***Official*** India in Australia

[Ikki]

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...

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1441529&postcount=6650

The idea that you cannot have control of your body when your initial intention differs with your eventual action. In the example I described before, you are running full pelt to get under a ball and you take it somewhat behind you and end up tripping over yourself grounding the ball in your hand. You didn't have the intent/control of your body to make the catch that way.

However, when you do make full diving lunges (like the one explained before), you do have the intent to control your body that way hence you are in control of your movement. What happens next is gravity and that is you falling outstretched in a position you cannot help when taking that catch.

 

[roseboy64]

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?

Just asking because it's a Jamaican brand.

 

[Evermind]

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.

Good post.

 

[Slow Love™]

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.

Yeah, I'm not mounting any argument that the fact that it happens a few times and people get away with it makes it right (in the sense of the rules), but it seems to me that it's not uncommon for me to see players in a roll or particularly, on their way up to celebrate (which can happen quite quickly), putting some weight on the ball while it's tightly clutched, and I have no doubt that they controlled it.

Now clearly we all know from Herschelle Gibbs' example that you can still get done in the transition from catching the ball to the celebratory stage. I guess I just viewed the ball spewing from his hands differently to Ponting's obvious tight clutch on the ball.

All I would say is that I can see how, in his mind, the catch was a done deal. I agree that on viewing the replay, that although I think he obviously had control of the ball, he was not in complete control of his movement. So I don't want to split hairs on the legality, it was clearly not out. I just don't think it's as egregious as people are saying, and I do think it's worth pointing out that it didn't come up at the time. Only after the match to my knowledge.

 

[Anil]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1441529&postcount=6650

The idea that you cannot have control of your body when your initial intention differs with your eventual action. In the example I described before, you are running full pelt to get under a ball and you take it somewhat behind you and end up tripping over yourself grounding the ball in your hand. You didn't have the intent/control of your body to make the catch that way.

However, when you do make full diving lunges (like the one explained before), you do have the intent to control your body that way hence you are in control of your movement. What happens next is gravity and that is you falling outstretched in a position you cannot help when taking that catch.

look i agree that when you trip up, your body is not doing what you intended it to do, while diving for a catch, it is doing what you intended it to do...it doesn't necessarily follow that the person has control of his own movements in the latter case...why do fielders take care to palm the ball while letting the back of the hand touch the ground in such instances? or even at the end of the dive, hold up the wrist so as to make sure the ball doesn't touch the ground? because they know they have to prevent the ball touching the ground during that act...and in that video in your linked post, the commentators are clearly saying that whether the ball came off dhoni's gloves or not, the correct decision was given because ponting grounded the ball...

 

[Anil]

Yeah, I'm not mounting any argument that the fact that it happens a few times and people get away with it makes it right (in the sense of the rules), but it seems to me that it's not uncommon for me to see players in a roll or particularly, on their way up to celebrate (which can happen quite quickly), putting some weight on the ball while it's tightly clutched, and I have no doubt that they controlled it.

yeah but here, it was grounded on ponting's way down itself, right?

 

[Ikki]

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

I would imagine too. And I don't think they are the kind of comments you go and have a "beer after the game". Which is what Sunil was referring to. I am fine with saying the Aussies want to keep things on the field where the two parties can get together in the end and have a beer over, but definitely not things as serious as that. But largely, Australia's sledging is not abuse of the 2nd kind and usually of the 1st kind mentioned. As for the kind like the ones above, a lot of test nations have such controversies onfield.

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.

They have, like Lehmann and were punished for it rightly. However, these are not the kind of statements Australians want to keep on the field or the ones where you can leave behind and have a beer later with the opposition. Gavaskar has equated two different kinds of personal abuse and you've mixed them up.

There is no double-standard. I have never heard Australians say racial abuse should stay on the field.

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?

No it isn't. It's policy for the team to not behave so insultingly and those remarks equate in seriousness. Just because these happened to be different doesn't make them okay. It just proves that even Aussies have stepped outside of their policy to keep the game competitive but clean.

Yeah, I am okay with foul language.

Now that's just bullcrap.

You're not getting the point. The kinds of comments which Gavaskar refer to about Aussies keeping on the field are not racist or overtly personal. These comments are common. The racist comments, like Harbhajan's, ARE NOT COMMON. Hence there is no correlation.

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.

