***Official*** VB Series 2006

[PANIC!]

Remove this slow poke please.

 

[lionheart]

I just read back through the thread to see what I had missed since last I was here, and I just want to have my two cents worth on "the incident".

Firstly, let me just say I'm not arguing for or against the legitimacy of the catch, which is total subjective and inconclusive from camera angle to camera angle. Nor am I riled up about the umpires "not out" adjudication, as there is too much doubt shrouding the whole thing and as the laws of the game dictate, it was the right decision. I am however perplexed, infuriated and disgusted by the manner in which Ricky Ponting, who by now must be officially the most puerile cricketer in the game, responded to the situation. Had he stayed out of the press with his incessant idiotic, oxymoronic statements about the "spirit of the game" and such other pointless drivel, my feelings towards the incident would be markedly different. There aren't many instances where I could say: "had it been that so and so and not this so and so, things would have been different", but I have not a shred of doubt in my mind that had it been Australia in the field claiming the catch and Sri Lanka in a dire situation with the bat refusing to acknowledge the fielder, things would have been completely different. You needn’t ask why, because that would akin to asking "why is Darren Lehman fat, bald and ugly", and of course the only answer to that question is the world is a strange and sometimes not so beautiful place.

 

[luckyeddie]

I just read back through the thread to see what I had missed since last I was here, and I just want to have my two cents worth on "the incident".

Firstly, let me just say I'm not arguing for or against the legitimacy of the catch, which is total subjective and inconclusive from camera angle to camera angle. Nor am I riled up about the umpires "not out" adjudication, as there is too much doubt shrouding the whole thing and as the laws of the game dictate, it was the right decision. I am however perplexed, infuriated and disgusted by the manner in which Ricky Ponting, who by now must be officially the most puerile cricketer in the game, responded to the situation. Had he stayed out of the press with his incessant idiotic, oxymoronic statements about the "spirit of the game" and such other pointless drivel, my feelings towards the incident would be markedly different. There aren't many instances where I could say: "had it been that so and so and not this so and so, things would have been different", but I have not a shred of doubt in my mind that had it been Australia in the field claiming the catch and Sri Lanka in a dire situation with the bat refusing to acknowledge the fielder, things would have been completely different. You needn’t ask why, because that would akin to asking "why is Darren Lehman fat, bald and ugly", and of course the only answer to that question is the world is a strange and sometimes not so beautiful place.

Nine

 

[Hondo]

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.



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.



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.

Can you pls so me some evidence where they have restricted the umpires going to the third umpire. I would be interested to see some proof of what you are claiming here. In a recent series I saw the umpire using the third umpire to make sure the fielder caught the ball cleanly (even with a clear view). They must have just change the rules just before the second VB finals.

I really don't see a reason why the umpires need discuss for several minutes if they are clear the ball didn't carry. The fact they had to discuss the decision indicate that that their wes reasonable doubt. They should have gone to the third umpire.

If you are saying the Ricky ponting suggestions was rejected by Vaughan then he should stop making big deal out of in the media. I read during the South Africa test series he was making a big deal how he was saying that he would have accepted what the fielders says and he would walk. (I'll try and find you the article). He should stop preaching and making a big deal in the media when something doesn't go his way and then when it come to his own wicked throw everything out the window! Typical of Ponting!

 

[parttimer]

You'll run out of fingers pretty soon Ed.

 

[Hondo]

"clearly" in that catch is almost impossible.

I doubt it when you can clearly see he caught it!

 

[Hondo]

Nine

have you added your self to the count!

 

[PANIC!]

I doubt it when you can clearly see he caught it!

Please tell me you're joking.

 

[33/3from3.3]

Is Burkey at the cricket i thought i saw him?

 

[Hondo]

Please tell me you're joking.

Nope, are u?

 

[andyc]

Is Burkey at the cricket i thought i saw him?

Well, given that I'm talking to him online, I daresay he isn't

 

[PANIC!]

Nope, are u?

The replay clearly shows it bounces just before his finger tips. If the ball hit his finger tips it wouldn't have bounced into the back of his hand as shown by the replay.

I don't think Mahela is going to apologise for something he 'clearly caught' either.

 

[luckyeddie]

You'll run out of fingers pretty soon Ed.

That's true, I'm sorry to say

 

[age_master]

Can you pls so me some evidence where they have restricted the umpires going to the third umpire. I would be interested to see some proof of what you are claiming here. In a recent series I saw the umpire using the third umpire to make sure the fielder caught the ball cleanly (even with a clear view). They must have just change the rules just before the second VB finals.

there is definatley something about that in there, i have definately heard it before.

 

[luckyeddie]

have you added your self to the count!

No - I don't qualify. You see, I actually do know the rules with respect to

a) the use of the third umpire in this tournament
b) what constitutes a catch

 

[33/3from3.3]

Well, given that I'm talking to him online, I daresay he isn't

ah Ok perhaps it was the sight screen

 

[Blaze]

No - I don't qualify. You see, I actually do know the rules with respect to

a) the use of the third umpire in this tournament
b) what constitutes a catch

Laws Eddie...

 

[Hondo]

The replay clearly shows it bounces just before his finger tips. If the ball hit his finger tips it wouldn't have bounced into the back of his hand as shown by the replay.

I don't think Mahela is going to apologise for something he 'clearly caught' either.

I suggest that you take a look at it bit more closely, cause it's clearly was caught!

 

[Hondo]

No - I don't qualify. You see, I actually do know the rules with respect to

a) the use of the third umpire in this tournament
b) what constitutes a catch

U must be joking, if you know the rules you clearly wont be making mis-guided claims such as this!

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Can someone describe Ponting's catch for me?