Hauritz and Strauss catches, Lord's Test

[GIMH]

Yeah, remember a Vaughan catch that was given n/o V SA last year that was given n/o on the basis of such pictures.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah, remember a Vaughan catch that was given n/o V SA last year that was given n/o on the basis of such pictures.

Same match in which ABdV played lawn bowls with the cricket ball before claiming the catch IIRC

 

[GIMH]

Indeed, some people even booed him when he got his ton because of that (I was there on that day)

 

[inbox24]

I tend to agree with Stuart MacGill on these types of things, which is that whatever happens, the process has to be consistent. In the case of Hauritz they went for the referrral upstairs to help make a decision and in the case of Strauss they didn't which is pretty puzzling. They need to change this.

 

[zaremba]

I tend to agree with Stuart MacGill on these types of things, which is that whatever happens, the process has to be consistent. In the case of Hauritz they went for the referrral upstairs to help make a decision and in the case of Strauss they didn't which is pretty puzzling. They need to change this.

But consistency doesn't mean that you treat dissimilar cases in the same way. If (and it's a big if) the umpires were both unsighted and/or unsure in the case of Hauritz, they should have referred it to the 3rd ump; if (another big if) one considered that he was sure that Strauss' catch was clean, then they shouldn't refer it to the 3rd ump. The cases were in that key sense dissimilar. The fact that both were close calls does not change that.

 

[howardj]

Thought both were out. The real time replays gave it away - when the ball bounces, the catcher generally brings the ball back up from down low in a scooping action. In neither case, did Strauss or Hauritz bring it back up in that way. Plus, I think both guys are very trustworthy, and were both adamant that the catches were clean. Finally, neither replay proved the ball bounced.

 

[zaremba]

Thought both were out. The real time replays gave it away - when the ball bounces, the catcher generally brings the ball back up from down low in a scooping action. In neither case, did Strauss or Hauritz bring it back up in that way. Plus, I think both guys are very trustworthy, and were both adamant that the catches were clean. Finally, neither replay proved the ball bounced.

Quite possibly. Not sure why hauritz's forbears got transported in the first place, but that aside everything i've heard him say makes me think that he's a thoroughly trustworthy guy. I know more about Strauss and he too is the sort of player whose word I would tend to trust. Obviously the fielder himself can be mistaken occasionally, but still.

 

[Top_Cat]

FFS, why does every little happening need a separate fj0rking thread? Absolutely nothing has been said here which wasn't already said in the tour thread. If I was still a mod, I'd close this one at least.

 

[Ausage]

It's such a shame that this isn't the way they can go with all these catches, since technology wise that's the best we've got.

I don't agree with this. Firstly because at times, when the stakes are high enough, you can't trust some people to be honest in these matters. Secondly because these things happen over milliseconds. When things are happening that quickly, and the blood is pumping at the possibility of an important wicket, grabbing a ball a millisecond after it hits the ground could feel like getting to it a millisecond before hitting the ground. (think the latter happened in Strauss' case ftr)

I don't think it infringes on someone's integrity to refer a claimed catch to the video umpire either.

 

[Smudge]

Saw it live, and was a bit iffy about it. Put it this way, if I had been at square leg (and yes, I know, the camera shot we were subjected to live was front-on, so not his view at all), I would have suggested to Koertzen to go upstairs. But even so, based on the information available to me from that live shot, I couldn't have given it. And the replay confirmed my suspicions. There are catches that look 50:50 on replay, but that one didn't.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

was a very poor decision not to go to 3rd umpire and probably made because the 3rd umpire got the one wrong the day before.

I would say IMO that Straus 95% probability DID NOT catch the ball (maybe he should have to answer to this)
It would say that Hauritz 75% probability DID catch his.

I would base this on that the footage was fairly conclusive in the Strauss case, while the footage was not as good in the Hauritz case.

All that I am certain about is that David Lloyd and his rediculously biased commentary should never again be allowed in front of a microphone.

And this stuff happens, the umpires got it wrong, but after 5 minutes of anger I'm over it and certainly won't be bringing it up in four years time (like some english supporters seem to do with obscure happennings) or advocating the team pack up and go home (like one certain team likes to do when decisions go against them).

cheers

 

[Burgey]

Woke up this morning to the radio on ABC from listening last night.

Adam Spencer, the breakfast bloke on 702, is normally a pretty easy-going bloke.

Just had to laugh at him though - the very first words he said after my alarm went off:

"Well, the cricket's getting close, but I just have to say the England captain, Andrew Strauss, is nothing but a blatant cheat".

Can't agree with him tbh, but just a weird thing to hear as soon a you wake up.

 

[Smudge]

Can't agree with him tbh, but just a weird thing to hear as soon a you wake up.

Now you know how your wife feels when she wakes up to you sleeptalking about "Murray ****ing Mints" for the 14th day in a row.

 

[Burgey]

Now you know how your wife feels when she wakes up to you sleeptalking about "Murray ****ing Mints" for the 14th day in a row.

Usually on the couch by then, tbf

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I guess we can only look at the positives at the poor umpiring in this series because it has made the cricket more entertaining to watch and has also given England a realistic chance of winning.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm pretty sure it was grassed but Strauss's reaction wasn't that of a man who has just claimed a spoof-catch.

 

[four_or_six]

I'm pretty sure it was grassed but Strauss's reaction wasn't that of a man who has just claimed a spoof-catch.

Yeah, the man is an absolutely terrible liar. Did no-one see him trying to explain how Jimmy spilt drink on his gloves and they had to send out another pair? Was a hilariously bad cover-up.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Genuinely not worth the effort.

In brief:

(1) Such pictures very often (indeed almost invariably) give the illusion that a legitimate catch has been grounded;
(2) The lateral stretching of this particular picture only heightens that illusion.

Would it change the impression that one finger (the middle finger) is wrapped around the front edge of the ball and another finger and pinky are obviously up the back of the ball making it look like the ground is helping him keep it in his hands?

I understand it might have an effect on how close he looks to the ground, but if he kept that in his hands unaided given his hand position he's done really well.

Just saw a replay on TV now though and in real time it looks better than that close-up

 

[Uppercut]

Would it change the impression that one finger (the middle finger) is wrapped around the front edge of the ball and another finger and pinky are obviously up the back of the ball making it look like the ground is helping him keep it in his hands?

I understand it might have an effect on how close he looks to the ground, but if he kept that in his hands unaided given his hand position he's done really well.

Yeah, something like this. His fingers are clearly not under the ball, so the only possibility is that he's caught it between the fingertips of each hand. Which, while not impossible, I don't think is at all likely. And if he did catch it like that, it could have been touching the ground anyway but Strauss wouldn't have known.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't think Strauss did anything wrong. The ball sort of lands on a part of his finger, which would be enough to convince a fielder that he had his hand completely underneath the ball. I just think that he didn't completely have it underneath, half of the ball wasn't within his hands I reckon.

I've had that happen to me before, everyone else told me it looked dodgy (mind you, was in the outfield so they weren't that close...) but because it landed on my fingers, I reckon I did get underneath it. Obviously don't have any video to see what it looked like.