Latif wants action taken against Bell.

[Lillian Thomson]

I watched it and believe me all that it was a case of picking up the ball from fround. Lets not over-complicate when they dont need to be. He caught the ball on his way down, opened his palms, the ball was "on the ground", picked it up and appealed. I cannot imagine that he would have not known that the ball touched the ground.

It just doesn't matter whether he knew or not. This thread is about Bell getting a ban, which is complete nonsense. Forget the actual events, what we have is a bowler claiming a wicket that he knew wasn't out. As I've been trying to point out all day, this happens all the time. Normally it's when they appeal for a catch either behind or at bat-pad when they know he hasn't hit it. There is just no difference between the two.

 

[a10khan]

It just doesn't matter whether he knew or not. This thread is about Bell getting a ban, which is complete nonsense. Forget the actual events, what we have is a bowler claiming a wicket that he knew wasn't out. As I've been trying to point out all day, this happens all the time. Normally it's when they appeal for a catch either behind or at bat-pad when they know he hasn't hit it. There is just no difference between the two.

The description was for people who did not see it. Players appeal for alot of times, and most of the cases are not-outs, yes, but needs to be some consistency here. Rashid Latif was banned for five games for a similar offense, and as a result Bell shd face a ban as well. Period. Or ICC shd come out and say they were wrong in Latif's case. Can you not see the glaring inconsistency here? It doesn't matter whther it happens all the time or not, all I, and most of us here, want to see is more consistency. Thats all.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It just doesn't matter whether he knew or not. This thread is about Bell getting a ban, which is complete nonsense. Forget the actual events, what we have is a bowler claiming a wicket that he knew wasn't out. As I've been trying to point out all day, this happens all the time. Normally it's when they appeal for a catch either behind or at bat-pad when they know he hasn't hit it. There is just no difference between the two.

In this game full of funny traditions and customs, claiming a catch that you know you didn't take is one of the worst acts you can commit in the eyes of the opposition, and definently frowned upon by the cricketing community.

If you want to get all technical, fine. But other cricketers see it as cheating. Appealing for something you think might be given out, as opposed to thinking it's out, is not.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How many people here have actually seen the Latif one? Although I haven't seen Bell's, Latif's sounds as though it was in another league. The ball actually rolled out of his gloves and onto the ground, but because his body was blocking the view of the umpire, he just picked it up and claimed it.

Bell's sounds completely different.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Very different. For the Bell one, the ball seemed to fall out of his grasp a little and a part of it seemed to touch the ground, but after miriad viewings, in super slow-mo, I still can't make my mind up 100%.
What I can say is I'd have done a Tubby Taylor and said not sure, then it's ahem, out of my hands, and up to the fellow upstairs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Appealing for something you think might be given out, as opposed to thinking it's out, is not.

So appealling for something you know not to be out is not cheating? Hmmnnn.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Are there any quotes of what Bell actually said during the incident?

 

[greg]

To condemn Bell on the grounds that he "looked guilty" as some are doing seems stretching to extremes. Bell ALWAYS looks guilty (by way of the old "he looks so innocent he must be hiding something" logic), even when he's not accused of anything.

 

[Woody_cloudofsm]

In all honnesty, I havnt actually seen the rashid latif incident.

But, Bell clearly let go of the ball, appealed (with an incredibly guilty look on his face) and got his way. I'm not saying that he should be banned, but it would be nice to see an enquiry of sorts.

hahahahahahahaha
ur so rite mate how guilty was the look on his face hahahahahahaha

 

[marc71178]

Not doubting that he copped some bad ones, but I can't remember them. Could you remind me?

To be honest I don't remember too many bad ones.

What I do remember is that he's had a lot of good balls get him (relative to getting himself out)

 

[luckyeddie]

To condemn Bell on the grounds that he "looked guilty" as some are doing seems stretching to extremes. Bell ALWAYS looks guilty (by way of the old "he looks so innocent he must be hiding something" logic), even when he's not accused of anything.

No, I'm sorry. His eyes are too close together, therefore he is definitely guilty.

 

[vic_orthdox]

To be honest I don't remember too many bad ones.

What I do remember is that he's had a lot of good balls get him (relative to getting himself out)

Yeah, that's my lasting memory of Bell's Ashes. Although I think he got some good balls, and made them look like great balls.

 

[Pratters]

Lilian brought out that players appeal for catches, batsmen dont walk knowing that they have nicked it.

