***Official*** VB Series 2006

[Gideon]

And Symonds has just taken a one handed ripper to get Attapatu out.

 

[kwigibo]

If Australia lose this they've only their fielding to blame

 

[PANIC!]

Sri Lanka have steadied to 2/70 after 17 overs

With the Gabba being one of the grounds where chasing is almost as good as batting first I'd expect Australia to chase down what ever Sri Lanka make quite comfortably.

 

[Jono]

So much rests on this pair, in particular Sanga. If he can score a ton and bat almost all the way to the end, Sri Lanka have a chance.

 

[Jono]

LOL @ Clarke getting Sanga out.

Still SL are playing well and have made a good recovery.

 

[parttimer]

Katich is a walking disaster in the field

 

[parttimer]

See, my jinx worked

 

[Dydl]

See, my jinx worked

Whether it did or it didn't, at least Jayawardene's out!

 

[parttimer]

Excellent knock by Arnold 76off 71. Doubt it's enough to hold of Aus, but they've made a game of it, 265 with one to go. Murali and co will need to produce something special tonight one feels

 

[lionheart]

Jason - What was it that you were saying about Arnold exactly? Looks like he proves you wrong once again.

The total ended up being decent enough all things considered, but really 275 should have been the go. Hopefully if Vaas & co. can get Gilchrist and Ponting early, I'd say we'd be well set.

 

[Hondo]

Regards to the ponting catch I think everyone is just taking it bit too far. I was at the game and Mahela did not carry on muttering or even go anywhere near ponting after taking the catch, most people thought he caught it clearly.

What I don't understand is, if the umpire was certain that it didn't carry why did they spend almost 5 min discussing it with the sqaure leg umpire. If there was any doubt they should have refered to the third umpire. It's shocking not to have done so in a final.

Having said that I do believe that the Aussie team says one thing but do the complete opposite. Pointing in my mind should have walked, if it was someone else playing against the aussies, they would have made big deal about it in the field and also afterwards in the media. I did see Mahela apologising to ponting few overs later and Ponting also said in papers that news came from the dressing room to Mahela and the team saying it wasn't out. I'm sure its something that Tom Moddy would have done to get the guys back in the game, clearly they were all still dwelling about the loss chance afterwards. Moddy would have thought telling the team it was not out would have gotten them out the shock they were in.

 

[Hondo]

Jason - What was it that you were saying about Arnold exactly? Looks like he proves you wrong once again.

The total ended up being decent enough all things considered, but really 275 should have been the go. Hopefully if Vaas & co. can get Gilchrist and Ponting early, I'd say we'd be well set.

lol, I have given up Jason. He clearly has no knowledge of the game and the Sri Lankan players!

 

[age_master]

LOL @ Clarke getting Sanga out.

Still SL are playing well and have made a good recovery.

yep should have kept him on for Lewis who bowled rubbish.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What I don't understand is, if the umpire was certain that it didn't carry why did they spend almost 5 min discussing it with the sqaure leg umpire. If there was any doubt they should have refered to the third umpire. It's shocking not to have done so in a final.

I explained this earlier in the thread, but I'll try again.

The third umpire cannot be called for a catch unless the umpires are unsighted. It doesn't matter how much they want to call for the replay, they are not allowed to unless their view of the catch is obscured. Obviously it was not, so they did not call for it. The reason for this is that television replays of catches are more often than not inconclusive.

Despite having a clear view of the catch, they could not determine conclusively that the ball was caught, Ponting did not walk and so they gave it not out, and replays indicate that was the right move.

There's no fault on behalf of the umpires whatsoever.

 

[Hondo]

I explained this earlier in the thread, but I'll try again.

The third umpire cannot be called for a catch unless the umpires are unsighted. It doesn't matter how much they want to call for the replay, they are not allowed to unless their view of the catch is obscured. Obviously it was not, so they did not call for it. The reason for this is that television replays of catches are more often than not inconclusive.

Despite having a clear view of the catch, they could not determine conclusively that the ball was caught, Ponting did not walk and so they gave it not out, and replays indicate that was the right move.

