Rashid Latif finally admits it...

[GIMH]

colored glass in action

 

[Uppercut]

Oh yeah, that's the one where Vaughan went and had a massive go at de Villiers at lunch and then got involved in a controversy about one of his own that afternoon.

Yeah. He didn't exactly chuck it up in the air and run off celebrating afterwards, but he did seem to claim it. It was a much easier "catch" to give BOD to than Latif's- De Villiers could easily have thought he caught it when he didn't, Latif rolled over three times then looked at the ball on the ground before picking it up and claiming it.

Went on to score a 150 then took a trademark stunner at third slip to get rid of Ian Bell in the second innings, so he kinda stuck it to Vaughan afterwards.

 

[GIMH]

Don't see how he 'stuck' anything to Vaughan; it was a great innings but it doesn't mean he shouldn't have copped an earful about his cheating.

I was there for his innings

 

[Uppercut]

Whether he deserved an earful or not, he fairly threw it back in Vaughan's face with his performance in that match.

 

[GIMH]

I disagree.

A player who gets sledged about being **** throws it back by scoring a load of runs, but someone who cheats doesn't answer their critics by scoring runs, IMO of course

 

[vic_orthdox]

Anyone wanting to compare Clarke and DeVilliers, even Ganguly in the 2003 WC, with Latif is being a bit extreme.

I'd be interested to see how video of some of the catches that I've taken would look. I reckon that they hit me on the fingers (even got heap of swelling for one) which were underneath the ball, but other people tell me that they reckon it bounced. I'm sure I got it, so I'm claiming it, but maybe on video I'd look like a dirty cheat. That's why I'd never stiff those blokes too hard. Doing a Latif though, that's just wrong.

...

Bloody Ravikant Shukla.

 

[Uppercut]

I disagree.

A player who gets sledged about being **** throws it back by scoring a load of runs, but someone who cheats doesn't answer their critics by scoring runs, IMO of course

It's as good a response as any if you think the allegations are unfair, which De Villiers evidently did, particularly after Vaughan had a "catch" of his own cancelled that same day. Whether he did or not, overcoming massive controversy to play such a good innings deserves a lot of respect I reckon. My opinion of De Villiers as a cricketer improved a lot after that test.

 

[GIMH]

I guess it's just a pedantic difference; you certainly won't hear me arguing against that innings but I don't think it changes anything about what he did a few days earlier.

His and Vaughan's weren't really comparable from what I remember though I agree with Jack that Latif's is a completely different world.

 

[Uppercut]

They were and they weren't. De Villiers claimed a catch that was almost certainly grounded, but it doesn't follow to call him a cheat because it's reasonable to conclude that he genuinely thought he'd caught it. Essentially, he might have cheated or he might have just made an error of judgment.

Vaughan, meanwhile, claimed a catch that might have been grounded. It might have carried, but it might have hit the ground with Vaughan choosing to claim it anyway. Again, essentially, he might have cheated.

If Vaughan felt he could label De Villiers under something so circumstantial, doesn't the later incident involving Vaughan become relevant?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Oh yeah, that's the one where Vaughan went and had a massive go at de Villiers at lunch and then got involved in a controversy about one of his own that afternoon.

Aye, the umps gave it out & then Mickey Arthur made a referral by proxy by sending the batsman back after having seen a replay. Mick's looked a clean but low catch, but with the foreshortening effect that happens with TV cameras there was that scintilla of doubt.

I am biased, obviously, but I don't think the incident reflected too well on the Yarp coach.

 

[GIMH]

They were and they weren't. De Villiers claimed a catch that was almost certainly grounded, but it doesn't follow to call him a cheat because it's reasonable to conclude that he genuinely thought he'd caught it. Essentially, he might have cheated or he might have just made an error of judgment.

Vaughan, meanwhile, claimed a catch that might have been grounded. It might have carried, but it might have hit the ground with Vaughan choosing to claim it anyway. Again, essentially, he might have cheated.

If Vaughan felt he could label De Villiers under something so circumstantial, doesn't the later incident involving Vaughan become relevant?

I'm in work and I'm out later but next time I get the chance I'll look these up on youtube before commenting any further. I remember them being quite different, personally.

 

[four_or_six]

Aye, the umps gave it out & then Mickey Arthur made a referral by proxy by sending the batsman back after having seen a replay. Mick's looked a clean but low catch, but with the foreshortening effect that happens with TV cameras there was that scintilla of doubt.

I am biased, obviously, but I don't think the incident reflected too well on the Yarp coach.

No, true. But given what had apparently been said/done to AB earlier in the day, you can empathise with why Arthur reacted the way he did.

 

[Jono]

Anyone remember Harper's claimed catch off Michael Bevan in the famous New Year's Day match?

Was awful. Bevan saw him drop it FFS.

 

[Burgey]

will clarke admit it?

He and Dhoni can hold a joint presser if you like...

Weird thiing about Clarke's in the NZ ODI was the square leg umpire was a metre from him and said nothing.

 

[Sir Alex]

Haddin was also invovled in a controversy over faking a bowled of Neil Broom last year .

 

[andyc]

Anyone remember Harper's claimed catch off Michael Bevan in the famous New Year's Day match?

Was awful. Bevan saw him drop it FFS.

Indeed, one of the worst I've seen. Amazingly blatant as well, no way he wouldn't have known that it was grassed.

 

[Top_Cat]

Indeed, one of the worst I've seen. Amazingly blatant as well, no way he wouldn't have known that it was grassed.

Worse than Latif's, I reckon. Latif at least had some control over the catch at some point. The boo's from the crowd were deafening.

Here it is about 4:25 in;

YouTube - AUSTRALIA vs WEST INDIES, 1995/1996 WSC G5

Great game otherwise.

 

[Jono]

Yep, pretty damn bad.

Anything done about it after the game?

I guess Bevan got his revenge anyway.

People don't talk about that drop though. Would have won WI the game had he held it and we would have been denied a great story.

 

[morgieb]

What an idiot, how naive can he get?

Even regardless of his admittance.

 

[Camo999]

Seen that Harper replay about a million times, probably touched the ground but I reckon there's actually a chance he recovered it.

Phil Simmons' catch to get rid of Slater was one of the best ever in that match. Unfortunately didn't have a great view of it in that highlights package.