***Official*** India in Australia

[ozone]

If it is someone whos not new, he's done a pretty shoddy job of hiding it.

 

[Anil]

Yeah, I think it does. The fuss about the catches actually surprises me, I'm probably not the first person to suspect that had everything else not happened, there wouldn't be a big issue about them. I read some posts last night outlining the laws that stated that technically they weren't quite right, but I certainly myself thought that Ponting had total control of the ball at the time he impacted the ground. I wouldn't object if an umpire gave it not-out by the letter of the law (had the umpire believed the ball had come off the glove) and that had been the focus of the decision, but I'm a bit taken aback at the certainty that some people have that Ponting was cheating in claiming it. It probably happens in games quite frequently with no questions being asked, I would have thought.

The Clarke one was harder to make out than that one, but again, I'm surprised at people's certainty on it, and I believe I have a pretty good eye.

here is what the law states:

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.

ponting had caught the ball cleanly, but since he was falling down, he most certainly did not have control of his own movement...and the law also states that:

(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.

basically allowing the hand holding the ball to touch the ground but not the ball...

according to the rules, ponting did not take a clean catch...the possibility that a lot of people do it everywhere doesn't make it correct, does it?

 

[Slow Love™]

Haha, what are the chances of this:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1442572&postcount=116

....

Of course, we could be wrong.

 

[Ikki]

On the umpiring, incompetence (Bucknor) is forgivable, sort of, but what Benson did (checking with Ponting) was totally out of line. Should have his eyes gouged out.

The two teams made an agreement prior to the series that they'd allow the word of the fielder when claiming catches. Ponting simply confirmed Clarke had taken the catch, per their agreement.

 

[Slow Love™]

here is what the law states:

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.

ponting had caught the ball cleanly, but since he was falling down, he most certainly did not have control of his own movement...and the law also states that:

(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.

basically allowing the hand holding the ball to touch the ground but not the ball...

according to the rules, ponting did not take a clean catch...the possibility that a lot of people do it everywhere doesn't make it correct, does it?

Yeah, I accepted in the post you quoted that it was, by the letter of the law out, mate. The point I was making though was that I think the fuss concerning that catch is out of proportion, as I think it quite possibly passes muster fairly often when things aren't as heated and filled with ill-feeling as this situation.

 

[Anil]

....

Of course, we could be wrong.

yeah he is sounding a bit like c_c, but c_c isn't even banned currently, not sure why he would come in with another account...

 

[Dissector]

Yeah the laws are quite specific: if a fielder lets the ball touches the ground before he has control over his movement it's not a catch. Clearly that happened in both the Clarke and Ponting catches neither of which was legitimate. Unless Ponting is unaware of the rules I don't see how he could have believed his catch was legitimate. I think an enquiry and possible penalty is quite in line. At the least Ponting owes an apology and his outburst at the journalist for pointing out the truth was characteristically idiotic.

 

[Slow Love™]

Interesting avatar. It's sold in Australia?

I'm not sure, I'm pretty sure we call it chicken flavor. I think the English like a bit of the **** flavor though (inappropriate considering recent events???).

 

[Ikki]

here is what the law states:

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.

ponting had caught the ball cleanly, but since he was falling down, he most certainly did not have control of his own movement...and the law also states that:

(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.

basically allowing the hand holding the ball to touch the ground but not the ball...

according to the rules, ponting did not take a clean catch...the possibility that a lot of people do it everywhere doesn't make it correct, does it?

We've discussed this before and actually, according the rules, it is very easy to interpret it as a catch.

If it is a player's intention to fling himself at the ball in full stretch to make a catch, he is well in control of his movements. However, if you're racing to get under a ball, take the catch and start tripping over your own feet, that is not control of your own movement and is completely different.

In most diving catches, especially with one hand, it is near impossible not to ground the ball while taking the catch. Because a) you're outstretched, b) you need to fall gracefully. Trying to catch a ball in mid-air and bending your elbow (if that's even possible in the fractions of a second you are in the air) will seriously injure yourself. In order to control yourself you actually have to fall gracefully and that sometimes means grounding a ball which you're quite obviously in control of.

The plain fact that these kind of catches have happened all the time - and plenty of videos are in this thread to show this - show a clear precedence.

 

[Slow Love™]

Yeah the laws are quite specific: if a fielder lets the ball touches the ground before he has control over his movement it's not a catch. Clearly that happened in both the Clarke and Ponting catches neither of which was legitimate. Unless Ponting is unaware of the rules I don't see how he could have believed his catch was legitimate.

I still think this is highly debatable.

 

[Anil]

Yeah, I accepted in the post you quoted that it was, by the letter of the law out, mate. The point I was making though was that I think the fuss concerning that catch is out of proportion, as I think it quite possibly passes muster fairly often when things aren't as heated and filled with ill-feeling as this situation.

sure, that is very likely...quite possible that this wouldn't have been noticed if not for all the other stuff that happened...actually this would apply to clarke's situation as well, even if we assume that he took the catch cleanly in the first place, he also clearly grounded the ball while rolling over....

 

[roseboy64]

I'm not sure, I'm pretty sure we call it chicken flavor. I think the English like a bit of the **** flavor though (inappropriate considering recent events???).

Ok so how did you come by it? The avatar that is.

 

[Anil]

We've discussed this before and actually, according the rules, it is very easy to interpret it as a catch.

If it is a player's intention to fling himself at the ball in full stretch to make a catch, he is well in control of his movements. However, if you're racing to get under a ball, take the catch and start tripping over your own feet, that is not control of your own movement and is completely different.

i have no idea how you can make such a conclusion as far as the bolded part is concerned, the guy is airborne, at full stretch and in control of his movements??? the two situations that you have put across are analogous...

