...

Was an absolute joke. The ball hit his head and then hit the ground and then he rolled over, collected the ball FROM the ground and then claimed the catch. The umpire and Srikkanth looked absolutely bewildered that not just Waugh but his whole team were claiming the catch.

 

[honestbharani]

I think Dhoni is a bit of a recurring culprit on this issue.. Seems to claim bump catches a little too often for my liking. A few times, he actually gets turned down by the field umps themselves... That bad...

 

[Richard]

Yes, you are. My opinion (and I'm happy to admit to it being such, just an opinion) is outlined here:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=319337&postcount=21

You take a contrary position, fine, I've no issues with that. But please don't go down the route route of presenting your opinion as fact again, it strangles debate and is quite annoying.

It's not contrary positionalness. Are you honestly telling me that the batsman who nicks the ball and stands there is doing anything other than hoping to be given not-out?

 

[bond21]

2 umpires had a view of it, it wasnt like he took it at deep fine leg......

the batsman stayed and asked the umpire, he gave him out...whats so hard to understand?

Not like it made much of a difference anyway....

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's not contrary positionalness. Are you honestly telling me that the batsman who nicks the ball and stands there is doing anything other than hoping to be given not-out?

No, of course he isn't. That's a gross misrepresentation of my argument tho. What I'm saying is that unless he actually indicates he isn't out (as with Sangakarra'a headshake) he's not actively attempting to mislead the umpire; a player who claims a catch on the bounce is.

You choose to draw no distinction between active and passive deception, as I said that's your opinion, I disagree for the reasons I've outlined.

 

[Richard]

I'm not refusing to draw said distinction. You seem to be saying, basically, that any deception is active deception where catches are concerned; I disagree. I feel that you can actively and passively deceive with both "taking" catches and "not edging" deliveries.

And as I say - active is always worse than passive. But AFAIC, the one is poor sportsmanship, the other is shockingly poor sportsmanship. And as I said, that's why Sangakkara went down so far in my estimation (disappointingly so) earlier this Test.

But it is, very much, possible to passively deceive when "taking" a catch is the case-scenario. If you make no comment on the matter (as for instance Clarke did today) rather than making the obvious "yay, I've caught this" gestures, that's no different to standing still upon nicking a ball.

We are both agreed that shaking your head after nicking it and making "I've caught it" gestures after blatantly grounding it are shocking poor form.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm not refusing to draw said distinction. You seem to be saying, basically, that any deception is active deception where catches are concerned; I disagree. I feel that you can actively and passively deceive with both "taking" catches and "not edging" deliveries.

And as I say - active is always worse than passive. But AFAIC, the one is poor sportsmanship, the other is shockingly poor sportsmanship. And as I said, that's why Sangakkara went down so far in my estimation (disappointingly so) earlier this Test.

But it is, very much, possible to passively deceive when "taking" a catch is the case-scenario. If you make no comment on the matter (as for instance Clarke did today) rather than making the obvious "yay, I've caught this" gestures, that's no different to standing still upon nicking a ball.

We are both agreed that shaking your head after nicking it and making "I've caught it" gestures after blatantly grounding it are shocking poor form.

Pretty much, yeah. The way I see it, if you make an appeal for a catch knowing a ball has been grounded you're actively attempting to pull the wool over the umpires' eyes. If Clarke appealed (and I haven't seen the incident, but struggle to believe he maintained an entirely neutral body language throughout) it was cheating for me.

You disagree, that's fine.

 

[Richard]

I've only seen it once, but he seemed pretty "neutral" thoughout to me. Hogg and several others rushed straight up to him, but he never appealed, nor did he make an obvious "yeah, I can see why they're running up congratulating me" movement. Merely stood there. Then the batsmen walked off.