India in Australia

[angryangy]

That whole Ponting asking for teams to be honest seemed a bit weird to me, when he's always said that he will never walk even if he hits the ball. So how can he ask for honesty in one area but not another?

I can understand the paradox, but I guess it's because when fielding, it is your job to appeal for the wicket, to make the case, as it were. When you're batting it is neither your job to appeal to the umpire, nor make the umpires decision for him, only to stand there and try not to look out.

 

[SaiSrini]

Credit to the Aussies though. They have bowled well even if Dravid wasn't out and Ganguly's wicket was suspect. They've set good fields which have put Indians under pressure and have bowled good line and length.

I credit the Indians too. I liked the attitude of their batters like Laxman, Tendulkar, Ganguly, etc who had looked positive and attempted to score freely. Two decisions have put us in this position.

 

[IloveGilly]

Gilly appealed when he saw that ball from Dravid came off pad. Australia will appeal and claim anything for 16th win.

Building up a reputation of being one of the most honest players in the world, do you honestly think Gilchrist would do that? Gilchrist is one of the worlds most respected players in the world and would not appeal for anything unless he thinks its something.

 

[genghis_khan]

**** me that outfield is fast

 

[MUFC1987]

Because it is not up to him if he is out or not. It's the umpire which control his faith, whether out or not. But when it comes to fielding, umpires aren't always sure about whether a ball was a wicket and how they act on the field, builds a reputation on the players, the team and Ricky Ponting. Or is there some need for players to lie about whether they caught the ball or not?

As is evident in this test, Umpires aren't sure if batsmen hit the ball either, so why is it different? Who choose to help the Umpire out in one way but refuse to do so in the other. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it seems stupid to pick and choose when to be honest.

 

[pal]

I don't think Bucknor nodded. He looked as if he thought it was inconclusive. At any rate, it should have been referred to the third umpire, besides the fact that batsman, not the fielder or the opposing team's captain, should have the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SciD]

Because it is not up to him if he is out or not. It's the umpire which control his faith, whether out or not. But when it comes to fielding, umpires aren't always sure about whether a ball was a wicket and how they act on the field, builds a reputation on the players, the team and Ricky Ponting. Or is there some need for players to lie about whether they caught the ball or not?



Clarke caught the ball, reaction was made, he had a general idea of what happened, looked at Bucknor, he nodded and just glanced at Ponting and was enough to say he was out.

Dude he might have caught it but ball touched ground when he rolled over. As per law he was not in control of bowl before it touched ground hence not out.

 

[jordox]

If I was Kumble, I would have called the team back into the pavilion (even if the umpires had forfeited the game to Australia a'la Oval). I dont care a hoot about who wins here. This game has been corrupted to the best (I am sure even Australia wont feel happy about winning this if they do).

Dravid played well today. I wouldnt blame him at all. Inspite of not being in flow, he has been gamely fighting it out in the middle. Some time or the other, he will find his flow.

Hmm, aren't you quite the sore loser. Thanks for confirming that

Gilly appealed when he saw that ball from Dravid came off pad. Australia will appeal and claim anything for 16th win.

Oh seriously, be quiet. We all know that Gilchrist is one of the most honest players in the world, he walks and NEVER appeals when he knows it isn't out. I remember in the 2003 world cup, Brett Lee was bowling and everyone went up for the catch behind, except Gilchirst, guess what, it was the world cup semi final.

Please don't start commenting on the Australian players character, it just shows immaturity. The reason why all the Australians went and why Steve Bucknor gave it out was because on the way into Gilchrist's gloves, the flick of the pad make a 'click' sound, which sounded, to everyone, like an edge.

This is the last time I'll say this, commenting on the bad umpiring is one thing but please don't start making cracks at the Australian's character.

 

[pal]

This is the replay I'm talking about: http://i11.tinypic.com/6ywfiow.jpg

I'm not sure if they've showed that angle in your broadcast.

 

[SaiSrini]

Building up a reputation of being one of the most honest players in the world, do you honestly think Gilchrist would do that? Gilchrist is one of the worlds most respected players in the world and would not appeal for anything unless he thinks its something.

So you say that was out? Gilchrist clearly appealed for the caught behind seeing the way he threw the ball up. Being that close to the action and seeing the distance missed by the ball, I doubt Gilly's integrity. And I dont believe when some one says he has been honest before, so he will be honest forever

 

[jordox]

This is the replay I'm talking about: http://i11.tinypic.com/6ywfiow.jpg

I'm not sure if they've showed that angle in your broadcast.

He still has control of that, I always thought that if you are grasping the ball firmly (which he is) and the ball touches the ground it doesn't matter.. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[SciD]

Building up a reputation of being one of the most honest players in the world, do you honestly think Gilchrist would do that? Gilchrist is one of the worlds most respected players in the world and would not appeal for anything unless he thinks its something.

Thats the danger. If Gilly appeals all think its out but that is not always true

This is the replay I'm talking about: http://i11.tinypic.com/6ywfiow.jpg

I'm not sure if they've showed that angle in your broadcast.

 

[aditya123]

That whole Ponting asking for teams to be honest seemed a bit weird to me, when he's always said that he will never walk even if he hits the ball. So how can he ask for honesty in one area but not another?

Everybody seem to be mising the point that even if Clarke had taken it on the full , while turning and rolling over his palms hit the ground with the ball in it.

I`ll soon get you a picture of that.

You see this ---> This is Not Out !
Someone teach the rules to the umpires.
As Harsha Bhogle said, when it comes to checking whether the catch was caught or not,it can be asked to the fielder but when it comes to checking whether the fielder was in control, it is the umpires call.
This was also a case of Clarke not being in total control of the catch and having touched the ground.
But as Ian Chappel said, the umpires may not even be knowing that !

 

[IloveGilly]

As is evident in this test, Umpires aren't sure if batsmen hit the ball either, so why is it different? Who choose to help the Umpire out in one way but refuse to do so in the other. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it seems stupid to pick and choose when to be honest.

But then this happens all around the world, it's nothing new besides the exception of 1 or 2 players that walk. You can't expect every player in the world to be honest. Unless there is a want to keep Australia from being as honest as possible on the field I see nothing wrong with Ricky Ponting asking them to be honest on the field.

Dude he might have caught it but ball touched ground when he rolled over. As per law he was not in control of bowl before it touched ground hence not out.

Well that's something that wasn't noted or even talked about on our network, and I doubt the 3rd umpire would've been looking at that as well. And I doubt that would change the opinions of any Indian fans anyway.

 

[pal]

I doubt the 3rd umpire would've been looking at that as well.

The third umpire is supposed to uphold the laws of the game and if that replay was available to him, he should have at least had the opportunity to do so.