 

[Bracken]

Has there been a formal statement from Procter? Anything about how the ban decision was reached?

The only thing I have seen from Procter is this:

"I am South African, and I understand the word racism," Procter told the Sydney Morning Herald. "I have lived with it for much of my life. This was not a case of just taking the word of an Australian over an Indian. I stand by my decision. I believe the process was a fair one. I intend to carry on for the rest of the series, because I don't have a problem with India. I have always had a good rapport with Indian players."

Procter said it had been a tough day at the office for him. "Obviously this has all been very difficult for me. I didn't get to sleep until 11am [on Monday], and then only for a couple of hours. It has been one of the most difficult days of my life."

 

[Anil]

I still think this is highly debatable.

he might have done it before and considered it ok i guess...still shows a lack of knowledge of a basic rule...more than ponting, i am wondering why procter didn't notice/analyze it...

 

[Dissector]

SL,
I have to disagree. From the replay I can't see Ponting thinking his movement was under control when the ball hit the ground. He was clearly falling down. The catch would certainly have been disallowed if the ball had rolled out of his hand so it stands to reason that he hadn't completed the catch. Unless he doesn't understand the rules (which isn't terribly flattering for a captain) I would say he knew the catch wasn't clean.

Anyway I would like to see evidence that those kind of catches are given out frequently. I don't think I have ever seen a catch where the fielder grounds the ball . And of course just because it has happened a few times before doesn't make it right. The rule are pretty unambiguous I would say.

 

[Slow Love™]

Ok so how did you come by it? The avatar that is.

I've actually had the image for quite a while, I occasionally just download interesting/amusing pics as I come across them. It likely came up in an unrelated web search...

OK, I admit, I typed "****" and "flavor" into google, couldn't you just let this go?

 

[Anil]

The only thing I have seen from Procter is this:

"I am South African, and I understand the word racism," Procter told the Sydney Morning Herald. "I have lived with it for much of my life. This was not a case of just taking the word of an Australian over an Indian. I stand by my decision. I believe the process was a fair one. I intend to carry on for the rest of the series, because I don't have a problem with India. I have always had a good rapport with Indian players."

Procter said it had been a tough day at the office for him. "Obviously this has all been very difficult for me. I didn't get to sleep until 11am [on Monday], and then only for a couple of hours. It has been one of the most difficult days of my life."

damn! why is no one providing the exact details(as in exact conversation) of what happened(publicly i mean)...neither symonds nor harb nor procter is revealing that....

 

[Anil]

OK, I admit, I typed "****" and "flavor" into google, couldn't you just let this go?

 

[Evermind]

Both ARE bad but personal abuse is really much different to racism.

"You suck at batting" is personal abuse. "Your mother is a whore" is also personal abuse.

But a racist remark is a racist remark. There is NO two ways about it.

How about usage of the word "bastard"? Or mentioning Lara's ****? That's personal abuse of the latter sort, I'd imagine.

As it mostly should be.

What I mean was that Australians have used racial abuse in the past themselves. It's pretty well known, that fact. And the policy has always been that it should be kept on the field. Many players have talking about being racially abused in games in Australia - sadly the policy of "keeping it on the field" meant that there were no official and specific charges brought out against anyone. Now all of a suddenly they accuse others of something they've been guilty of in the past, and the policy of keeping it on the field doesn't apply anymore. Fine, but people're gonna look at the past, and get pretty enraged.

Because of the aforementioned reason, they're two different things. Whilst personal abuse can get as bad as racism, it is Australian team policy not to do so. I actually posted a magazine article a while ago where, Healy I think, said it was explicitly mentioned to keep the kind of personal abuse (mother, wife, family) stuff out of the game.

That's just insular and arbitrary then. What McGrath chose to say was vulgar, distasteful and arguably homophobic. But somehow that's ok, but insults against wife are not, because of some arbitrary policy within the team that Sarwan would know nothing about? And there's no doubt that the Aussies DO use foul language. Is that ok too?

He probably should have. But examples of personal abuse getting so bad is not common and are not the kind of comments people are talking about when saying "let's keep it on the field".

Now that's just bullcrap.

For, in reply to Gavaskar, you cannot say something about someone's spouse and then "have a beer after the match".

More Austrocentricism. If you call someone a bastard, for many of the subcontinentals, you can't have a better after the match either. In fact, I'm certain that many of the Pakistani players don't drink beer either - it's against their religion. But the Australians wanna keep acting as if the whole world's their backyard and they'll stick with their internal policies when playing whoever, and if there's a problem, well then that's too bad.

You cannot call someone a bastard in the subcontinent. It's not part of the culture there. Yet, it has to be tolerated because it's a part of the Aussie way. If you honestly can't see how one-sided this is, I don't think there's anything else to say.

If there were homophobic remarks Harbhajan would have made a counter-claim. The fact that he hasn't done as such shows his weak position.

No, it shows that homophobic remarks are not given the special status as racist remarks are, and we're back to 'gotta keep it on the field' policy. I'm certain that Harbhajan must've gotten a lot of **** for his turban in the past. He didn't report it. Because he was supposed to cop it - keep it on the field.

If it was "Get the **** off him". I reckon that's fine. Harbhajan has no reason/excuse for touching Lee with bat or otherwise in a striking action.

If it was threatening, then Lee would've reported it. But he didn't. So it can be safely assumed that he didn't go anything abusive/illegal.

For me, get the **** off him is fine, but there's every reason to believe it was more than that, considering how ugly the whole thing got. Let's not once again be naive to think that it was something PG13 with incidental foul language.

Wrong. It's completely two different things and if you can't see that then you've been misinterpreting this 'Aussie culture' to 'keep things on the field'.

They've been dishing out racial/homophobic abuse and it's been kept on the field. that's what I was talking about.