There's no fault on behalf of the umpires whatsoever.

I don't think you understand the rules. Umpire could have called for the third umpire at any time if there was any doubt. Plenty of time I've seen umpires use the third umpire to make sure the ball caught cleanly even if they had clean view of the catch. I even read it on Sydney Morning Herald that umpire choosing not to go to the third umpire was a bold move.

Tell me this if the view of the catch wasn't obscured, why did he had to discuss anything with the leg umpire for 5 min before making his decision. Ponting should have walked, specially after preaching and making a big deal out in the media how all batsmen should take the word of the fielder. It's fine for the Aussies to twist things around when it suits them. Ponting would not have ever walked even if he was bowled, he would make sure to wait for the umpire to raise his finger before leaving, simply because it was the second semi finals and the Aussies was in trouble, if they gone on to loose the series he might have even loss his captaincy. Pretty hypocritical of Ponting if you ask me!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think you understand the rules. Umpire could have called for the third umpire at any time if there was any doubt. Plenty of time I've seen umpires use the third umpire to make sure the ball caught cleanly even if they had clean view of the catch. I even read it on Sydney Morning Herald that umpire choosing not to go to the third umpire was a bold move.

That's not the case. The rule change is a relatively recent one, but after significant testing with video replays used in catching decisions it was decided that they were not ideal, and as such umpires are now only allowed to call for the third umpire if they cannot see the incident themselves. As I said, this is because, as yesterday showed us, they are rarely conclusive.

Tell me this if the view of the catch wasn't obscured, why did he had to discuss anything with the leg umpire for 5 min before making his decision.

How should I know? It was more like 1 minute than 5, but I assume they talked about the catch and whether or not they believed it was taken, and probably whether or not they saw it clearly enough to rule out using the video replay.

Ponting should have walked, specially after preaching and making a big deal out in the media how all batsmen should take the word of the fielder. It's fine for the Aussies to twist things around when it suits them. Ponting would not have ever walked even if he was bowled, he would make sure to wait for the umpire to raise his finger before leaving, simply because it was the second semi finals and the Aussies was in trouble, if they gone on to loose the series he might have even loss his captaincy. Pretty hypocritical of Ponting if you ask me!

Not really, no. Ponting requested arrangements with the captains of several other teams to have the players from both sides take the word of the fielders regardless of the circumstances. For example, before the Ashes Ponting made such an offer to Vaughan, and it was rejected, as it has been every time. Why should Ponting be expected to walk when he clearly saw that it wasn't out, when the opposition won't agree to do take the word of Australian fielders as well? The fact is, Ponting's offers have been routinely rejected, so he felt no obligation to walk when he knew he wasn't out, and the umpires gave him not out accordingly. There was no fault on his part, or on the part of the umpires.

 

[shaka]

"clearly" in that catch is almost impossible.

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't think you understand the rules. Umpire could have called for the third umpire at any time if there was any doubt. Plenty of time I've seen umpires use the third umpire to make sure the ball caught cleanly even if they had clean view of the catch. I even read it on Sydney Morning Herald that umpire choosing not to go to the third umpire was a bold move.

Tell me this if the view of the catch wasn't obscured, why did he had to discuss anything with the leg umpire for 5 min before making his decision. Ponting should have walked, specially after preaching and making a big deal out in the media how all batsmen should take the word of the fielder. It's fine for the Aussies to twist things around when it suits them. Ponting would not have ever walked even if he was bowled, he would make sure to wait for the umpire to raise his finger before leaving, simply because it was the second semi finals and the Aussies was in trouble, if they gone on to loose the series he might have even loss his captaincy. Pretty hypocritical of Ponting if you ask me!

Eight

 

[kwigibo]

I get the feeling Katich doesn't exactly understand run-rates. They're still clinging to the absurd notion that anchor = score slowly. Scoring slowly is what will lose you these matches, you can afford to lose wickets. If I see him tap it to mid-on one more time I'll scream. I'd love to bowl to him, he just surrenders.

 

[Blaze]

Why are Australian crowds so aggresive?

I could understand it if they were playing NZ or England but Sri Lanka?