Some balance please: criciinfo article

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

Thanks for the YouTube, shwetabh. Rather backs up what Benaud thought. At the 15 second mark, the ball could well have brushed the glove (as the commentator thought) so that part is no problem. The footage from 19 seconds onwards shows why Ponting thought he'd caught it. Particularly at around the 29 second mark.

[Rajan]

Donny: ======================================= Clauses for a fair Catch as per the cricket laws : A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if (a) throughout the act of making the catch (i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below. (ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary. (iii) The ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch. The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement. ============================ So what if RB makes a comment, it is not Gospel Truth if he is mistaken. read the rules as stated above. now, it is up to you to judge the senility of a person who says "ponting catch" was clean!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Thanks for the YouTube, shwetabh. Rather backs up what Benaud thought. At the 15 second mark, the ball could well have brushed the glove (as the commentator thought) so that part is no problem. The footage from 19 seconds onwards shows why Ponting thought he'd caught it. Particularly at around the 29 second mark.

3. A fair catch A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if (a) throughout the act of making the catch (i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below. (ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary. The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement. (b) the ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in his clothing or, in the case of the wicket-keeper, in his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder. See Law 23 (Dead ball). © the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch. (d) a fielder catches the ball after it has been lawfully struck more than once by the striker, but only if the ball has not touched the ground since first being struck. (e) a fielder catches the ball after it has touched an umpire, another fielder or the other batsman. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball has touched a protective helmet worn by a fielder, although the ball remains in play. (f) a fielder catches the ball in the air after it has crossed the boundary provided that (i) he has no part of his person touching, or grounded beyond, the boundary at any time when he is in contact with the ball. (ii) the ball has not been grounded beyond the boundary. See Law 19.3 (Scoring a boundary). (g) the ball is caught off an obstruction within the boundary, provided it has not previously been decided to regard the obstruction as a boundary.

Did the ball touch the ground or not? And of course unless you want to argue Ponting is superman and in control of his body horizontally there is no case of him being in control of the ball till he hit the turf.

[Rajan]

No Swetha, Richie Benaud says so. so, it shud be a "clean "catch!

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[suma25]

there is no other way to explain the sort of logic used in that article ... having a diff POV is fine but atleast try to see if it can withstand scrutiny. The funy thing is the guy starts of with "Yes the Umpiring was horrendous" in the first few lines ... and by the time he has gotten to the 4th innings seems to have forgotten about that .

thats what i said didnt I in my earlier post that i agree with most not all of what he says in his article . i think india should have managed to save the test you and others dont doesnt mean i am defending the umpiring in any way even hariharan and jayprakash wud have umpired better

[The Outsider]

Look at the positive guys - Donny watched a video instead of reading the scorebook or listening to his radio.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

How do you people miss what I'm saying by so much - so often ?? As most of you know, I didn't see the Test live so I was very interested to see the above footage after reading the general pyschobabble about it and then being told Benaud thought it was a legitimate. I commented on what I saw in that context. That I could see why both Benaud and Ponting thought he had control of the catch before the ball touched the ground. I pose this scenario to you: a slipper flings himself to one side and takes a one handed blinder. His fingers and thumb completely fold around the ball. There is the catch. One or two seconds later, he hits the turf and the ball is seen to touch the ground. Catch or no catch ?

[The Outsider]

I pose this scenario to you: a slipper flings himself to one side and takes a one handed blinder. His fingers and thumb completely fold around the ball. There is the catch. One or two seconds later, he hits the turf and the ball is seen to touch the ground. Catch or no catch ?

I am surprised you are asking the question - obviously no catch. The fielder has to be in control of the ball and his body without the ball having hit the turf at the time of claiming(well, everyone claims it these days, but you know what I mean) a catch.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Zap_Brannigan]

Balanced my ass! Remember that Aus had 17 wickets, more or less, in the 1st innings and if you count the 2nd innings too, they had 30 wickets in the test, while India had 15....Even BD would fancy their chances against Aus if you give them this many chances. The last time Aus received a fair bit of howlers (almost as much as the opposing team in AShes) from the umpires, they ended up losing the series. Like Chanderpaul said, if the umpires were neutral in their decisions, Aus wouldn't be #1 for very long.

[Donny]

I will give you a better example donny ... a fielder in the deep runs towards the boundary line and takes a clean catch without having to dive but realizes that he will cross the boundary in the next few seconds (longer than the duration in pontings case) so flips the ball back so that it falls well inside the boundary ... Catch or no catch ?

It's obviously not a catch. It also has no relevance to the the two examples mentioned as neither fieldsman was anywhere near the boundary.

[aussiefan]

Mate, A question for which i would like an honest answer from you. When Aus lost the Kolkata test in 2001, losing nearly all its wickets in the last session, did you go " Aus should have saved the test" at that time ? At such a pressure situation, with 7-8 close-in fielders, I would be surprised if top-order batsman survive. Tail-enders ? No chance mate !

honest answer? no problem. i thought christ we have lost it but let's get it right for the next match, as we did in the ashes 2005 when we lost the ashes...move on, get it right...england lost 5 nil next series

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

still await response

What response ? I commended Suma. It wasn't a question.

.... please check this article (link below) that we put up soon after the Test ... I think you will find the 10 howlers listed there. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=86938

They are 'howlers' only in your opinion. The only howler I spotted - yes, I've now seen them all since the Test - was Ponting's big edge on to pad given out. Easy to see how the Symonds and Ponting feathers were not given.