Vaughan gets nasty

[Scallywag]

http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/213814.html

"Michael Vaughan has rejected Ricky Ponting's goodwill catching deal, where the batsmen would accept the word of the fielders, and will leave contentious decisions to the umpires. Ponting, who has tried to lift the standards of behaviour under his captaincy, was disappointed with the refusal and will try again today at the captains' meeting with the match referee Ranjan Madugalle."


I wonder what he is trying to prove.

 

[Burpey]

What else did you expect ?

 

[King_Ponting]

http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus/content/story/213814.html

"Michael Vaughan has rejected Ricky Ponting's goodwill catching deal, where the batsmen would accept the word of the fielders, and will leave contentious decisions to the umpires. Ponting, who has tried to lift the standards of behaviour under his captaincy, was disappointed with the refusal and will try again today at the captains' meeting with the match referee Ranjan Madugalle."


I wonder what he is trying to prove.

That england will do anything to win the ashes?

 

[Scallywag]

What else did you expect ?

England to respect the fielders word like the Australian team did in the ODI's.

 

[King_Ponting]

England to respect the fielders word like the Australian team did in the ODI's.

Martyn didnt mate, with pietersens catch at fine leg...... Stood his ground and waited for the umpires to gie him out

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Eh, can't have expected much else. It will be interesting to see what will happen if Ponting hits it to a fielder and the umpires are unsighted and they claim it though. Same with a thin edge that the umpire misses.

 

[greg]

It wouldn't work anyway. Remember Bichel's claiming of a one hand one bounce off Trescothick at Adelaide last time?

I seem to remember a story about something similar happening in an Ashes series many many years ago - needless to say it lasted about 10 minutes into the first game before the whole thing descended into bitter recrimination.

 

[greg]

Eh, can't have expected much else. It will be interesting to see what will happen if Ponting hits it to a fielder and the umpires are unsighted and they claim it though. Same with a thin edge that the umpire misses

1) I don't see the relevance of the thin edge point

2) If the umpires are unsighted it goes to the third umpire and he probably gets given not out.

 

[Linda]

Vaughan is about as nasty as a sponge.

 

[age_master]

cant say its unexpected, it will all work out i reakon though and the batsmen will go if the fielders claim it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

2) If the umpires are unsighted it goes to the third umpire and he probably gets given not out.

Right, except when the player takes the word of the fielder, which is the point. In one of the ODIs, Ponting was caught by Pietersen and clearly didn't think it was out, and Pietersen claimed it and Ponting walked without waiting for the decision of the umpire. Hence, it will be interesting to see what happens in the same situation, now that Vaughan has rejected this deal.

1) I don't see the relevance of the thin edge point

Regarding player honesty. Ponting's idea clearly covered "bringing honesty back into the game", catching was just an example. There's no doubt that Vaughan standing his ground last Ashes is still fresh in Australia's mind, and Tresco did the same thing on his way to his hundred in the NWC. I would have assumed based on Ponting's talk that if he had got a thin edge but the umpire had missed it in the tests he would have walked. It will be interesting to see if the Australians still do that (excluding Gilchrist obviously, who always does it) after Vaughan knocked Ponting back.

 

[greg]

Anyway people are reading the headlines and ignoring what Vaughan actually said about the way the law was working at present - essentially the umpires are asking the players if they caught it with "yes"=out and "not sure"=no. So effectively we are currently operating under a de facto system of accepting the players word, but with the important safeguard that the decision is still nominally in the hands of the umpires which will no doubt help to defuse the situation in controversial situations. 'Gentleman's agreements' are all well and good until such time as a batsman is convinced he's been cheated, and the whole thing descends into anger and recrimination, because a special status has been granted to disputed low catches that doesn't apply to eg. little nicks behind or bat-pad catches.

 

[greg]

Hence, it will be interesting to see what happens in the same situation, now that Vaughan has rejected this deal.

The umpires would have given him out.

I would have assumed based on Ponting's talk that if he had got a thin edge but the umpire had missed it in the tests he would have walked

I don't think that is a good assumption at all. All this refers to low catches and low catches only.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The umpires would have given him out.

Yeah, but they didn't, because he walked, which is the point.

I don't think that is a good assumption at all. All this refers to low catches and low catches only.

Ponting's suggestion clearly related to honesty in cricket in general and he said as much. I'm suggesting it was a walking pact (he already tried one of those and Stephen Fleming rejected it), but if Ponting came out with that plan and it was accepted and then he didn't walk on his way to a big score like Vaughan/Tresco, he would quite rightly have been criticised for it. Now, it will be interesting to see what he does, and if the Australians are now more liberal with false appeals, falsely claiming catches and refusing to walk and so on.

 

[C_C]

Why should these agreements exist ?
It assumes implicitly that players are honest- when they are quiete capable of dishonesty....
Remember when Steve Waugh claimed a bump-ball catch against Lara or when Ganguly claimed a bump-ball catch not too long ago ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Why should these agreements exist ?
It assumes implicitly that players are honest- when they are quiete capable of dishonesty....
Remember when Steve Waugh claimed a bump-ball catch against Lara or when Ganguly claimed a bump-ball catch not too long ago ?

The idea is to encourage players to be more honest. If this sort of pact existed and someone claimed a catch they clearly didn't take they would come under a hell of a lot more fire than they do now.

 

[Craig]

It is good to see England having a captain who is a natural born winner and not a natural born loser which I can say about some of the guys who have captained England.

 

[greg]

Well we'll just have to disagree on the thin edges thing. I don't think that Ponting has that in mind at all, and I think it would be a VERY bad idea if he did. His solution (ie. gentleman's agreement on low catches) also seems to be one for a problem that doesn't really exist anymore now that the ICC have changed the regulations on low catches. I can't remember the last time a low catch was referred to the third umpire in an England game (which this suggests is the motivation for it all), and there has been hardly any controversy about it (the odd murmurings, usually from Aussies, about a Jones catch - but nothing that would be solved by any agreement anyway). Compare that with when this "agreement" idea was first mooted, when it seemed every other catch was being referred and them nearly all (wrongly, because the technology is misleading) being given not out.

 

[greg]

The idea is to encourage players to be more honest. If this sort of pact existed and someone claimed a catch they clearly didn't take they would come under a hell of a lot more fire than they do now

It seems half of Australia believe that Pietersen "clearly didn't take" the two catches off Martyn and Ponting even though everyone in England knows that he clearly did.

 

[C_C]

The idea is to encourage players to be more honest. If this sort of pact existed and someone claimed a catch they clearly didn't take they would come under a hell of a lot more fire than they do now.

It doesnt do anything to make the players more honest.
If i am dishonest person, how does asking my confirmation change the fact that i am dishonest ?