**Official** New Zealand in Australia

[KiWiNiNjA]

As for Vettori being asked the question, he could have answered it in a different way, he could have easily expressed his displeasure over the incident, without being this insightful and graphic about his thoughts, he could have told the press that he and his team management would review the replay, and take the matter to he match referee if they felt it was required.

Still haven't listened to the press conference then?

 

[Burgey]

Ponting has been a big idiot when it comes to handling matters like these, so why is that coming across as a surpise at all to anyone, he goes way over the top when it comes to standing up for one of his team-mates.

As for Vettori being asked the question, he could have answered it in a different way, he could have easily expressed his displeasure over the incident, without being this insightful and graphic about his thoughts, he could have told the press that he and his team management would review the replay, and take the matter to he match referee if they felt it was required.

TBH I don't think either Ponitng or Vettori have "escalated" the incident - it was always going to be something of a big issue, and frankly I'd rather they each tell us what they think than give us the usual platitudes that get trotted out by sportspeople.

 

[Zinzan]

Ponting has been a big idiot when it comes to handling matters like these, so why is that coming across as a surpise at all to anyone, he goes way over the top when it comes to standing up for one of his team-mates.

As for Vettori being asked the question, he could have answered it in a different way, he could have easily expressed his displeasure over the incident, without being this insightful and graphic about his thoughts, he could have told the press that he and his team management would review the replay, and take the matter to he match referee if they felt it was required.

He was hardly 'graphic' about it. What should he have said exactly ?

 

[pup11]

No, I don't for a minute think his intention was to deliberately knock the bails off, but I believe that he knew his gloves had hit first & were in front of the wickets after it happened & his initial reaction to the dismissal backs this up. At this point I feel he should have been obliged to tell the umpire he wasn't sure. He had this opportunity & didn't take it.

Yeah agree with this...

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah agree with this...

Then why do you disagree with what Vettori said.

 

[Zinzan]

Then why do you disagree with what Vettori said.

Indeed, pertinent question that

 

[JBH001]

Hahaha!

I am glad that we won though, and not lost by a few runs. You Aussies would never ever have heard the end of it!

 

[pup11]

Saw the replay and clearly the ball didn't hit the stump from what i saw, if New Zealand team management take the evidence upto the officials, there is no way Haddin is getting away with that.

 

[Burgey]

Saw the replay and clearly the ball didn't hit the stump from what i saw, if New Zealand team management take the evidence upto the officials, there is no way Haddin is getting away with that.

WTF? How can they charge him when all these other arse holes who've claimed catches haven't been sanctioned?

 

[pasag]

Massive blow with Ryder out, so much hanging on Taylor's shoulders, can't afford a bad game.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Saw the replay and clearly the ball didn't hit the stump from what i saw, if New Zealand team management take the evidence upto the officials, there is no way Haddin is getting away with that.

I don't think they want him to be charged though. If you listen to the press conference, Vettori tries to play it down, I doubt he wanted to make it a fuss.

 

[pup11]

Then why do you disagree with what Vettori said.

All i am saying is that, it wasn't the place for Vettori to say all that stuff, he could clearly evaded the question asked regarding this, by saying we are reviewing the whole incident and we would decide what to do about this in the coming days.

 

[_Ed_]

Massive blow with Ryder out, so much hanging on Taylor's shoulders, can't afford a bad game.

And he's probably due one.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Massive blow with Ryder out, so much hanging on Taylor's shoulders, can't afford a bad game.

Yeah.
A huge weight on his shoulders, if he gets out its basically all over for NZ, so hopefully McCullum and Guptill can step up and share some of that weight at the top of the order.

Yeah, maybe a big ask for Guptill, but he has shown so far that he is more than competant.

 

[pup11]

I don't think they want him to be charged though. If you listen to the press conference, Vettori tries to play it down, I doubt he wanted to make it a fuss.

Well Ponting has done his best to jump the gun and make a big issue about it though.

WTF? How can they charge him when all these other arse holes who've claimed catches haven't been sanctioned?

No body took a case against them to match officials, did they, and still in most cases of grassed catches, there is still a slight element of doubt that remains, but in this incident there isn't much doubt (from what i saw), and i think the umpires are slightly more guilty of ignorance in the whole matter than Haddin.

 

[Precambrian]

Interesting that Haddin says Vettori should have aired his grievances in private, yet Haddin's grievances against Vettori are made through the media.

Yeah. That was pis poor. Instead of admitting the mistake, he had a go at vettori's neck. Sad really. Vettori "had" a genuine reason to have a go at Haddin, but with Haddin's getting back was pathetic. And

 

[Burgey]

Well Ponting has done his best to jump the gun and make a big issue about it though.



No body took a case against them to match officials, did they, and still in most cases of grassed catches, there is still a slight element of doubt that remains, but in this incident there isn't much doubt (from what i saw), and i think the umpires are slightly more guilty of ignorance in the whole matter than Haddin.

Yeah but Haddin's look is one of doubt as well, which is why he should have said sommat.

 

[pup11]

Yeah but Haddin's look is one of doubt as well, which is why he should have said sommat.

That's where he has made the biggest mistake, after looking like a lost kid at that moment, he is trying to convince everyone that he is 100% postive that the ball clipped the bails, and if that was the case, then his body language, clearly didn't match his confidence.

Haddin shouldn't really have tried to mask this whole incident, as soon as he saw the replay, he should have excepted his ignorance.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Glad I havent seen the incident

I still havent recovered from the Port Arthur Massacre and another crime of that magnitude would destroy my faith in humanity

Personally, I'd have called it a wide.

What do you mean, it may have hit the bails? May is the operative word here, I feel. If it didn't hit the bails, call it wide and get on with the game, eh Social

 

[Smudge]

I can't help but steal someone's dissection of Haddin's comments on another forum:

"I was unaware at the time my hands were in front of the stumps.

"After looking at the replay (I realise) my hands were in front of the stumps but the ball, I'm 100 percent positive, hit the bails first and then came up into my gloves."

Outstanding explanation by Haddin. Although by his account his gloves are IN FRONT of the stumps, the ball hits the bails FIRST. Clearly the ball must then have bounced upwards and backwards towards the bowler to clear the gloves before then reversing direction again to get into his gloves. Instead of...for example....going behind the bails (where his hands weren't) albeit it at a higher angle of inclination. What they don't do, in my limited experience, is pop into the hands of someone with his gloves in front of the wicket. Clearly this idea must now be discarded.

Amazing what can happen on a cricket field. Must have happened that way tho....since Haddin's honesty is beyond doubt

Puts a whole new perspective on modern cricket. It must have been a mystery ball.