Michael Vaughan's handled the ball

[WCE2000]

Another sour note for me from the first day of this test, aside from my first viewing of "Chucker" Singh was Vaughans dismissal.

I mean, come on, that ball seriously wasnt going anywhere near the stumps, and it was Sarandeep Singh (my new favourite player on the international scene ) who appealed for the wicket.

Very much a shock that Sarandeep, a test bowler/thrower, has made it to this level, and doesnt have the common sense to realise that ball was going no where near the stumps.

Michael Vaughan has every right to be pissed off about that, and i would be too. The guy is trying to cement his spot in the national team, he is on his way to getting a big score, looking like he just may do it, and he is given out when he is trying to lend the fielding team a hand.

 

[Victor Trumper]

There is nothing in the rules that says the ball must be heading towards the stumps in order to be given out.

The ball came off his body/arm onto the pitch bounced up and he caught it. The ball was still live, as an afterthought he threw it to the close in fielder.

For mine Vaughan was out and probably should be fined for disenting (sp?) the umpires decision.

 

[kretchy]

So the bowler was the one who appealed I saw a replay on the news this morning it didn't look like the ball was going to go onto the stumps and i didn't see Dasgupta the keeper appeal. I thought someone would have had to appealed for it to be given out.

 

[Fat Red]

I haven't seen it, but from the descriptions there's no question Vaughan was out.

The question is whether cricket etiquette demands India should not have appealed.

Not having seen it, I won't comment on that.

 

[roowatch]

Watching on Fox, the bowler made a "gentle" inquiry as to the action of the batsman. Good enough to constitute an appeal!

The rule is quite clear. And the manner in which Vaughan quickly "let go" off the ball, indicated he suddenly realised he was in deep Singh!

 

[Dipper]

I have to say that it didn't look like one of those 'helping' the fileder jobbies that batsmen sometimes do when the ball has come to a stop usually from a forward defensive shot.

The ball was still on the move, bouncing actually & I think it was a bit of a panicky move.He'd just gone for a sweep & the ball had ended going up his chest & then coming down between his legs, I'm sure he'd got a bit disorientated.

Personally I'd appeal for anything especially against the Indians as you know what they're like.You've got rules & you should play by them, to me etiquette is a load of rubbish.

I seem to remember in the 1987 World Cup , West Indies were playing either Pakistan or India & on the last ball Walsh came running in & the non striker set off, Walsh intimated that he could have run him out if he'd wanted & the Umpire had a word & Walsh then bowled the last ball & Windies lost.If it had been me bowling I'd have run him out, no warning nothing & I wouldn't have felt any guilt when the inevitable riot kicked off afterwards.

That's what rules are there for so everybody knows what they can & can't do.

 

[joshhem]

It seemed really innocent to me. I'm not too sure it should have been given out. I think he just picked it up, so that the fielding side didn't need to pick the ball up from between his legs. The rule should be changed to only if it's heading towards the stumps like the lb rule. The hand is part of the bat, so it should be allowed i think.

 

[Booze Hound]

The umpire had no option under the Law once the appeal was lodged.

I don't think Vaughan was complaining about the decision, more likely he was upset at the appeal.

I've actually given a 'handled the ball'. Batsman played the ball into the ground, picked it up, threw it to the bowler and the captain appealed. Again, I had no option. Would never have appealed in that situation myself though.

Unfortunately, IMO, this form of dismissal is now pointless and should have been dropped in the 2000 Law Revision. I made the point at an umpires seminar that all dubious situations when he ball may be handled are now covered elsewhere in the Laws. If a batsman plays the ball in any way that prevents a dismissal taking place, or a fielder preventing the scoring of runs, the batsman would now be out Obstructing the Field. If a batsman picks up the ball with a view to damaging it five penalty runs would be awarded unded Law 42 (Unfair Play) and the guilty party would be reported.

On another matter. Singh's action? Very dubious. If James Kirtley can be 'reported' in Zimbabwe this chap should certainly be looked at. Definite straightening on some deliveries.

 

[Kangas_Big_Fan]

if you want to go out for handling the ball go to india the last two have been there vaughan and steve waugh have been the last to india

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Vaughan was a bluddy goose

Everybody knows that the batsman is not allowed to handle the ball unless given permission to do so by the fielding team.

Vaughan should have known that.

cheers

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Yep, he was out - no question.

And questioning the Injuns for appealling!!

And yep, Sarandeep is a definite chucker, harbajhan is line ball but probably ok.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I personally would have given him out on the basis that he is a miserble pom.

Not only that, I believe handling the ball should also carry either a 2-3 year ban or you can choose to have the offending hand broken.

As for the dissent shown to the umpire, well I don't think being hung, drawn and quartered is too far out of the question.

Am I the only one or do people not take their cricket seriously enough.

 

[Fat Red]

OK, I've seen it now. He was definitely out and I have no problem with the appeal. He wasn't picking the ball up to give to a fielder (which is a stupid thing to do anyway), he was trying to stop it from bouncing around.

Steve Waugh and Graham Gooch have done this and been out, this was just the same, even if it probably wouldn't have hit the stumps.

Jod, the hand is only regarded as part of the bat if it is holding the bat.

 

[gPhonque]

Out!

What an idiot. Didn't his daddy ever teach him not to handle the ball!?!? What an idiot

I don't understand what he was upset about!? Perhaps he was upset at his daddy for never teaching him that rule....?

And I would have appealed. That ball was live. If i'd done that while i was batting, i'd expect to be given out as well.

 

[GoEagles]

*raises index finger* I'm afraid that I would of given that decision out also. You can't blame the Indians for appealing. They had every right to, also it was more of an inquiry as to "was he out for doing this?"

DIPPER has raised a beauty. I think the cricket term for that is called Mankad or something like that. Has anyone (recently) been dismissed in that way? When I was playing club cricket that happened to one of my teammates which caused a bit of a scene (but thats another story)

 

[Darky]

FAIR GO! He was only having a scratch.

 

[gPhonque]

Originally posted by GoEagles
DIPPER has raised a beauty. I think the cricket term for that is called Mankad or something like that. Has anyone (recently) been dismissed in that way? When I was playing club cricket that happened to one of my teammates which caused a bit of a scene (but thats another story)

"Mankad" is a "slang" term for a run out by the bowler. (named i think after Vinoo Mankad who did it playing for India during the 50's.) I can't remember the last time it happened. I vaguely remember it happening a few years ago to somebody but can't remember. (anyone else with a better memory than me?)

I don't think there's anything at all unfair about that. It's a blatant attempt by the batsman to cheat. If i'm at the non strikers end, i make sure i don't leave my ground until i see the ball in the air. Just as when i'm on strike, i make sure not to handle the ball. Pretty easy really. That's why i just laugh when these so called "elite" players are out in these kinds of ways. It can't be called a 'reflex' action - handling the ball, or leaving your ground before the bowler has bowled, should be the last things an "elite" player should do. Just as the last thing a soccer defender would ever do is punch the ball away from in front of the goal. You just don't do it, and if you do, you get penalised, meaning that in cricket, you're on your way back to the dressing room looking like a dill.

 

[HTB Saints]

Vaughan was out, no question. He actually smothered the ball with his hand, immediately after it hit the ground. I was surprised it took as long as it did for the Indians to appeal and give him out.

It was actually the first ball I watched of the Test, as I was flicking around the Foxtel stations. I couldn't believe it when I saw it, thought I must have been watching the highlights reel.