Disputed catches and edges behind - double standards?

[superkingdave]

Disputed catches have been a hot top recently - Pietersen the other night and Jones in the test against Bangladesh just 2 instances. Jones in particular attracted a huge amount of vitriol from various sources.

Despite the fact that i have yet to see conclusive evidence that it didn't carry to him, lets say that it didn't carry, lets also say that Jones knew that it didn't carry (also unproven). Then Jones has claimed a catch that he knows didnt carry to him.

What I want people's views on is how this is considered different from when a batsmen gets an edge behind and stands his ground? (a la Atherton vs SA, Clarke the other night). The batsman in most cases will know that he has got an edge - isn't this as much cheating as claiming a catch that has bounced? How come the batsman is just considered 'lucky' and no one calls him a cheat?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm pretty certain we've discussed something similar to this before and my opinion remains the same: it's a question of active or passive deception.

If a keeper goes up knowingly claiming a catch on the bounce, he is actively trying to deceive the umpire (cheating in common parlance), but if a batter merely stands his ground & waits for the umpire's decision there is no active deception. Of course, his actions may stray into the grounds of wilful active deception if, say, he were to rub his hip or arm, suggesting the ball had made contact with either of those rather than the bat.

The batter standing his ground is at best morally ambiguous, but IMO it isn't cheating. I don’t think we can demand any sportsman to willingly surrender, but it does the old heart good when someone walks.

 

[Jono]

I'm pretty certain we've discussed something similar to this before and my opinion remains the same: it's a question of active or passive deception.

If a keeper goes up knowingly claiming a catch on the bounce, he is actively trying to deceive the umpire (cheating in common parlance), but if a batter merely stands his ground & waits for the umpire's decision there is no active deception. Of course, his actions may stray into the grounds of wilful active deception if, say, he were to rub his hip or arm, suggesting the ball had made contact with either of those rather than the bat.

The batter standing his ground is at best morally ambiguous, but IMO it isn't cheating. I don’t think we can demand any sportsman to willingly surrender, but it does the old heart good when someone walks.

Yeah that pretty much perfectly sums it up.

As Brumby said, the equivalent to a fielder claiming a catch he knew he didn't take is the batsman claiming he didn't hit it by rubbing his arm or touching his pad etc. Different to just standing his ground waiting for the umpire to raise the finger.

 

[Kweek]

in the catches Jones took, the ball DIDNT carry, but jones didnt appeal but the bowler did, the umpire gave it, so nobody made a mistake BUT the umpire.
Pietersen, i havnt seen that one myself so cant say anything about it.

 

[superkingdave]

Isn't the fielder then, in the right to make the umpire make the decision over the legality of the catch?

 

[superkingdave]

in the catches Jones took, the ball DIDNT carry, but jones didnt appeal but the bowler did, the umpire gave it, so nobody made a mistake BUT the umpire.
Pietersen, i havnt seen that one myself so cant say anything about it.

as i said, i have yet to see conclusive evidence that the jones catch didn't carry - it has been proved in the past that the camera DOES lie

 

[gio]

as i said, i have yet to see conclusive evidence that the jones catch didn't carry - it has been proved in the past that the camera DOES lie

IMO, this was proved by the pietersen catch. it looks very much like it's hit the ground, but the way the ball comes up all in one motion without moving suggests to me that his fingers were under it. Cameras can't prove anything, other than if the ball bounced just before hitting the gloves/hands.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Isn't the fielder then, in the right to make the umpire make the decision over the legality of the catch?

Not really. If he's claiming something he knows to be false he's attempting to actively deceive the umpire. The batter who stands his ground isn't, he's merely not incriminating himself.

 

[aussie]

I'm pretty certain we've discussed something similar to this before and my opinion remains the same: it's a question of active or passive deception.

If a keeper goes up knowingly claiming a catch on the bounce, he is actively trying to deceive the umpire (cheating in common parlance), but if a batter merely stands his ground & waits for the umpire's decision there is no active deception. Of course, his actions may stray into the grounds of wilful active deception if, say, he were to rub his hip or arm, suggesting the ball had made contact with either of those rather than the bat.

The batter standing his ground is at best morally ambiguous, but IMO it isn't cheating. I don’t think we can demand any sportsman to willingly surrender, but it does the old heart good when someone walks.

Thats pretty much hitting the nail on its head mate

 

[marc71178]

in the catches Jones took, the ball DIDNT carry

Can you prove that then?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm pretty certain we've discussed something similar to this before and my opinion remains the same: it's a question of active or passive deception.

If a keeper goes up knowingly claiming a catch on the bounce, he is actively trying to deceive the umpire (cheating in common parlance), but if a batter merely stands his ground & waits for the umpire's decision there is no active deception. Of course, his actions may stray into the grounds of wilful active deception if, say, he were to rub his hip or arm, suggesting the ball had made contact with either of those rather than the bat.

The batter standing his ground is at best morally ambiguous, but IMO it isn't cheating. I don’t think we can demand any sportsman to willingly surrender, but it does the old heart good when someone walks.

Yep, agreed.

 

[shaka]

Does anyone have footage of this catch incident? so that i can decide for myself

 

[biased indian]

Can you prove that then?

u r eyes needs glasses badly

 

[Craig]

It is hard to say what is the right thing to do. I mean if somebody walks they will walk every other time, but if the team needs 1 run to win and one wicket left and there is a disputed catch or edge, you wouldn't walk, nobody would, and that in my book count's as double standards. However, if I were a walker (I would like to think I would), and that same situation happened, I would stay my ground and wait to be given out or not. If I walked the opposition would think I'm a legend for having the spirit in mind, but I would not be popular with my team-mates, but if I stayed it would be the opposite.

Catch-22.

 

[marc71178]

u r eyes needs glasses badly

The fact is the 2D image from TV is proven not to be as conclusive as people make out - hence it cannot be proven.