Australian captain Ricky Ponting once again raised the issue of disputed catches and his view that the batsman should take the fielder's word as to whether the catch was taken cleanly or not.
He stated that none of the other international captains agree with his view and that they would rather the matter be left in the hands of the umpires.
My view is that Ponting is wrong and is sticking to his view because he sees taking the fielder's word as an "Australian" way of doing things.
The reason I think he is wrong is because if a fielder claims a catch that was clearly proven to be not clean it creates a lot of bad blood between the two teams, and if a batsman stands his ground and is reprieved because the replay is inconclusive there is much less ill feeling.
Some may point to the Ganguly/Warne/Smith disputed catch during the IPL and claim there was a lot of ill feeling created by Ganguly not accepting the fielder's word that the catch had been taken cleanly. The replays were inconclusive and I think the main reason it became an incident was because Ganguly and Warne were the players involved, two spiky characters who often get under people's skin.
To defend my point of view, and that of the majority of international captains, I point to the incident involving Australian wicketkeeper Greg Dyer during the 80's. Dyer was clearly shown on replay picking up a missed chance as he rolled over and claiming it as a fair catch, and on that occasion the ill feeling created among not just the opposition but the Australian public effectively ended his career.
Cricket has enough controversy without fielders being crucified by television replays for unfairly claiming catches, so I think Ponting should drop this debate and leave it in the hands of the umpires, if a replay is inconclusive and a batsman is given not out when a fielder "thinks" the catch was taken cleanly then it is just bad luck.
He stated that none of the other international captains agree with his view and that they would rather the matter be left in the hands of the umpires.
My view is that Ponting is wrong and is sticking to his view because he sees taking the fielder's word as an "Australian" way of doing things.
The reason I think he is wrong is because if a fielder claims a catch that was clearly proven to be not clean it creates a lot of bad blood between the two teams, and if a batsman stands his ground and is reprieved because the replay is inconclusive there is much less ill feeling.
Some may point to the Ganguly/Warne/Smith disputed catch during the IPL and claim there was a lot of ill feeling created by Ganguly not accepting the fielder's word that the catch had been taken cleanly. The replays were inconclusive and I think the main reason it became an incident was because Ganguly and Warne were the players involved, two spiky characters who often get under people's skin.
To defend my point of view, and that of the majority of international captains, I point to the incident involving Australian wicketkeeper Greg Dyer during the 80's. Dyer was clearly shown on replay picking up a missed chance as he rolled over and claiming it as a fair catch, and on that occasion the ill feeling created among not just the opposition but the Australian public effectively ended his career.
Cricket has enough controversy without fielders being crucified by television replays for unfairly claiming catches, so I think Ponting should drop this debate and leave it in the hands of the umpires, if a replay is inconclusive and a batsman is given not out when a fielder "thinks" the catch was taken cleanly then it is just bad luck.
). When it comes to taking fielder's words, you really have to trust the honesty of the fielder, as well as their judgment. That's too many variables, for me.