Actually, I know exactly what you're talking about with regards to using 'bastard' against sub-continental people. They get furious, as I've experienced and don't take it in a mate-ship/jokish was Aussies do. Which is why the ICC should probably clamp down on the seriously offensive stuff said.

HOWEVER, that is in no way relative to what Gavaskar/Grieg were trying to say by making it out as if what Harbhajan said and what the Aussies 'usually' say are the same. They're absolutely not.

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.

How are you sure at all? Stop with the petty and false accusations of Australians doing/saying things they haven't. There are enough examples of stupidness to choose from so you don't have to be 'certain' about anything.

Really, I'd doubt Harbhajan would let something about his turban go as Sikh's really wouldn't take that any different to how Symonds took being called a 'monkey'.

It is a pandora's box which is open now and the ICC will have to choose one way or another. Not everything said can be 'kept' no the field. Certainly no racial/***ual/religious/etc comments. And I have never heard Australians advocating these kinds of comments be kept on the field for there even to be a double-standard.

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.

What? Maybe Lee didn't think it as a big deal like Symonds did. But you were saying maybe Symonds made a homosexual remark about him in which Harbhajan shot back with
"monkey". To which common sense would dictate that remark much more severe than getting tapped with a bat. And if anything, Harbhajan would use that as a mitigating factor (provocation) in appeal. The fact that he didn't is your made-up story and yours alone.

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.

If it was more, it would be used as a mitigating factor. Common-sense. Harbhajan hasn't said Symonds said anything that bad, all he has done is denied saying anything himself. Don't assume something that really you have no proof of nor does it really fit.

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

Rubbish. They've had incidents like other test nations have, but it certainly has not been apart of the Aussie culture to do things like that and 'keep it on the field and have a beer after'.

 

[Slow Love™]

yeah but here, it was grounded on ponting's way down itself, right?

I thought he was kind of pushing himself up, but it was still during his movement. Like I said, I accept it's out. I just think it's frequently not that highly policed, and I simply don't think it's egregious when he clearly has the ball securely.

Likely done it a bunch of times myself.

 

[Slow Love™]

Oops, read "I accept it's not out" above. The matter is whether you would definitely be aware that you actually just knowingly "cheated".

 

[Ikki]

look i agree that when you trip up, your body is not doing what you intended it to do, while diving for a catch, it is doing what you intended it to do...it doesn't necessarily follow that the person has control of his own movements in the latter case...why do fielders take care to palm the ball while letting the back of the hand touch the ground in such instances? or even at the end of the dive, hold up the wrist so as to make sure the ball doesn't touch the ground? because they know they have to prevent the ball touching the ground during that act...and in that video in your linked post, the commentators are clearly saying that whether the ball came off dhoni's gloves or not, the correct decision was given because ponting grounded the ball...

But it does not matter if he grounded the ball if you assume he is in control of it.

There are some catches where you can't turn your wrist or your palm and it has nothing to do with control of your body or the ball but the situation where a fielder may take a catch and not have the opportunity to try and stop it from grounding. Still, the dive being a fully controlled one where the grounding of the ball plays no part in keeping it in his hand. Actually, in that video you can make the claim that the fact that it did hit the ground on the way down from his dive Ponting may have even dropped it.

Regardless, this isn't an issue of Aussies cheating or trying to appeal something that isn't given. There are videos here posted by sideshowtim, if you haven't been watching cricket in the past, that show these kind of catches have been regularly given. And because they have been, you cannot blame the Aussies for appealing or infer that they're being dishonest. It's like statutory law has been commonly interpreted by the arbiters, the courts (or in this case the umpires), a certain way. You cannot blame others for appealing on the same grounds. They aren't being dishonest nor are they knowingly cheating.

TBF, the spin off on how the Aussies are dishonest and such is pretty disgraceful IMO. I know people don't like the Aussie side or their ways but this kind of stuff is really below the belt.

 

[Anil]

Oops, read "I accept it's not out" above. The matter is whether you would definitely be aware that you actually just knowingly "cheated".

i am not sure of the "knowingly" part as well...

But it does not matter if he grounded the ball if you assume he is in control of it.

that's it though, i see it as clear that he was not, you obviously assume that he was...

There are some catches where you can't turn your wrist or your palm and it has nothing to do with control of your body or the ball but the situation where a fielder may take a catch and not have the opportunity to try and stop it from grounding. Still, the dive being a fully controlled one where the grounding of the ball plays no part in keeping it in his hand. Actually, in that video you can make the claim that the fact that it did hit the ground on the way down from his dive Ponting may have even dropped it.

if you can actually control your body movements, surely you would be able to accomplish the basic purpose of taking a catch, i.e; prevent it from touching the ground...

