Ramdin's Blatant peice of Cheating

[Crookbond]

Ramdin had taken the catch. The ball spilled while he got up from the ground, that was out.

[StriKe]

Anybody who calls Rashid latif a cheater but says Ramdin's catch was clean needs to open his eyes!!

I haven't see ramdin claim yet and there was power cut for me..check the match thread. I will post here after i see it

[DomainK]

Ramdin had taken the catch. The ball spilled while he got up from the ground' date=' that was out.[/quote'] Yup. He was in control of the catch for a very long time. He spilled at a time when I think his dive was complete and he was in control of the catch. Vastly different from Latif, who spilled it during the dive and then picked it up and claimed a catch. That ban was well deserved.

[Tiger80]

Claimed a catch after picking ball from ground' date=' I have never seen such a blatant peice of cheating by any cricketer[/quote'] :whine: Haan bhai Ramdin ganda hai , use do thappad marenge match ke baad , ab match dekho

[SLICKR392]

So this is not cheating !! keep living in a fools paradise

Where did I say its not Sherlock? He held the bowl for few second and dropped it. I'm not sure if that out or not out.

[jf1gp_1]

haven't seen the incident but why didn't Pak use drs?

[Gunner]

Ramdin needs to be banned for atleast one match.

[CSK Fan]

haven't seen the incident but why didn't Pak use drs?

It was given not out.

[The Outsider]

Ramdin had taken the catch. The ball spilled while he got up from the ground' date=' that was out.[/quote'] The law: Ramdin was not in complete control of his movements. The catch was illegal and Ramdin claiming it was cheating and should be handed a ban.

[Sidhoni]

If Ramdin is banned, who will keep wickets? Baugh?

[Crookbond]

The law: Ramdin was not in complete control of his movements. The catch was illegal and Ramdin claiming it was cheating and should be handed a ban.

His own movement? In my books that was complete. Getting up is not a "movement".

[The Outsider]

His own movement? In my books that was complete. Getting up is not a "movement".

It certainly is if the ball spills out in doing so because it shows that the act of completing the catch was not completed. People don't spill cricket balls while getting up if they are in complete control of their movements.

[Crookbond]

It certainly is if the ball spills out in doing so because it shows that the act of completing the catch was not completed. People don't spill cricket balls while getting up if they are in complete control of their movements.

No it doesn't. The catch was completed while Ramdin was straight on ground while getting up the ball slipped from his gloves. Sure that is a rarity but just because it is rare doesn't mean it is against the law.

[The Outsider]

No it doesn't. The catch was completed while Ramdin was straight on ground while getting up the ball slipped from his gloves. Sure that is a rarity but just because it is rare doesn't mean it is against the law.

1. The law says the act of a catch is completed when the fielder is in complete control of the ball and his movements. 2. Cricket balls don't spill out of gloves if someone is in complete control of the ball and his movements. Inference: Ramdin claimed an illegal catch.

[Crookbond]

1. The law says the act of a catch is completed when the fielder is in complete control of the ball and his movements. 2. Cricket balls don't spill out of gloves if someone is in complete control of the ball and his movements. Inference: Ramdin claimed an illegal catch.

You still don't get it - the movement is in the act of taking the catch and not what happens after the player is stable. Going by your theory - if someone takes a catch, completes it by being stable and then runs with the ball in his hand towards the team to celebrate and the ball slips the catch is not completed. That's not the law - Ramdin was completely in control of the ball and his movements, he was flat on the ground -> catch done. He now got up and the ball spilled through his gloves; that was not the movement of taking a catch.

[The Outsider]

You still don't get it - the movement is in the act of taking the catch and not what happens after the player is stable. Going by your theory - if someone takes a catch' date=' completes it by being stable and then runs with the ball in his hand towards the team to celebrate and the ball slips the catch is not completed. That's not the law - Ramdin was completely in control of the ball and his movements, he was flat on the ground -> catch done. He now got up and the ball spilled through his gloves; that was not the movement of taking a catch.[/quote'] Uff!! How can you claim to have complete control of your movements when you can't even get up without spilling the ball? There was a similar incident involving Ponting at silly point - think it's from the '08 Sydney test. He made a clean catch diving, but while getting up his palms went face down and the ball touched the ground. Was given not out. Can't believe you don't see the difference between being able to get up cleanly after catching the ball and spilling it after being in control to get up cleanly to give such a rubbish example as above. When a fielder starts off, he is standing then is on the ground while catching the ball. At the minimum complete control would suggest that you are able to get back to your standing position without spilling the ball.

[Crookbond]

Uff!! How can you claim to have complete control of your movements when you can't even get up without spilling the ball? There was a similar incident involving Ponting at silly point - think it's from the '08 Sydney test. He made a clean catch diving, but while getting up his palms went face down and the ball touched the ground. Was given not out. Can't believe you don't see the difference between being able to get up cleanly after catching the ball and spilling it after being in control to get up cleanly to give such a rubbish example as above. When a fielder starts off, he is standing then is on the ground while catching the ball. At the minimum complete control would suggest that you are able to get back to your standing position without spilling the ball.

Just like Herschelle Gibbs was in complete control before he threw the ball up in the air to celebrate and slipped it. In the Ponting example (I know which one you are referring to - catch of Dhoni at silly point), you gave he was not stable but still in the act of catching the ball and much over all the ball was touching the ground. He was not stable on the ground at all. IDK but in my books in this case, I saw it more than once and even saw it now once again - I think Ramdin was stable after he took the catch. The theory on which you are relying is insensitive to situations where someone gets up from a stable position and the ball slips from his hand. Probably a grey area but if I were the umpire I would give that OUT. :two_thumbs_up:

[The Outsider]

Just like Herschelle Gibbs was in complete control before he threw the ball up in the air to celebrate and slipped it.

So, you think Waugh should have been given out? Don't think he had complete control of the ball and his body was still in motion.

In the Ponting example (I know which one you are referring to - catch of Dhoni at silly point), you gave he was not stable but still in the act of catching the ball and much over all the ball was touching the ground. He was not stable on the ground at all.

As far as I remember, he had taken the catch in complete control and his arms were stretched out in front, palms up. But while getting up, he put his palms face down and the ball touched the ground in the process. He didn't even drop the ball, like Ramdin did.

IDK but in my books in this case, I saw it more than once and even saw it now once again - I think Ramdin was stable after he took the catch. The theory on which you are relying is insensitive to situations where someone gets up from a stable position and the ball slips from his hand. Probably a grey area but if I were the umpire I would give that OUT. :two_thumbs_up:

I wouldn't call lying on the ground a stable position to begin with. Yeah it's stable in the sense that you won't fall off from the face of the Earth, but in context the natural starting point for a fielder is a standing position and unless you can regain that without the ball touching the ground, the catch is not complete.

[Crookbond]

LeT - Yes, I actually think that Waugh should have been given out because the catch was complete and he was throwing the ball up in the air for celebration of the wicket. I thought the catch was complete. Ponting was not stable as his dive was yet in motion. The second moment he touched the ground the ball hit the turf. Ew7tY8Q3Trw I think there is some difference in the interpretation of that law between us but the good thing is that we're consistent.

[Lord]

LeT :cantstop: