Is Ian Bell a cheat?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Anyway as for Bell being a cheat he probably saw Hughes claim that catch and thought if that's how you want to play it, I know that if I saw the opposition claim a catch like that I'd give them nothing.

He said he wasn't sure...

...something your captain didn't do in 2009.

Ironically, that was to dismiss Hughes, who took the word of Strauss. Big mistake.

 

[Jolldo87]

Ask Botham what he thinks.

 

[crownie]

I thought Phil Hughes claiming that 'catch ' was a lot worse. He should have a word to Greg Dyer about what happens to your career when you start doing that sort of thing.

Andrew Strauss career has gone ok since claiming that catch in the second test of the last series.

 

[Bert1]

Was it as bad as the time Haddin knew he knocked the bails off the stumps with his gloves but didn't own up when the batsmen was given out bowled?

 

[FreoBulldog]

"OVER 65: ENG 221/4 Ninety-nine for Cook... and he's caught at short leg! Or is he? We're going upstairs to third umpire for a review! The Australian fielders were up as one! In fact, they were already celebrating, only to realise that Cook was going nowhere! And it's not out! The ball bounced in front of Hughes, yet he still claimed the catch! That, I'm afraid is disgraceful. The boos for Cook from the Australian fans are replaced by louder ones from the England contingent. On the replay, you see Hughes taking the ball, and then leaping into the air mouthing the word 'Ooooh'. But the fielders around him are already celebrating, and Hughes just joins in. That shows how desperate they are to get Cook out, but I'm afraid that doesn't excuse a thing. That's a disgrace."

 

[sherb]

Andrew Strauss career has gone ok since claiming that catch in the second test of the last series.

Nasser Hussain "caught" Greg Blewett at slip in 1997 (Old Trafford) off the bowling of a spinner (it might have been Croft). The ball clearly bounced.

He got rewarded with the English captaincy for that effort.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Bad sportsmanship for sure but not really cheating.
However imagine how many videos would be on YouTube from India calling us cheating scum if an Australian did the same.

 

[outabounds]

"OVER 65: ENG 221/4 Ninety-nine for Cook... and he's caught at short leg! Or is he? We're going upstairs to third umpire for a review! The Australian fielders were up as one! In fact, they were already celebrating, only to realise that Cook was going nowhere! And it's not out! The ball bounced in front of Hughes, yet he still claimed the catch! That, I'm afraid is disgraceful. The boos for Cook from the Australian fans are replaced by louder ones from the England contingent. On the replay, you see Hughes taking the ball, and then leaping into the air mouthing the word 'Ooooh'. But the fielders around him are already celebrating, and Hughes just joins in. That shows how desperate they are to get Cook out, but I'm afraid that doesn't excuse a thing. That's a disgrace."

If you are pointing the finger at Hughes, you have to concede what Bell did was equally wrong

 

[FreoBulldog]

If you are pointing the finger at Hughes, you have to concede what Bell did was equally wrong

I'm not complaining about Bell or Hughes...i was just pointing out that it's a bit rich for a few of the Aussie supporters whinging about the Bell situation when there has been an example on the same day of the Aussies claiming a catch that wasn't. I actually think it is more poor form from Hughes' teammates who were jumping up celebrating and would have had a clearer view than him of the 'çatch'. Cos as we all know, it can be hard to tell if you have caught it clean when it is one of those low-to-the-ground type of catches.

 

[Jef Costello]

People get carried away by these tiny events. Clarke hit the cover off it in Adelaide and referred it. Wasn't Bells fault the technology didnt come through to get him out from a much slighter edge.

As for Hughes being a "cheat", Botham etc should calm down.Cook has already made it clear Hughes didn;t cheat Cook, who extended his series aggregate to 766 at 127.66, also supported Hughes against any impropriety. "To be fair to Phil Hughes (he) said straight away that he wasn't sure (of the catch)," he said. http://www.onehd.com.au/onehd/newsa...s-no-catch-cheat-says-Clarke-TX-PAR-LGB92.htm

 

[Marstermind]

Is a batsman a cheat when he challenges a decision a using the UDRS and it shows that he was clearly out and he has to go? (Like Clarke off of Pietersen on the last ball in Adelaide)
Is a player a cheat when he appeals for a catch and UDRS shows the batsman missed it? (ie. the one the Ponting lost his rag over in Melbourne re Haddin/Pietersen)

Let's not bandy the word "cheat" around too freely. Even if Bell was fully aware that he hit it - and we have no proof of that - he operated within the laws of the game. If the laws of the game are wrong then that's not Bell's problem.

Personally I'd like to see the UDRS system to stay, but be fully in the hands of the umpire. Players should not be encouraged to "challenge" decisions. If an umpire isn't sure then he loses no face if he decides to refer it - as Bowden did with the Beer no-ball. Certainly, if it was entirely up to the umpire then accusations of "cheat" would be lifted from the types of instances I've illustrated above.

 

[dumb]

not dropping catches will do the side better than contentious reviews. would have made for a much closer series you'd think. maybe the technology isn't optimum but the reality is we have ourselves to blame for being shit in all the disciplines. other things to worry about before feeling hard done by with bell.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Is a batsman a cheat when he challenges a decision a using the UDRS and it shows that he was clearly out and he has to go? (Like Clarke off of Pietersen on the last ball in Adelaide)

The umpire gave it not out and it was the English who rightly challenged.

 

[BACCS]

I thought Phil Hughes claiming that 'catch ' was a lot worse. He should have a word to Greg Dyer about what happens to your career when you start doing that sort of thing.

Hughes didn't claim that catch at all. You could tell he had doubts as soon as he took it, and his facial expression showed that. All his team mates around him went up, but you could tell he really wasn't sure.

 

[Magma]

Flawed system. This is why I miss old school umpring. The ball passes the bat, no pad or anything near the bat, and there's a noise, 99/100 it's an edge. The only time in that situation I can recall it not being an edge is Lara when he had a clicking bat handle.

I don't blame Bell one bit. If I was in his situation and knew how lightly I'd tapped it, I'd do the same thing. It's obviously an edge, but if the technology isn't in place to definitely tell the umpire whether he hit it, this is going to continue.

The fact that the third umpire doesn't get snicko confuses the hell out of me. We want to make sure all the decisions are the correct ones, yet we can't have all the technology? What's the use of getting 95% of them right when aiming for 100%?

 

[Crows4Flag]

Stupid thread and im glad most of the posters agree. How can you label someone a cheat when they didnt break any rules of the game. That really confuses me. Was clearly a borderline decision. Technology ruled that he didnt hit it. Thats all. Get over it

 

[red+black]

Quite clearly Bell's referral has cost us the Ashes.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I reckon he knew he'd got a faint touch but thought he'd take a chance on the technology - and won. Good on him.

I agree with Mark Taylor's comments - allow teams only 1 wrong referral, and they won't take a punt on close ones like that.

 

[XFactor1979]

well... lets just say he scored 67 and 48 runs today in two fine innings at the crease today

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Stupid thread and im glad most of the posters agree. How can you label someone a cheat when they didnt break any rules of the game. That really confuses me. Was clearly a borderline decision. Technology ruled that he didnt hit it. Thats all. Get over it

What rule does a player break when he claims, without any doubt, a catch that has bounced? Doesn't stop them from being labeled a cheat. Got no problems with that either.

BTW, it wasn't borderline at all. It was a blatant edge. Whenever I've seen a player challenge a caught behind, they've done it about half a second after the finger has gone up. They don't go up the pitch and have a discussion with the batsman at the other end.

 

[Partridge]

I don't like batsmen walking. Batsmen are there to make runs, bowlers to get them out, umpires to make the decisions.

Absolutely, totally correct. There continue to be these notions that batsmen should walk if they nick the ball (they shouldn't), or fieldsmen should disclaim catches that they are unsure about (they shouldn't). That's why there are umpires. Pure and simple. And if a referral system is in place, batsmen will use it. From all teams.

 

[jackster83]

Speaks volume for the pathetic character of the bloke, low life who will be booed for the rest of his career.

Sounds like he'd fit in well at Carlton.

Seriously though, why don't they have the "Umpires Call" option for catches like they do for LBWs?

 

[linda]

Hughes didn't claim that catch at all. You could tell he had doubts as soon as he took it, and his facial expression showed that. All his team mates around him went up, but you could tell he really wasn't sure.

He claimed it when his mates ran in

 

[Punchy Bassett]

I'm all for bashing the English at every chance, but this is in no way Bell's fault. If Aleem Dar had balls this would have all been avoided.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

Seriously though, why don't they have the "Umpires Call" option for catches like they do for LBWs?

My understanding is that it is because LBW is just a prediction by a computer program, that can only suggest whether the ball may or may not have hit the stumps. If the projection says it will "hit" within an error range then there is enough doubt to just go with what the umpy thought.

With catches, runouts, front foot noballs, the technology can tell you what actually happened, not what may have happened. (assuming hotspot for example is accurate).