Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > Archive > International Archive > 2007 Match Thread Archive
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 13th January 2008, 03:40   #801
Breacan
International Material
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3hard View Post
But you still haven't really demonstrated what his particular double standards are, other than the idea that the players should decide if a catch is clean or not. Which I'm not really sure can be defined as a double standard anyway.
I can't be bothered to trawl through my previous posts, but I have highlighted before:

a) Nick a catch, accept the umpires decision when given not out. Subsequently nick into the pads and throw a strop because it's given as LBW. Oh, and sign a much-vaunted declaration that you will accept the umpire's decisions.

b) Claim a blatantly grounded catch in the second innings - yes, that diving "catch". But still expect the fielder's word to be taken as to whether a catch is taken cleanly or not.

Those are both double standards - and that is just from this test.
Breacan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th January 2008, 03:45   #802
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
I can't be bothered to trawl through my previous posts, but I have highlighted before:

a) Nick a catch, accept the umpires decision when given not out. Subsequently nick into the pads and throw a strop because it's given as LBW. Oh, and sign a much-vaunted declaration that you will accept the umpire's decisions.

b) Claim a blatantly grounded catch in the second innings - yes, that diving "catch". But still expect the fielder's word to be taken as to whether a catch is taken cleanly or not.

Those are both double standards - and that is just from this test.
Agree with that. I can't see why teams will enter into 'gentlemen's' agreements regarding catches where the overall integrity of players remains clouded. If Symonds isn't prepared to help the umpire out when he nicks it, why would we want or expect him to help him out when he might have caught a contentious catch. Players can't have it both ways. In any case, I've seen Clarke, Hayden, and maybe Punter claim highly dubious catches, in Hayden's case the ball clearly bounced. So I don't expect other countries to agree to Punter's decree re. catches.
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2008, 01:31   #803
3hard
International Material
 
3hard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Adelaide
Team(s): The mighty redbacks.
Posts: 1,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
I can't be bothered to trawl through my previous posts, but I have highlighted before:

a) Nick a catch, accept the umpires decision when given not out. Subsequently nick into the pads and throw a strop because it's given as LBW.
Ponting's strop. But apparently he wasn't really angry with the umpires, he was just surprised that such an honest opponent would appeal for something they knew was blatantly not out.

But yes, he was happy with the umpire's decision when given in his benefit, but was upset when one went against him. Definitely a double standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
Oh, and sign a much-vaunted declaration that you will accept the umpire's decisions.
Well he accepted the umpire's decision, he was just unhappy with it. A better example of not accepting an umpire's decision might be, say, threatening to call off a tour if a decision is not overturned in your favour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breacan View Post
b) Claim a blatantly grounded catch in the second innings - yes, that diving "catch". But still expect the fielder's word to be taken as to whether a catch is taken cleanly or not.

Those are both double standards - and that is just from this test.
No, the second example is of a lie, not of a double standard. However, if he gets upset at India claiming a catch that was grounded, that would be a double standard.

If these things rile you so much, you must not get a lot of joy out of watching cricket in general.
__________________
Quote:
"Yet your argument is that of a retarded 11 year old, who is also crippled."
3hard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2008, 04:26   #804
noelene
County 2nd Team
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 205
Wouldn't it be simple if Captains make the agreement and then enter into the spirit of the agreement?I have no doubt Clarke thought he took the catch(so did the fielders near him)but Kumble now says we can't make that agreement with cheats.Why did he make the agreement with cheats in the first place?There was a dubious catch in the ODIs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UVBHYSUYy4
Maybe Gilchrist should have stood his ground on that catch?
What is now obvious is that catches like these will all be referred from now on.
noelene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2008, 20:58   #805
Marauding Bison
Administrator
 
Marauding Bison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 16,884
Nothing dodgy about that - his hand is between the ball and the ground.
__________________
Not having been born to Conservatism, it has never occurred to me to think of it as a form of original sin. I simply became convinced that the things that had drawn me into political activism the belief that every individual should be able to fulfil his potential, and that the liberation of the human spirit should be the primary aim of a free society were better served by the economic and political programme of what was called the Right. Janet Daley
Marauding Bison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2008, 00:24   #806
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 42,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by noelene View Post
Wouldn't it be simple if Captains make the agreement and then enter into the spirit of the agreement?I have no doubt Clarke thought he took the catch(so did the fielders near him)but Kumble now says we can't make that agreement with cheats.Why did he make the agreement with cheats in the first place?There was a dubious catch in the ODIs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UVBHYSUYy4
Maybe Gilchrist should have stood his ground on that catch?
What is now obvious is that catches like these will all be referred from now on.
You have two umpires on the field and it is their job to say whether catches have carried or been taken cleanly or not. I don't think it is right for captains to make reciprocal agreements with each other, not even considering that it smacks of taking the moral high ground, a stance to which they are eminently unsuited.

It might have worked in the pre-television age when errors of judgment or eyesight would even themselves out and nobody would be any the wiser (except for the cheats who knew what they had done). You can't do it now, when every event is subjected to endless slo-mo replays. Let's keep it simple; if anyone's going to get it wrong, let it just be the umpires.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2008, 00:29   #807
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,685
The low catch thing is a special circumstance, in that the catcher usually knows whereas the umpires find it very tough to tell and the cameras find it just as tough because of foreshortening. The problem is that the players can't really be trusted though.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2008, 00:59   #808
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 42,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
The low catch thing is a special circumstance, in that the catcher usually knows whereas the umpires find it very tough to tell and the cameras find it just as tough because of foreshortening. The problem is that the players can't really be trusted though.
Exactly. The players can't be trusted. I could see a situation where fielders got a reputation for always being totally honest, like walking, so that just when it really mattered they could cheat and be believed, just like the walkers. Allegedly.

The cameras find it hard to tell and there is endless argument anyway so the umpire/third umpire just has to make a decision and we accept it.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th January 2008, 15:55   #809
square leg umpire
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: yorkshire
Team(s): yorkshire
Posts: 8,765
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3hard View Post
Ponting's strop. But apparently he wasn't really angry with the umpires, he was just surprised that such an honest opponent would appeal for something they knew was blatantly not out.

But yes, he was happy with the umpire's decision when given in his benefit, but was upset when one went against him. Definitely a double standard.



Well he accepted the umpire's decision, he was just unhappy with it. A better example of not accepting an umpire's decision might be, say, threatening to call off a tour if a decision is not overturned in your favour.

No, the second example is of a lie, not of a double standard. However, if he gets upset at India claiming a catch that was grounded, that would be a double standard.

If these things rile you so much, you must not get a lot of joy out of watching cricket in general.
The main double standard was the captain of the game's sledgers in chief running to teacher when they got a reposte they didn't like.
square leg umpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2008, 08:35   #810
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,113
I think there was an element in India's celebrations which were similar to our excitement the week before yet nothing was said about that which to me is slightly hypocritical by the likes of Peter Roebuck and other journos who have come across as a tad sanctimonious.

As for the umpiring, it was slightly in India's favour last test which balanced the ledger. I'm glad that Punter and co. didn't come out whingeing like the recipients of the bad decisions the week before did.
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2008, 10:17   #811
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
I think there was an element in India's celebrations which were similar to our excitement the week before yet nothing was said about that which to me is slightly hypocritical by the likes of Peter Roebuck and other journos who have come across as a tad sanctimonious.

As for the umpiring, it was slightly in India's favour last test which balanced the ledger. I'm glad that Punter and co. didn't come out whingeing like the recipients of the bad decisions the week before did.
That's because in both cases, you're exaggerating. Perhaps time has reduced the significance of the 2nd test display in your mind, or you think it has in others. There's also no way Punter would have gotten away with complaining after trying to dismiss the last test's antics, even he isn't that stupid.

I do agree though that Roebuck (no idea why you ever give him credence) and other journos came across as a tad sanctimonious.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2008, 10:35   #812
Midnight
Legendary
 
Midnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne
Team(s): Australia
Posts: 8,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by slop View Post
That's because in both cases, you're exaggerating. Perhaps time has reduced the significance of the 2nd test display in your mind, or you think it has in others. There's also no way Punter would have gotten away with complaining after trying to dismiss the last test's antics, even he isn't that stupid.

I do agree though that Roebuck (no idea why you ever give him credence) and other journos came across as a tad sanctimonious.
Yes I agree with that but I think that Kumble did come across as a whinger after Sydney.
Midnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2008, 10:46   #813
slop
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cambridge
Team(s): South Africa
Age: 42
Posts: 18,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
Yes I agree with that but I think that Kumble did come across as a whinger after Sydney.
He did. Not without reason though and the press were lapping it up so it may have come across differently to how he meant it.
slop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2008, 13:19   #814
Apex
International Material
 
Apex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Woolloomooloo
Team(s): India
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight View Post
I think there was an element in India's celebrations which were similar to our excitement the week before yet nothing was said about that which to me is slightly hypocritical by the likes of Peter Roebuck and other journos who have come across as a tad sanctimonious.

As for the umpiring, it was slightly in India's favour last test which balanced the ledger. I'm glad that Punter and co. didn't come out whingeing like the recipients of the bad decisions the week before did.
Your accounting is very weak, the ledger is in no way balanced!!!! We need 3 edges not be given out, 2 stumpings not given out, one edge when the ball was 12 inches from the bat given out , one bump ball given as a catch and one aussie batsmen out on a no ball at the right context then perhaps it will be balanced, ......i think you just need to get out of your fish bowl and watch the second test again.
Apex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th June 2008, 05:06   #815
A Newbie
Posting God
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by square leg umpire View Post
When neutral umpiring was introduced we thought it would end the home bias endemic in certain countries. Unfortunatly we are seeing a phenominon well known to football fans, the homester referee,or umpires as they are in cricket.
We saw this in Englands tests in Sri Lanka and now in Aus. It is important firm action is taken, or bad times for the game.
And Ian Howell perhaps in India's tour of England last summer.
A Newbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org