Whatever happened to the "fielder's word" ?

[Guest Hiten.]

I was just browsing through cricinfo and i stumbled upon this. Case 1: Jayawardena claimed a catch and Jayawardena was 100% confident that he caught ponting. BUT Ponting stood his ground and was given not out by umpire Parker. Aftermath: Ponting went on to make 124. Link Case 2: Michael Clarke caught a 'controversial' catch but SG had doubt in his mind and he stood his ground. BUT according to ponting umpires have to take fielders word as the fielder who caught it has the best possible view/judgment on the claimed catch. Aftermath: SG was given out. Why the partiality ?

[Sachinism]

ICC umpires are a bunch of *bleeps* who are scared of aussies

[fineleg]

S'u'ch is life... in ICC-partial-to-Aus lala land.

[Ram]

I was just browsing through cricinfo and i stumbled upon this. Case 1: Jayawardena claimed a catch and Jayawardena was 100% confident that he caught ponting. BUT Ponting stood his ground and was given not out by umpire Parker. Aftermath: Ponting went on to make 124. Link Case 2: Michael Clarke caught a 'controversial' catch but SG had doubt in his mind and he stood his ground. BUT according to ponting umpires have to take fielders word as the fielder who caught it has the best possible view/judgment on the claimed catch. Aftermath: SG was given out. Why the partiality ?

There is nothing partial or impartial bout this. Just that Ponting and Kumble had agreed upon a pre-series arrangemwnt that the fielder's word would be taken on controversial catches. Of course, right after the Sydney test, the agreement was scrapped.

[Cricketics]

no partiality here.. actually the thing everyone has to understand that each umpire is dealing with these situations in a different manner icc just need to make sure that each umpire uses the sam method while handing out a decision

[Zakhmi]

lols...in the first case, the eyes flipped too quickly so the umpy could see the catch...in the second case, the eyes got lifted up so the ball got lifted and was carried safely into the fielder's hand.:eyedance:

[Anakin]

I'll blame AK for making that gentleman's agreement with cheaters.

[Anakin]

Although even then the chumps are supposed to call for help when batsman doubts the catch.

[fineleg]

There is nothing partial or impartial bout this. Just that Ponting and Kumble had agreed upon a pre-series arrangemwnt that the fielder's word would be taken on controversial catches. Of course' date=' right after the Sydney test, the agreement was scrapped.[/quote'] MM, Umpires are not part of the "agreement". SG stood his ground, then umpires have to REFER it to third umpire!

[Holysmoke]

you should not be standing there.

[fineleg]

you should not be standing there.

SG did not stand the ground AFTER umpire gave it out. Umpires had doubt, so they were puzzled and consulting each other, captain, fielder, and all that nonsense. Just refer it to third umpire darn it, and they would have found out those cheating bozos Aussies!

[Holysmoke]

^You clearly did not get the joke... see Online's sig.

[DomainK]

I dont think we can compare two different incidents from two different matches. But I am quite sure that the idea of taking the fielder's word is stupid and rediculous. Whats the hell are the umpires there for then? Lets take the bowler's word for a dismissal, a batsman's word for a six. Lets get rid of the stupid umpires and match referees then.

[Mr. Wicket]

you should not be standing there.

:haha:

[Ram]

MM, Umpires are not part of the "agreement". SG stood his ground, then umpires have to REFER it to third umpire!

The agreement was, " If it was a controversial catch and the batsman stands, the fielder's word will be taken" and thats exactly what happened.

[Zakhmi]

I dont think we can compare two different incidents from two different matches. But I am quite sure that the idea of taking the fielder's word is stupid and rediculous. Whats the hell are the umpires there for then? Lets take the bowler's word for a dismissal' date=' a batsman's word for a six. Lets get rid of the stupid umpires and match referees then.[/quote'] agreed, its really ridiculous on the part of umpires to do that...when they are paid for that.

[IndianRenegade]

The agreement was' date=' " If it was a controversial catch and the batsman stands, the fielder's word will be taken" and thats exactly what happened.[/quote'] Nonsense. The agreement in itself seems contradictory. In case of the controversial catch, if the batsman stands he is saying he doesn't believe in the claim by the fielder. Now in such a case you have to believe in the fielder's claim. :hysterical: The point is according to the agreement the batsman would take the fielders word. But by standing his ground, SG didn't take the fielders word. So Benson should have asked Bucknor and then the 3rd umpire. But he asked the fielder and his decision was based on that. And not surprisingly ICC sleeps when an umpire has breached the rules.

[Temujin Khaghan]

I'll blame AK for making that gentleman's agreement with cheaters.

yes, even i feel bad about the agreement. but he is a national hero and we should stand by his decision for this one time. :)

[Anakin]

The agreement was' date=' " If it was a controversial catch and the batsman stands, the fielder's word will be taken" and thats exactly what happened.[/quote']I doubt umpires had anything to do with that agreement. I suppose the agreement was that batsmen would take fielders' words and walk. But in case a batsman decides to stand, it's umpire's job to make sure the catch was clean.