Should ICC charge Ponting for claiming a grassed catch ?

[The Outsider]

Ok, before you get too emotional with the Latif incident, bear in my mind this one is different. Latif had dropped the ball completely before picking it up and claiming the catch. Ponting had grassed the ball for a few milliseconds which happens often and can easily get away claiming ignorance. Should the Indian team management spend time on this issue in which Ponting will in all likelihood get away without any ramifications or should they concentrate more on other things like Harbhajan's appeal, Hogg's charge, and possibly getting some practice in for the test? Or maybe the BCCI/ICC should take up the mantle?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Ok' date=' before you get too emotional with the Latif incident, bear in my mind this one is different. Latif had dropped the ball completely before picking it up and claiming the catch. Ponting had grassed the ball for a few milliseconds which happens often and can easily get away claiming ignorance. Should the Indian team management spend time on this issue in which Ponting will in all likelihood get away without any ramifications or should they concentrate more on other things like Harbhajan's appeal, Hogg's charge, and possibly getting some practice in for the test? [b']Or maybe the BCCI should take up the mantle?

The mantle has to be taken by the ICC. I had touched briefly on this in a discussion with BB yesterday where I mentioned how boorish behaviour of players is killing the game. Ponting's claim of a catch that was actually grassed is an excellent example. While it is debatable if Ponting knew that he had grassed the catch(I think he very well knew but I am not Ponting), what is definitely NOT debatable is the way he appealed. It was not a case of "Okay maybe I grassed the catch", his appeal(as is the norm these days) was more of a demand than a question. This was followed even during media interview when Ponting lashed at an Indian journalist. Tim de Lisle has touched upon this at length with sledging in today's article at CI. I would like ICC to stop all this nonsensical appealing by every other country these days which is putting un-neccessary pressure on umpires. xxx

[The Outsider]

Good post, Lurker. Let me edit the poll option to have BCCI/ICC instead of just the BCCI.

[Chandan]

1.I think we should pursue this. 2.Also I want bucknor not to officiate in any match played by India. 3.I'd like the team management/BCCI to complaint about Symonds to who allegedly called Bhajji "f*cking homo". Why is not that an offensive abuse? 4. I';d not like the Indian team to play till the ban on Bhajji is completely revoked because till then, Bhajji is labelled a racist without any evidence while Sachin is a liar as per match referee. 5.I'd also like BCCI to press on getting apology from Ponting and Symonds once the the ban is revoked. 6. get the match investigated by ACU as the motive or intention of both the umpires was certainly questionable

[head coach]

NO! Because it not big of an offence to charge the player. ICC should come up with a rule to limit these type of appeals and fine the team for this type of nonsensical ones.

[Bumper]

I would appeal both against Ponting & Clarke. Given the beuracratic nature of BCCI & ICC, they wont take the initiative. The team mgmt must pursure this.

[Ram]

I know this might sound stupid, but Did Ponting know he grounded the ball ? His focus may have shifted to appealing once he caught it and may not know he actually grounded it. To back this up, Ponting seemed totally oblivious to the fact that he had grounded the ball, when queried about it in the Press-conference. He almost dismissed it. Either you have to be totally ignorant, or amazingly arrogant, to claim that " There is no way i grounded the ball"

[beetle]

Yes.. and cla rke too. ICC should come out strongly against this aussie style sledging and lay out stricter rules.

[Bumper]

I know this might sound stupid' date=' but [b']Did Ponting know he grounded the ball ? His focus may have shifted to appealing once he caught it and may not know he actually grounded it. To back this up, Ponting seemed totally oblivious to the fact that he had grounded the ball, when queried about it in the Press-conference. He almost dismissed it. Either you have to be totally ignorant, or amazingly arrogant, to claim that " There is no way i grounded the ball"

Apparently that proof was not necessary when Rashid Latif was hit with a ban. Latif claimed he wouldnt have appealed had he known that he grassed it

[Ram]

