Well should it have been out??
Mark waugh's catch
- Thread starter joshhem
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Posts
- 2,103
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- Temora, N.S.W.
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Temora Roos
Yes, fingers were clearly under the ball.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2001
- Posts
- 1,949
- Reaction score
- 20
- Location
- Alphington
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Cricket
Only seen it once, at normal speed, and for mine it looked a little dodgy. Under those circumstances, if the fielder seems absolutely certain the catch was taken, the honourable thing to do would be to walk. But honestly, why would anyone walk against this Australian team? Especially after Ponting's refusal in the first innings?
I get the feeling a sportsmanlike batsman would have walked. Lara would certainly have trusted Waugh. I think Gilchrist would have walked as well. And I'm not casting aspersions against Trescothick, because he was only following Ponting's lead.
I heard a lot of talk about how Mark Waugh should be trusted if he thinks the catch was fair, and that refusing to walk is a slur on his integrity. I don't believe that for a second. We all know that the not out decision was simply a concession that there was SOME doubt. To suggest that Waugh's integrity is impugned is blatant muckraking. And anyway, this Australian team is pushing the boundaries of fair play to the limit; which is ok, as long as we accept that other teams are going to do the same thing to us in turn. But if we bleat and moan when incidents like the Waugh catch come up, or when McGrath doesn't get paid an LBW that he thinks was clearly out, the appearance is of an Australian team that wants it both ways. And we're too good a team to have to resort to that.
I get the feeling a sportsmanlike batsman would have walked. Lara would certainly have trusted Waugh. I think Gilchrist would have walked as well. And I'm not casting aspersions against Trescothick, because he was only following Ponting's lead.
I heard a lot of talk about how Mark Waugh should be trusted if he thinks the catch was fair, and that refusing to walk is a slur on his integrity. I don't believe that for a second. We all know that the not out decision was simply a concession that there was SOME doubt. To suggest that Waugh's integrity is impugned is blatant muckraking. And anyway, this Australian team is pushing the boundaries of fair play to the limit; which is ok, as long as we accept that other teams are going to do the same thing to us in turn. But if we bleat and moan when incidents like the Waugh catch come up, or when McGrath doesn't get paid an LBW that he thinks was clearly out, the appearance is of an Australian team that wants it both ways. And we're too good a team to have to resort to that.
Fingers were under the ball... because it had already bounced and was on its way up.
Shouldn't reflect poorly on Mark Waugh, who wouldn't have claimed the catch had he not believed it was out, but I reckon it bounced.
Shouldn't reflect poorly on Mark Waugh, who wouldn't have claimed the catch had he not believed it was out, but I reckon it bounced.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
- Posts
- 2,103
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- Temora, N.S.W.
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Temora Roos
Dunno Darky, when they blew the catch up it looked as though it bobbled in the hands, it didn't look as if it bounced before him.
Didn't matter anyway, Trescothick kept batting.
Didn't matter anyway, Trescothick kept batting.
That was a catch if ever I saw one...even the Pommie commentators said it was out. This new system of referring catches to the 3rd umpire is a joke. If they didn't have it no doubt Umpire Venkat would have said he was out because he would have trusted his judgement.
I haven't seen ONE of those catches been given out since that rule was brought in.
I haven't seen ONE of those catches been given out since that rule was brought in.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2001
- Posts
- 2,383
- Reaction score
- 18
- Location
- Carlton
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Carlton
I agree with Goaldenhawk: leave it with the onfield umpires. Unlike runouts, the replay just doesn't help.
Anyway, where in the laws of cricket does it say benefit of the doubt to the batsman?
I have no worries with him not walking: that's the way the game is played these days.
Anyway, where in the laws of cricket does it say benefit of the doubt to the batsman?
I have no worries with him not walking: that's the way the game is played these days.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2001
- Posts
- 1,949
- Reaction score
- 20
- Location
- Alphington
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Cricket
If we'd left it with the umpires, Ponting would have scored a duck in the first innings.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2000
- Posts
- 8,390
- Reaction score
- 4,815
- Location
- London,England
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Allies FCC
Well Darky how do explain the one in the second innings off Ramprakash with Warne bowling?
This one was BLATANT & as it was off a spinner & the way it went into his left hand there is no way on God's earth that he wouldn't have known that it was grounded.It was bloody outrageous it didn't bounce up off the ground like the other one it just rested on the ground with his fingers holding onto it.This one should reflect badly on Mark Waugh. While I'm at it what about Hussain's dismissal as well with came off his hip & missed his bat by about 6 inches & came the ball after a massive shout for LBW which was missing by a long way-it was obvious that they realised that Venkat isn't up to the job & can be pressurised into making bad decisions.