If Rashid Latif can be banned why not Michael Clarke?

[.::Stevo::.]

Ive watched the replay heaps of times to see what the big fuss was about. To me it definetly seems like he caught it!

What coverage do you guys get over there??? Maybe your missing camera angles or something...

 

[aussie1st]

Benefit of doubt always go to the batsman. If Clark wasnt sure, he shouldnt have claimed ... he claimed that means he was sure or he was cheating ... the first one proved wrong by TV replay ... that means he and ponting both are CHEATERS !!! No doubt this Aussie team is number one ... even when it comes to cheating !!!

Claiming a catch is just like appealing for LBW. So all the times the players know the ball is missing the stumps yet still apeal they are cheating? May as well call Cricket cheating then shall we?

 

[SciD]

Ive watched the replay heaps of times to see what the big fuss was about. To me it definetly seems like he caught it!

What coverage do you guys get over there??? Maybe your missing camera angles or something...

In fact we get more camera angles thats why the fuss is. Anyways Rashid Laatif just picked the ball up and started to appeal. He deserved to be banned but not PUP. But he could have said im not sure. Well leave it. Its over now.

 

[harishankar]

Claiming a catch is just like appealing for LBW. So all the times the players know the ball is missing the stumps they are cheating? May as well call Cricket cheating then shall we?

Well it was more a case of the umpire having to use the third umpire in this instance.

I personally think that in all doubtful catches it should go to the third umpire regardless of any pre-match arrangement between the captains. I think all these pre-match agreements are bound to have this kind of a result...

As I saw it, it was it was doubtful enough to be ruled in the batsman's favour. The Star TV camera had an extra angle which definitely appeared as though the ball just landed on the ground before it was collected.

I'm not saying that Clarke cheated. Most likely he thought he had caught it clean and he might be right or wrong. Most of the Indian fury at that dismissal was directed at Mark Benson's not going to the third umpire.

 

[BONED!]

In fact we get more camera angles thats why the fuss is. Anyways Rashid Laatif just picked the ball up and started to appeal. He deserved to be banned but not PUP. But he could have said im not sure. Well leave it. Its over now.

Actually to the best of my knowledge you get all the angles available to the commentary box at the SCG. Which means you only get as many angles as we do. They do not allow extra camera footage for broadcast, they only use the set camera stations placed strategically all over the SCG.

But yes, its over now, so lets all leave it be!

 

[harishankar]

Actually to the best of my knowledge you get all the angles available to the commentary box at the SCG. Which means you only get as many angles as we do. They do not allow extra camera footage for broadcast, they only use the set camera stations placed strategically all over the SCG.

But yes, its over now, so lets all leave it be!

I'm sure ESPN/Star had their own Cameras. At least Harsha Bhogle said so...

So we might not have seen the same footage...

But as you said it's a dead issue now.

 

[aussie1st]

Well it was more a case of the umpire having to use the third umpire in this instance.

I personally think that in all doubtful catches it should go to the third umpire regardless of any pre-match arrangement between the captains. I think all these pre-match agreements are bound to have this kind of a result...

As I saw it, it was it was doubtful enough to be ruled in the batsman's favour. The Star TV camera had an extra angle which definitely appeared as though the ball just landed on the ground before it was collected.

I'm not saying that Clarke cheated. Most likely he thought he had caught it clean and he might be right or wrong. Most of the Indian fury at that dismissal was directed at Mark Benson's not going to the third umpire.

Exactly what I would have done, the 3rd umpire is there so use it.

 

[Cricket_god]

he clearely grounded the ball when he was rolling

 

[Sureshot]

You know the rules on cricket video's!

 

[manee]

Ive watched the replay heaps of times to see what the big fuss was about. To me it definetly seems like he caught it!

What coverage do you guys get over there??? Maybe your missing camera angles or something...

There was a clear picture (can't find it at the moment, just take my word for it, for now) which showed the ball on the ground with no part of his hand underneath the ball.

 

[King Pietersen]

Yes, but that doesnt make him a cheat. The catch happens in a split second, theres no way he could have realised clearly that he dropped the ball and then tried to cheat. The fact that its taken many slow mo clips and different still images to prove he dropped it makes it clear to me that he didnt know he dropped the ball. If Clarke was banned for this, then i'll lose all faith in cricket, the extent that certain Indian fans will go to to make sure that India get some sort of advantage over Australia is pathetic. Rely on playing decent attacking cricket instead of trying to get players banned, and moaning about umpires, and players influences on umpires, really is pathetic, and a sure signal of a lot of bad losers.

 

[Leggie]

Ive watched the replay heaps of times to see what the big fuss was about. To me it definetly seems like he caught it!

What coverage do you guys get over there??? Maybe your missing camera angles or something...

The coverage is all the same around the world I think, It's the one where the scorecard is green....

 

[ajay2k5]

Go on to youtube and search for Indian catches, there is a video on there of a whole heap of catches the Indian team has made, there are quite a few catches that was grounded after the catch was taken.

It has been missed for so long that rule, ICC need to clean it up and fix it now. It's not Clarkes and Pontings fault IMO, that little grounding of the ball has been around for a long long time.

I only pointed towards the Indian clip because its all I could find, its nothing against india.

 

[manee]

I am going to seem extremely biased now but I don't think that Dhoni would have known if he had grounded his catch against Kevin Pietersen. I feel that with keeping gloves on, he may have not had the feeling to realise the ball on the ground.

That being said, a lot of Indians had dropped catches before and claimed them dishonestly, I just wanted to talk about that relevant case. The issue is with the system of honesty and the fact that Ponting tried so hard to push this with Kumble, to which Kumble accepted. But this is an issue I do not want to get into.

 

[Will_NA]

Its clear from these type of responses that some of the Australians don't get it, especially when one of their own cricket writers, neutral cricket writers, and even Australian sporting greats have problems with the way the Australians are playing their cricket out there. These fans also have some sort of arrogance complex that prevents them from seeing any logic whatsoever, which leads them to conclude that the reason for all displacement of matter is the greatness of the Australian team. When these fans are asked for proof, they lie low until they have an opportunity to repeat their querulous arguments when their instigating Indian counterpart inevitably posts an angry message. Furthermore, you are not a moderator, so don't try to stamp your inexistent authority.

Fair enough...

Benefit of doubt always go to the batsman. If Clark wasnt sure, he shouldnt have claimed ... he claimed that means he was sure or he was cheating ... the first one proved wrong by TV replay ... that means he and ponting both are CHEATERS !!! No doubt this Aussie team is number one ... even when it comes to cheating !!!

...but ignorant posts like these don't help.

3rd Umpire could easily have been used to clear this all up, instead of consulting Pontng who was obviously going to say Clarke caught it. Why would a captain disagree with his own fielder when he probably didn't have a better view himself? Close calls like that should be referred.