I certainly believe it is not right to do the above. It always makes me sad. Maybe because
I am an idealist. The common arguement given is that international careers are at stake. Well in the scenaro of a batsman not walking the career of the bowler is at stake as well. Similarly the career of the batsman is at stake when a bowler makes an appeal for a dubious nick which did not happen.

Why sportsmen should resort to such extreme measures to win is beyond me. Careers are at stake true. But do you want to earn a living this way? All the teams do it sadly and it is thus considered not a wrong thing to do - Flawed logic there.

The case of Bell and this are similar in the sense that they both are not right in the eyes of many. But there is a subtle difference. If a catch is claimed when the player knows its not legitimate is it not against the laws of the game. Whether Bell knew it or not - every one has their own take on it and lets leave it at that. However because of the silly outburst of Latif, the case of Bell and Latif are being compared. Dropping a catch and then quickly grabbing it and then claiming it as legitimate is clearly cheating as it is not in the laws ad Latif rightly got banned for some matches because of it. Bell's case was very much different in this regard.

 

[aussie]

its an interesting dilemma, but in all fairness maybe Bell should recieve some punishment but not a life ban..

 

[Shahid_Afridi_6]

Action should be taken against Pietersen for him getting involved in a confrontation with Afridi at the close of play.

It's not his job, he should have stayed out of it and left it to the match referee.

Those scenes of seeing a petulant upstart with diamond earings and a silly blond streak through his hair taking matters into his own hands do nothing but to hurt the image of the game.

It's sad to see a gentlemans sport like cricket becoming more and more ruined like football has become.

 

[Shounak]

I'm not quite sure what that is supposed to mean. My point is that the Bell incident which was a member of the fielding side claiming a wicket he knew wasn't out happens all the time and the bowler in every case is not concerned with anything other than removing the batsman.
Players have decided with their conduct, batsman not walking and bowlers appealling when they know it's not out, to leave it up to the umpire. In doing so they have to accept that many mistakes will be made.

What it means is that wrongfully claiming a catch is always wrong. If you see people speeding down a particular road all time, it doesn't make it right for you to also speed. If you got caught, you should also pay the fine. Regardless of others actions..

If Bell claimed a catch which he knew wasn't out, he should be disciplined accordingly. Simple as that. You can't justify it by saying that it happens all the time.. People are murdered all around the globe, all the time.. So what?

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Action should be taken against Pietersen for him getting involved in a confrontation with Afridi at the close of play.

It's not his job, he should have stayed out of it and left it to the match referee.

Those scenes of seeing a petulant upstart with diamond earings and a silly blond streak through his hair taking matters into his own hands do nothing but to hurt the image of the game.

It's sad to see a gentlemans sport like cricket becoming more and more ruined like football has become.

 

[open365]

Lilian brought out that players appeal for catches, batsmen dont walk knowing that they have nicked it.

I certainly believe it is not right to do the above. It always makes me sad. Maybe because
I am an idealist. The common arguement given is that international careers are at stake. Well in the scenaro of a batsman not walking the career of the bowler is at stake as well. Similarly the career of the batsman is at stake when a bowler makes an appeal for a dubious nick which did not happen.

Why sportsmen should resort to such extreme measures to win is beyond me. Careers are at stake true. But do you want to earn a living this way? All the teams do it sadly and it is thus considered not a wrong thing to do - Flawed logic there.

The case of Bell and this are similar in the sense that they both are not right in the eyes of many. But there is a subtle difference. If a catch is claimed when the player knows its not legitimate is it not against the laws of the game. Whether Bell knew it or not - every one has their own take on it and lets leave it at that. However because of the silly outburst of Latif, the case of Bell and Latif are being compared. Dropping a catch and then quickly grabbing it and then claiming it as legitimate is clearly cheating as it is not in the laws ad Latif rightly got banned for some matches because of it. Bell's case was very much different in this regard.

great pos.

If all batsmen walked,then cricket would be a far better game.

 

[greg]

great pos.

If all batsmen walked,then cricket would be a far better game.

Well Bell is one of the few walkers in test cricket so sort that one out

The "dubious decisions" referred to above were the second innings at Edgbaston ("edging" Warne to the keeper), the first innings at Old Trafford (the hook shot) and the first innings at the Oval (LBW probably missing leg). The fact that little was made of them (unlike for example the Pietersen dismissal at Edgbaston) is in great part due to Bell making absolutely nothing of them.

 

[open365]

he deserved to get out at old trafford for the shot he tried to play,never mind if he never hit it.