Hauritz and Strauss catches, Lord's Test

[Trumpers_Ghost]

was a very poor decision not to go to 3rd umpire and probably made because the 3rd umpire got the one wrong the day before.

I would say IMO that Straus 95% probability DID NOT catch the ball (maybe he should have to answer to this)
It would say that Hauritz 75% probability DID catch his.

I would base this on that the footage was fairly conclusive in the Strauss case, while the footage was not as good in the Hauritz case.

All that I am certain about is that David Lloyd and his rediculously biased commentary should never again be allowed in front of a microphone.

And this stuff happens, the umpires got it wrong, but after 5 minutes of anger I'm over it and certainly won't be bringing it up in four years time (like some english supporters seem to do with obscure happennings) or advocating the team pack up and go home (like one certain team likes to do when decisions go against them).

cheers

[Burgey]

Woke up this morning to the radio on ABC from listening last night.

Adam Spencer, the breakfast bloke on 702, is normally a pretty easy-going bloke.

Just had to laugh at him though - the very first words he said after my alarm went off:

"Well, the cricket's getting close, but I just have to say the England captain, Andrew Strauss, is nothing but a blatant cheat".

Can't agree with him tbh, but just a weird thing to hear as soon a you wake up.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Can't agree with him tbh, but just a weird thing to hear as soon a you wake up.

Now you know how your wife feels when she wakes up to you sleeptalking about "Murray ****ing Mints" for the 14th day in a row.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Voltman

Now you know how your wife feels when she wakes up to you sleeptalking about "Murray ****ing Mints" for the 14th day in a row.

Usually on the couch by then, tbf

[wfdu_ben91]

I guess we can only look at the positives at the poor umpiring in this series because it has made the cricket more entertaining to watch and has also given England a realistic chance of winning.

[Uppercut]

I'm pretty sure it was grassed but Strauss's reaction wasn't that of a man who has just claimed a spoof-catch.

[four_or_six]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I'm pretty sure it was grassed but Strauss's reaction wasn't that of a man who has just claimed a spoof-catch.

Yeah, the man is an absolutely terrible liar. Did no-one see him trying to explain how Jimmy spilt drink on his gloves and they had to send out another pair? Was a hilariously bad cover-up.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Genuinely not worth the effort.

In brief:

(1) Such pictures very often (indeed almost invariably) give the illusion that a legitimate catch has been grounded;
(2) The lateral stretching of this particular picture only heightens that illusion.

Would it change the impression that one finger (the middle finger) is wrapped around the front edge of the ball and another finger and pinky are obviously up the back of the ball making it look like the ground is helping him keep it in his hands?

I understand it might have an effect on how close he looks to the ground, but if he kept that in his hands unaided given his hand position he's done really well.

Just saw a replay on TV now though and in real time it looks better than that close-up

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Would it change the impression that one finger (the middle finger) is wrapped around the front edge of the ball and another finger and pinky are obviously up the back of the ball making it look like the ground is helping him keep it in his hands?

I understand it might have an effect on how close he looks to the ground, but if he kept that in his hands unaided given his hand position he's done really well.

Yeah, something like this. His fingers are clearly not under the ball, so the only possibility is that he's caught it between the fingertips of each hand. Which, while not impossible, I don't think is at all likely. And if he did catch it like that, it could have been touching the ground anyway but Strauss wouldn't have known.

[vic_orthdox]

I don't think Strauss did anything wrong. The ball sort of lands on a part of his finger, which would be enough to convince a fielder that he had his hand completely underneath the ball. I just think that he didn't completely have it underneath, half of the ball wasn't within his hands I reckon.

I've had that happen to me before, everyone else told me it looked dodgy (mind you, was in the outfield so they weren't that close...) but because it landed on my fingers, I reckon I did get underneath it. Obviously don't have any video to see what it looked like.

[Langeveldt]

Strauss's catch looked really horrible, definitely closed his fingers around the ball after it had hit the ground.. You can't as a batsman ask the fielder if he caught the ball, because I don't think the fielder can always be sure.. What happened to the benifit of the doubt going to the batsman during 50/50 calls?

[Langeveldt]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

FFS, why does every little happening need a separate fj0rking thread? Absolutely nothing has been said here which wasn't already said in the tour thread. If I was still a mod, I'd close this one at least.

Why is there some sort of attitude on this forum against talking about anything remotely controversial?

[Manee]

In my humble opinion, Strauss' was most definitely not out and Hauritz's was rightly given not out due to the high degree of doubt, although it did look clean to me.

[Johnners]

Didn't think either catch was "taken", and afaic there's no chance Doctrove could clearly tell one way or the other for both catches.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Would it change the impression that one finger (the middle finger) is wrapped around the front edge of the ball and another finger and pinky are obviously up the back of the ball making it look like the ground is helping him keep it in his hands?

The point is, these pictures have been repeatedly been shown to be misleading. It's quite possible that the ball was a couple of inches off the grass (we've all seen the TV boys to demonstrate precisely how that can happen), and it's equally possible that the ball was firmly grounded. Conducting a finger-by-finger analysis is not going to give a remotely reliable answer.

Not quite sure what the best way of dealing with these things actually is. Agreeing to take the fielder's word for it is one approach, but one of the problems is that with this sort of close call, the fielder will say "yep I caught that mate", the batsman walks off, then he and his team-mates see the endless replays which make it look like the catch wasn't clean (even though it may have been, and even though the fielder may genuinely have believed that it was), and relations between the teams become incredibly strained.