Apparently that proof was not necessary when Rashid Latif was hit with a ban. Latif claimed he wouldnt have appealed had he known that he grassed it

Even though we can draw parallels between the Latif and Ponting incidents, there are definitely subtle yet important differences between them. In the case of Latif, he didnt catch the ball in the first place, picked up from the ground and with his back was facing the umpire, "Consciously" tried to fool the umpire and cheat. Ponting though, was airborne when he caught the ball and landed stomach first. On seeing the video, it is quite obvious that his attention shifted from his possession of the ball in the hand, to appealing for the dismissal. Such being the case, i can see how he could have possibly not noticed how the ball was actually grounded. As someone who has played a lot of cricket myself, i can imagine even me missing that. The key difference between the two incidents, Did Latif deliberately try to cheat ? - YES Did Ponting deliberately try to cheat ? - Cant say. Yes, one can press charges against him, but i dont see how he is going to be implicated.

[Ram]

Apparently that proof was not necessary when Rashid Latif was hit with a ban. Latif claimed he wouldnt have appealed had he known that he grassed it

Did he really say that ? Maybe a 12 month old infant will believe, just maybe.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

Latif caught the ball while diving dropped it when he had to roll over and picked it up after he gained balance ... pretty similar to what happened with Ponting except that he had it grounded within few milliseconds of catching it ..

Nope, DEFINITELY not similar. In the first case, the fielder *knew* that there was a time when he had lost possession of the ball and hence, technically not completely the catch and so, should have never appealed for it. In Punter's case, he never lost possession/control of the ball, never reclaimed either of those two at any stage of the catch and hence, is justified in appealing for it.

[IndianRenegade]

To those people people who suggest pointing may have not been aware of the ball being grounded. Have you played enough cricket? Coz, I am damn sure that a fielder has full knowledge of whether he grounded the ball or not. Just like a batsmen knows whether he nicked the ball or not. In pointing's case it must have been more obvious to him coz he was dragging the ball on the ground when he picked it up for the appeal - meaning is upper hand was supported by the ground. The fielder would be sure about this!

[IndianRenegade]

Nope, DEFINITELY not similar. In the first case, the fielder *knew* that there was a time when he had lost possession of the ball and hence, technically not completely the catch and so, should have never appealed for it. In Punter's case, he never lost possession/control of the ball, never reclaimed either of those two at any stage of the catch and hence, is justified in appealing for it.

What you mean he never lost possession/control of the ball? You must be blind to say so. He grounded the ball and hence he wasn't in control of the ball. Hence he wasn't justified in appealing. As I am damn sure that a fielder is fully aware of whether he grounded it or not. In pointing's case he was literally dragging the ball on the ground - So he was 100% aware of his action [grounding]

[Sachinism]

id rather have ponting done over for giving ganguly out he no way could have seen if the ball was taken cleanly and yet he decides it was caught looking at the kind of person ponting is, im sure he knew he had grounded it, but was willing to cheat to get a wicket

[ludhianvi]

I didnt like how Ponting was trying to dictate terms to Umpire Benson when Ganguly was given out. On top of that, he clearly denied everything in his post-match interview regarding the Dhoni catch being grassed and the arrogance in which he spoke That's where Ponting should be held accountable.

[Bumper]

Nope, DEFINITELY not similar. In the first case, the fielder *knew* that there was a time when he had lost possession of the ball and hence, technically not completely the catch and so, should have never appealed for it. In Punter's case, he never lost possession/control of the ball, never reclaimed either of those two at any stage of the catch and hence, is justified in appealing for it.

Thats hardly the point though. FACT: 1) Latif caught & grassed it, Ponting caught & grassed it 2) Latif knew it (but says he doesnt), Ponting likely knew it (he says he doesnt) 3) Latif appealed, Ponting appealed (infact demanded) 4) Latif was banned, Ponting was not. Now (2) is the key. Since both players deny it, its a subjective call from the ICC referee. But there is enough merit for a case against Ponting.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --