Jump to content

Just why the heck is IPL giving $$$ contracts to Punter, Pup and Symmo


fineleg

Recommended Posts

What were you watching' date=' Sriram? Here is what I saw - Ganguly edged one, Clarke grassed it not once but twice and Ganguly standing a few feet away probably saw Clarke grass it and stood his ground when the catch was claimed. He was obviously smart enough to realize that the Australians had rescinded the gentleman's agreement for a win and rescinded it himself and asked the umpire to make the call. Mark Benson, asked Ponting for his opinion who immediately raised his finger without consulting Clarke(not that it would have made a difference). I have labored this point a hundred times, the agreement was between the captains, once the umpire is called in to decide he HAS to go with the rule book which is to consult the leg umpire and the third umpire. You saw something very different from what transpired.[/quote'] Shwetabh, I dont exactly understand what do you mean by "once the umpire is called in". Ganguly surely cannot ask the umpire to ask for the third umpire and the understanding between the captains was that the if the catch was doubtful, the fielder's word will taken ,as conveyed to the umpire by the captain. That is what happened. Now, whether Clarke really took the catch, is a different discussion altogether.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shwetabh, I dont exactly understand what do you mean by "once the umpire is called in". Ganguly surely cannot ask the umpire to ask for the third umpire and the understanding between the captains was that the if the catch was doubtful, the fielder's word will taken ,as conveyed to the umpire by the captain. That is what happened. Now, whether Clarke really took the catch, is a different discussion altogether.
You are off the track here. Once Ganguly has refused to honor the agreement between the captains, the umpire MUST make the ruling according to the MCC rule book. There is only one way for the umpire to go according to that ie. consult leg umpire and third umpire, it says nothing about a gentlemanly agreement between captains.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are off the track here. Once Ganguly has refused to honor the agreement between the captains' date=' the umpire MUST make the ruling according to the MCC rule book. There is only one way for the umpire to go according to that ie. consult leg umpire and third umpire, it says nothing about a gentlemanly agreement between captains.[/quote'] Ganguly standing his ground AND asking for the umpires to ask for the 3rd umpire is what will tell us that he wasnt ditching the agreement. Obviously, he was aware of the pact between the captains before the game, he stood there coz he had some doubts on the catch, he saw the umpire consult the captain and the umpire gave him out and he walked. As i said, whether this is the correct sequence of events, is an entirely different discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking pure technicalities here MM. SG did not agree, and umpire should call third umpire since umpire was not sure. Thatz why umpire should call third umpire.
But Finey, the agreement was, the fielder's word will be taken for contentious catches and thats what the umpire did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ganguly standing his ground AND asking for the umpires to ask for the 3rd umpire is what will tell us that he wasnt ditching the agreement. Obviously, he was aware of the pact between the captains before the game, he stood there coz he had some doubts on the catch, he saw the umpire consult the captain and the umpire gave him out and he walked. As i said, whether this is the correct sequence of events, is an entirely different discussion.
How will Ganguly standing his ground and asking the umpire to make a call not amount to not ditching the agreement? There would have been no need for the umpire if Ganguly was honoring the agreement. The very basic fact that Ganguly did not walk off when Clarke claimed the catch means that he rescinded the agreement and the umpire was to make the decision according to the rule book. I don't think I can make the argument any clearer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Finey' date=' the agreement was, the fielder's word will be taken for contentious catches and thats what the umpire did.[/quote'] Rubbish! The agreement was between captains and watching Ponting claim a grassed catch a few overs back was reason enough for Ganguly to ditch the agreement. Let me repeat again, the umpires HAD to follow the rulebook once called upon to make a decision, not consult the opposition captain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How will Ganguly standing his ground and asking the umpire to make a call not amount to not ditching the agreement? There would have been no need for the umpire if Ganguly was honoring the agreement. The very basic fact that Ganguly did not walk off when Clarke claimed the catch means that he rescinded the agreement and the umpire was to make the decision according to the rule book. I don't think I can make the argument any clearer.
Rubbish! The agreement was between captains and watching Ponting claim a grassed catch a few overs back was reason enough for Ganguly to ditch the agreement. Let me repeat again' date=' the umpires HAD to follow the rulebook once called upon to make a decision, not consult the opposition captain.[/quote'] I see that you are referring to Ganguly staying his ground as him ditching the agreement. I dont understand, a contentious catch actually becomes contentious, only when someone expresses doubt. This case, it was the batsman. Under such circumstances, the captains' agreement was that the fielder's word will be taken. Once again, I want to repeat that i dont necessarily agree with the flow of events, I too think it had to be referred. But i can understand the logical sequence of the event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that you are referring to Ganguly staying his ground as him ditching the agreement. I dont understand, a contentious catch actually becomes contentious, only when someone expresses doubt. This case, it was the batsman. Under such circumstances, the captains' agreement was that the fielder's word will be taken. Once again, I want to repeat that i dont necessarily agree with the flow of events, I too think it had to be referred. But i can understand the logical sequence of the event.
Clarke had claimed the catch and if Ganguly/India were honoring the agreement then Ganguly would have walked. The very fact that he did not take Clarke's word means he wanted the umpire to make the call, and the umpire had no business to do anything other than what the MCC rule book says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarke had claimed the catch and if Ganguly/India were honoring the agreement then Ganguly would have walked. The very fact that he did not take Clarke's word means he wanted the umpire to make the call' date=' and the umpire had no business to do anything other than what the MCC rule book says.[/quote'] Ok, so whats the point of having an agreement in the first place then ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say you and I are neighbors, Sriram and we have a gentlemanly agreement that we will respect each other's word on whether either of our dogs pooped in the other's yard. One fine day I am sipping coffee in my kitchen and I see your Doberman taking a dump in my yard and you deny he did it. I decide to go to court on it since you deny your Doberman doing anything. Should the judge give any weight to our gentlemanly agreement or follow the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well' date=' isnt that an entirely separate discussion in itself ?[/quote'] Ok, you are talking about the point of it from Kumble and Ponting's point of view. Kumble got suckered into a sense of fair play being a man of integrity. I had a thread about how it was a poor decision even from a cricketing point of view given that India are more likely to edge into slips than Australia. It was a bad decision on Kumble's part but regardless the umpires were not supposed to judge on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok' date=' you are talking about the point of it from Kumble and Ponting's point of view. Kumble got suckered into a sense of fair play being a man of integrity. I had a thread about how it was a poor decision [b']even from a cricketing point of view given that India are more likely to edge into slips than Australia. It was a bad decision on Kumble's part but regardless the umpires were not supposed to judge on it.
I am not sure thats the right way to think, going into a test match. You dont enter the ground, already assuming that your team will edge more than the opposition. Besides, we all saw in Perth, which team had trouble playing swing and edged a lot of keeper and slips.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia (Ponting) seems to use this tactic with every other captain and most of the time opposition captain veto it. But I am not sure why Kumble agreed. Players agreement is between players. Umpire has to judge according to the rule book. For them agreement/non agreement does not matter. Ganguly stood the ground, that clearly means he did not take the word of catcher and so agreement was void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure thats the right way to think' date=' going into a test match. You dont enter the ground, already assuming that your team will edge more than the opposition. Besides, we all saw in Perth, which team had trouble playing swing and edged a lot of keeper and slips.[/quote'] But that's a separate discussion and there is a separate thread on it. Bottom line is that your Doberman pooped in my yard while I was watching and we had agreed to take each other's words but you denied it. So I decided to go to court, and found the judge favoring you on the basis of a few gentlemanly words we exchanged not in the realm of the law. I bloody well have a reason to be pi$$ed off!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's a separate discussion and there is a separate thread on it. Bottom line is that your Doberman pooped in my yard while I was watching and we had agreed to take each other's words but you denied it. So I decided to go to court' date=' and found the judge favoring you on the basis of a few gentlemanly words we exchanged not in the realm of the law. I bloody well have a reason to be pi$ off![/quote'] Well, who said we shouldnt be pissed off ? I have NEVER defended the chain of events that happened, vis-a-vis Ganguly's dismissal, rather i have tried to explain why it happened, that is all. Its not exactly Ponting's or Clarke's fault that Benson brain took a holiday in the middle of the test match.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well' date=' who said we shouldnt be pissed off ? I have NEVER defended the chain of events that happened, vis-a-vis Ganguly's dismissal, rather i have tried to explain why it happened, that is all. Its not exactly Ponting's or Clarke's fault that Benson brain took a holiday in the middle of the test match.[/quote'] Why is it not Clarke/Ponting/Benson's fault that the first two claimed catches which they were not supposed to according to an agreement they had entered into on their own will and the last did not follow the rule book but consulted the opposition captain of all people on the fairness of the catch?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...