Regardless, this isn't an issue of Aussies cheating or trying to appeal something that isn't given. There are videos here posted by sideshowtim, if you haven't been watching cricket in the past, that show these kind of catches have been regularly given. And because they have been, you cannot blame the Aussies for appealing or infer that they're being dishonest. It's statutory law has been commonly interpreted by the arbiters, the courts (or in this case the umpires), a certain way. You cannot blame others for appealing on the same grounds. They aren't being dishonest nor are they knowingly cheating.

TBF, the spin off on how the Aussies are dishonest and such is pretty disgraceful IMO. I know people don't like the Aussie side or their ways but this kind of stuff is really below the belt.

as i have agreed before, it's quite possible that he fully believed that his catch was clean when he appealed...nevertheless, there are valid grounds to discredit both his and clarke's catches....

 

[shankar]

I remember this catch from 1997 in South Africa in the final of an ODI tournament. Tendulkar had hit a full-blooded cut and Jonty dived full stretch and made a brilliant diving catch. Later replays showed that he had actually grounded the ball in a manner similar to Ponting's catch and it was a controversial issue which was debated in the commentary box at that time and Tendulkar was considered unlucky to be given out. So it's not that this interpretation of the law is new.

And if I'd not come to this forum I'd have no idea that these sort catches are not universally considered not out. I've always thought that they're clearly not out.

 

[Fusion]

Asad Rauf, from what I remember, is a pretty dreadful umpire.

I was being kind to him. Him and Bucknor flying into this ****storm at Perth will ensure that this farce has legs, no matter how succesful the respective sides are at burying the hatchet.

I haven't seen too much of him (since he doesn't umpire in Pakistani games), but I though Rauf was highly regarded by most?

 

[Rollypolly1]

However, when you do make full diving lunges (like the one explained before), you do have the intent to control your body that way hence you are in control of your movement. What happens next is gravity and that is you falling outstretched in a position you cannot help when taking that catch.

Complete nonsense from an one-eyed biassed Aussie-fan ( i have NEVER seen you criticise Australian players for anything and i've been spectating here for a while now).

The law is simple- if the ball touches the grass in the process of you completing the catch, it is NOT OUT. There are many diving catches taken where the palm is turned upwards so that the ball does not touch the ground. That Ponting claimed the catch despite it being a CLEAR grassed attempt shows how dishonest he is and he should be banned just exactly how Latif was.

 

[ozone]

The law is simple- if the ball touches the grass in the process of you completing the catch, it is NOT OUT. There are many diving catches taken where the palm is turned upwards so that the ball does not touch the ground. That Ponting claimed the catch despite it being a CLEAR grassed attempt shows how dishonest he is and he should be banned just exactly how Latif was.

Without wanting to say one-way or another whether it was a legal catch or not, it certainly wasn't clear because it is still being debated now.

BTW, you calling anyone bias seems to be incredibly ironic as you are one of the most anti-aussie posters I've seen.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Without wanting to say one-way or another whether it was a legal catch or not, it certainly wasn't clear because it is still being debated now.

Just because biassed Aussie fans refuse to see the point doesnt mean it wasn't clear. There is CLEAR video footage of Ponting grassing it and then claiming the catch, thereby proving once and for all that he is a CHEAT. And if Latif can be banned for the exact same offence ( claiming a grassed catch), so should Ponting.
But we know already that there is one rule for the Aussies and another for the rest.

BTW, you calling anyone bias seems to be incredibly ironic as you are one of the most anti-aussie posters I've seen.

Ofcourse I am anti-Australia ! Duh! I've been to your country, i've lived there for a while and i've read your history and current affairs politics. Fairminded people like Slow_love are literally one-in-a-thousand down under and i've seen/read/heard nothing that convinces me that Australia deserves my respect in any field. The most racist nation on the face of the planet, with a history that makes Nazi-Germany look like a little gangster-thug, with current policies that are despicable even by third world standards and you want my respect ? Whatever for ?
But i have backed up every single point i've made with logic and precise recollection of the event, so biassed or not, my stance still stands.

 

[ozone]

Ofcourse I am anti-Australia ! Duh! I've been to your country, i've lived there for a while and i've read your history and current affairs politics. Fairminded people like Slow_love are literally one-in-a-thousand down under and i've seen/read/heard nothing that convinces me that Australia deserves my respect in any field. The most racist nation on the face of the planet, with a history that makes Nazi-Germany look like a little gangster-thug, with current policies that are despicable even by third world standards and you want my respect ? Whatever for ?
But i have backed up every single point i've made with logic and precise recollection of the event, so biassed or not, my stance still stands.

I've said this before but it doesn't appear to have sank in, I AM ENGLISH!!!

I have never even been to Australia and I maintain that the catch was NOT clear.

Now, as for your little rant at Australia, I think this is probably the biggest kind of prejudice I've encountered. You don't seem to realise, you have just slagged off an entire nation for no obvious good reason (and no, simply saying reading history and current affairs isn't a reason).

As for backing up every single point, I feel the opposite is true. You have not provided any clear evidence to back-up any of your points.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Here's a passage from the Kama Sutra:

"She in whom the following signs and symptoms appear is called a Padmini. Her face is pleasing as the full moon; her body, well clothed with flesh, is soft as the Shiras or mustard flower, her skin is fine, tender and fair as the yellow lotus, never dark coloured."

They're talking about a woman most attractive to the man.

The word for "dark" is Krsna, which is well known in classical sanskrit to mean 'dark' or sometimes 'black'' or 'blue'. The meaning is well-known and the translation is unequivocal.

Can't believe I'm defending something as commonly known as this, and it's sure as hell my last post on the Kama Sutra.

1. This is a picture of a yellow lotus. Does this look white to you or even fair ?
The word for 'fair' in Sanskrit is also the word for COMPLEXION.

2. The word 'Krsna' is actually NOT used in the Kamasutra or kamashastra. The word used iis 'mleccha', which can mean 'foreign/unclean/tainted'. Again, everything to do with complexion, nothing to do with color.

The fact that color was never the basis for anything in classical/prehistoric/ancient/medieval India is pretty categoric- for there is not ONE text- religious, political or aesthetical, that touches on the skin color being of any significance.
And lest you forget, the word 'Krsna' is used to describe Krishna, one of the God avatars in Hinduism and he is described in the most flowery words when it comes to his looks. Pretty stupid to claim that this culture places any value on lighter skin color in the classical sense when it is gushing about how 'awesome/amazingly good-looking' the dark-skinned Krishna was.

You will also find, from doing a simple temple tour all over India that the deities are potrayed in every color imaginable- lilly-white, cream, beige and even charcoal-dark.
If this was a society putting any tangiable value to skin-color, they wouldn't be making statues of their GODS in all shades immaginable. Just look at Europe/Americas/Australia for example- a society that was (and in many places, still is) absolutely obsessed with their racist viewpoints over skin-color. You will find only lilly-white Jesus statues with the one-in-a-thousand non-white depiction of Jesus. Pretty flipping categoric as to which society cares about skin color and which society doesnt before one corrupted the other in this regard.

 

[pasag]

Lol, welcome back C_C, don't know why you had to start a new account when the other one wasn't permanently banned though. It's also against the forum rules so if you could kindly use your proper account for now and the two will be merged in time.

 

[Rollypolly1]

You maintaining it means squat, mate. There is video evidence that Ponting grassed the catch when he was IN THE PROCESS of taking the catch, therefore it is not a catch.
You also maintain that a wicketkeeper standing directly behind you just 2 feet away cannot see that your bat is tucked firmy BEHIND your front foot. Shows how much credibility you have, mate.

Now, as for your little rant at Australia, I think this is probably the biggest kind of prejudice I've encountered. You don't seem to realise, you have just slagged off an entire nation for no obvious good reason (and no, simply saying reading history and current affairs isn't a reason).

Well reading history, current affairs and experiencing the mentality in that nation is as good a reason as any to slag off that nation. If you cannot draw conclusions about a society based on their past and present conduct, then i am sorry to say, you are just a politically correct do-gooder even at the expense of the truth. I did mention that there are some excellent Aussies but by and large, i found (and still do) most Aussies to be pretty low on my scale of likeability.

As for backing up every single point, I feel the opposite is true. You have not provided any clear evidence to back-up any of your points.

Yes, like saying standing 2 feet behind the batsman with the clearest view of his backside is not evidence enough. As for Ponting's grassed catch- there is a picture of it floating around, i can easily post it.