Print

[Sambo]

Well said art

[Dobbs]

dobbs, we arent sore about the bloody loss. we hacked it and moved on. Secondly, we played within the laws of the game. Clarke, symonds and ponting all choose not to walk. That abides by the laws of the game. If you want to blame someone, blame the umpires ( no offense art) they made the decision. I mean, does vaughn walk, does bell walk, does pietersen walk? No they dont.

i believe the rule is, that lollies/gum/mints may be sucked if they are not deliberately used to ball tamper. Also it states that only, sweat and saliva may be used to polish the ball. He even said he did it on purpose.

You are missing my main point. Catches that didn't carry, that was my main point. Fool.

[art]

Hmmm, having gone through the study of the current technology available on catches it is inconclusive to say the least. Of course a batsman who stands his ground is doing nothing worng, is he??? Depends on which side you back by the looks of things.

There are times when players don't know and umpires do and there are times umpires don't know and the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.

So what do you suggest? Do the umpires have the final decision? Does the catcher have the final decision? Does the batsman decide when he is caught? On a close call experience in the middle shows the last person to be thinking rationaly is the batsman.

Now before you answer the above questions relate your answers to all levels of cricket not just electronicaly (and often inconclusively) monitored big matches.

[dan_griffin11]

and ponting had a carbon backed bat? hmm seems fair!

[art]

Interesting point about the carbon backed bat.
Law 6.2 applies. Did it contravene that Law?

[dan_griffin11]

i'm pretty sure it did, but that's my opinion. Assuming i have the right law, the carbon may add longevity to the bat. but will pro players that get bats when they want, care about this? I think not. The carbon adds density and ''flex'' to the bat while  keeping weight down. And it surely does contavene law 6.1? Your views art?

[art]

Hmmm there is the problem. 6.2 is interesting and given the amount of rubbish bat makers put on their bats these days and what you can buy on the internet who knows. No it does not contavene 6.1 because 6.2 adds a rider to 6.1 so the two must be read together.

This little discussion is to part of bigger discussions hopefully in the Umpires section of the board at a later date.

As for your discussion about free bats etc, I have seen more than one top batsman mortified when he broke his favourite bat.                                                   

[Nozza]

The ball was tampered with: It was illegal and a low act, and the english should have admitted it.

Ponting had a carbon backed bat: at the time was it ILLEGAL? NO so he was breakign no law, well as a matter of fact carbon bats are not illegal, they are not allowed in international crickert, now then dan griffin is ball tamperign allowed in ANY form of cricket?

The Catches depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on, to me and most aussies it looked as though they were fine, to most indians they thought it dropped short.

Now you pommies who are having a go at walking you are the biggest HYPOCRITES in the world. I have never seen KP walk nor most of your team so shut up.  When you do it then you can take shots but they say people in glass houses should not throw stones

[Tom]

How illegal is rubbing saliva on a ball though? The sweet has dissolved and has started on it's way through the digestion process is it not then part of your body and it's fluids? I've  not seen the MCC come out and say it's illegal yet either. Also remember this has only been printed to sell more Daily Mails and more books.

[art]

Firstly cricket bats must be made of wood, period.

Rubbing saliva is not illegal. The Law startes "provided that no artifical substance is used" so sugar from a lolly in your saliva is an artifical substance, period. Bush lawyers are not required the Law is simple and clear.

I would like to see the MCC come out and say it was not illegal. Heck I expect the ICC to do that, I don't think they have the faintest comprehension of the Laws at present but not the MCC.

[Master Blaster]

The Catches depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on, to me and most aussies it looked as though they were fine, to most indians they thought it dropped short.

The catches were dropped. Benson & Bucknor sealed the win.

How could they let that match slip? It was at the SCG, Sachin was on song as was the seamers. The feeling of a loss swells up. So they decided to cry, whinge and claim dropped catches.

My view point anyway.

[Master Blaster]

Look waht I found! Lol!



Please dont bicker about the teams involved; I thought the banner is hilarious.

[Sambo]

England can talk can't they. all nations claimed dropped catches. And calling me a fool, when you were being very vague. Its kind of hard when you only say Clarke, ponting and symonds come into mind. Symonds never came close to putting the ball near the ground. Dickhead, hey thats some good alliteration
Dobbs the Dickhead.

Secondly master,, howcould you definately say the catches were dropped. You weren't there, you weren't right in front of them.

[Master Blaster]

Secondly master...... You weren't there, you weren't right in front of them.

Sure I was!!! Look at my profile picture. I was there and saw the whole thing i was at the other end when my mate Ganguly pushed one to slips.

Symonds nicked and didnt walk! Ponting has butter fingers and he was scared of Mr. Ishant Sharma.

Oh, Bucknor and Benson put on a good partnership to shatter the Indian line-up and to send the tourists packing. They have set quite a standard for aspiring umpires to schieve, we hope the day will come when umpires can lead a team to victory through bungled vision and pressure from the opposing captain.

Remember when Ponting signalled to one of the umpires when one of the Australian's took a suspect catch? He turned to the umpire and signalled out! Since when does a player call the shots? Especially the captain. He isnt the third umpire? Or am i mistaken?

[Dobbs]

It was illegal and a low act,

I wouldn't mind a discussion, it's when people start saying things like this that I become completely one sided, make points that are intended to annoy and start ferociously defending my points. If I said that catches that didn't carry that the Aussies claimed were 'low' I would be ripped to shreds.