***Official*** India in West Indies

[luckyeddie]

Why would he not be? It has to be given out - there is no other logical conclusion.

The implication is that the fielder said that he had taken the catch cleanly.

Anyway, screw technology. Let's go back to taking the word of people.

 

[adharcric]

Unfortunately, I've just lost an ounce of respect for Brian Lara and gained an ounce of respect for Rahul Dravid.

 

[viktor]

If the batsmen were to take the fielder's word for it every time, none of the behind the wicket appeals would ever go without a wicket. Lets not accuse Dhoni of "neglection of the spirit of the game". What he did was no different from a batsman standing his ground for a caught behind.

 

[adharcric]

The implication is that the fielder said that he had taken the catch cleanly.

Anyway, screw technology. Let's go back to taking the word of people.

You will assume that the fielder is telling the truth? That's like assuming that every single cricketer walks when he's out and calls the batsman back when he's not out. Uhh, no.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Based on what ??

The fact that there is no evidence at all to suggest otherwise.

 

[luckyeddie]

You will assume that the fielder is telling the truth? That's like assuming that every single cricketer walks when he's out and calls the batsman back when he's not out. Uhh, no.

No, I would assume that the fielder is telling the truth when there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that he isn't.

There's a subtle difference.

 

[Neil Pickup]

On the plus side, the declaration's come just at the tipping point - either side needs a big effort to win from here, but it's still possible. Without that incident, I think India would have batted the WI out of it.

 

[adharcric]

The fact that there is no evidence at all to suggest otherwise.

The only evidence to suggest the positive is the fielder's word. Realistically speaking, that doesn't mean much. I just explained why in the previous post.

 

[superkingdave]

You will assume that the fielder is telling the truth? That's like assuming that every single cricketer walks when he's out and calls the batsman back when he's not out. Uhh, no.

If there is no evidence to the contrary then what can you do? Assume he must be lying?

 

[viktor]

If there is no evidence to the contrary then what can you do? Assume he must be lying?

And that's never happened, has it?

 

[superkingdave]

The only evidence to suggest the positive is the fielder's word. Realistically speaking, that doesn't mean much. I just explained why in the previous post.

The only evidence to suggest positive is the fielder's word, there is no evidence to the negative...

 

[luckyeddie]

On the plus side, the declaration's come just at the tipping point - either side needs a big effort to win from here, but it's still possible. Without that incident, I think India would have batted the WI out of it.

Agreed - it's also worth noting that India's best chance of victory just might come from allowing the West Indies a sniff of it themselves.

 

[Sanz]

If the batsmen were to take the fielder's word for it every time, none of the behind the wicket appeals would ever go without a wicket. Lets not accuse Dhoni of "neglection of the spirit of the game". What he did was no different from a batsman standing his ground for a caught behind.

Except that in case of Caught behind, Batsman knows that he has nicked or not (more often than not) but in this case the fielder was not sure if he had touched the rope, Dhoni was in no position to make any decision because Field Umpires were consulting the 3rd/4th umpire. It took a while for him to even figure out what was going on.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

And that's never happened, has it?

You have to accept that in those circumstances a player's word is probably the most credible evidence available.

 

[superkingdave]

And that's never happened, has it?

and? because it may have happened in the past we must assume every one is guilty until proven innocent, interesting system

 

[luckyeddie]

And that's never happened, has it?

It's interesting to note here that just about every single neutral who has expressed an opinion has sided with the fielder.

I wonder why that is?

 

[luckyeddie]

You have to accept that in those circumstances a player's word is probably the most credible evidence available.

Mind you, I'd make an exception if the fielder was Brad Cheaty-Hodge.

 

[Sanz]

The fact that there is no evidence at all to suggest otherwise.

And how do you expect Dhoni to know that when he is in the middle waiting to hear from the field umpires ?

Remember I am not arguing that Dhoni should have been given out or not, but your accusation that he violated the spirit of the game.

 

[viktor]

It's interesting to note here that just about every single neutral who has expressed an opinion has sided with the fielder.

I wonder why that is?

You tell me.

 

[luckyeddie]

You tell me.

You're biased, I'm not.

End of story.