Rashid Latif finally admits it...

[Uppercut]

I think the uproar was more because of what had happened during the whole game rather than the single incident. It was a feeling of everybody is against us that was the reason for the uproar.

I agree that benefit of the doubt should be given to both Clarke and Tendulkar, but under those circumstances it was pretty irritating to see Clarke's word being taken when on the previous day he hadn't walked after edging to slip.

Wasn't that Symonds who didn't walk?

In any case, Tendulkar isn't known to be a walker either. Why is it less irritating for New Zealand to have his word taken for it when he takes a dubious catch?

I don't mean to dig anything up here. The umpiring in that match was shocking and the poor decisions seemed to go almost exclusively against India. But there's definitely a double-standard at work here.

 

[Top_Cat]

Clarke edged a ball to slip and waited for the umpire's decision, despite it being almost a glide to slip taken knee-high, so much wood did he get on it.

 

[Sir Alex]

I remember it Anil was jumping and pleading to the umpire to give that out. It would have been pathetic cricket had it not been so funny. To be fair to Clarke, he admitted afterwards that he was shocked at his own prod and could not recover in time to take the long trek back.

 

[Matt79]

Because a bowler pleading and acting like they've been egregiously robbed would definitely mean that an appeal was actually out. Not saying Kumble was in anyway to blame in this instance, just think it's bizarre these days to say that vehement appealing signifies anything, to umpire or viewer, about the merits of the appeal.

 

[Jono]

Wasn't that Symonds who didn't walk?

In any case, Tendulkar isn't known to be a walker either. Why is it less irritating for New Zealand to have his word taken for it when he takes a dubious catch?

I don't mean to dig anything up here. The umpiring in that match was shocking and the poor decisions seemed to go almost exclusively against India. But there's definitely a double-standard at work here.

I think you're missing the point.

Clarke's off Ganguly is the same as Sachin's off NZ (can't remember the player). But the uproar wasn't the

India have received bad dismissals before, and there's the usual winge from fanatic Indian supporters, but the reaction to the Australian game involved players being upset too. This is because of all the events adding up (i.e. Symonds not being given out caught behind or stumped from 3rd umpire, Dravid LBW 2nd innings, Clarke not walking when he hit the ball to first slip (still one of the funniest moments in my time watching cricket), Ponting claiming the catch and then the Clarke catch).

If one were to remove all those incidents only have the Clarke catch remain, clearly the reaction would not be the same. That being said, Ponting acting like a douche and sticking his finger up telling the umpire it was not his greatest moment and probably added to it all.

I don't think you can compare Clarke (against India) and Sachin's to Clarke (against New Zealand). Even if the intention to cheat wasn't there (I don't reckon it was btw), they were clearly different in the sense that in the first you can see why the player claiemd the catch (be it Clarke or Sachin). In the Clarke vs. NZ one (or Ganguly vs. Australia WC 2003, Ian Bell vs. Pakistan 2005) the player should never have acted like they caught it. They should have said they were unsure.

 

[andyc]

If one were to remove all those incidents only have the Clarke catch remain, clearly the reaction would not be the same. That being said, Ponting acting like a douche and sticking his finger up telling the umpire it was not his greatest moment and probably added to it all.

Don't see the issue with what Ponting did personally. Standing on the other side of the pitch, umpire asks if the fielder's claiming it. Clearly, if the fielder's going to claim it and the umpire's willing to take his word, it's out, so AFAIC, Ponting just told the umpire that it was out, and gesticulated by putting up his finger as well.

 

[Jono]

I think it was a bit more assertive/aggressive than answering the umpire's question, but that may just be my view.

 

[andyc]

It's been a while since I've seen it tbf, so he could well have been.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Don't see the issue with what Ponting did personally. Standing on the other side of the pitch, umpire asks if the fielder's claiming it. Clearly, if the fielder's going to claim it and the umpire's willing to take his word, it's out, so AFAIC, Ponting just told the umpire that it was out, and gesticulated by putting up his finger as well.

Think it looked worse than it really was. IIRC there was a "gentlemen's agreement" before the series that the umpires would take fielders' words for it. As you say, Ponting was probably just confirming to the umps that Clarke believed the ball had been taken cleanly (whether Clarke could've known is perhaps more debateable, but anyway), but it did look as if it was him and not the umpire who had given the decision.

 

[Uppercut]

I always feel the need to point this out when that game comes up, but it was easily one of the most exciting matches I've ever watched.

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, I have erased that game from my memory. It's gone. The point of sport is that it's fair, that was blatantly unfair. Obviously, it counts (as it should) as umpires are Demi-Gods in cricket, and what happened was within the established rules of the game, but I don't buy sport when it becomes like that. I'll watch WWF.

Of course, the blame now lies squarely on the BCCI, as now they are wavering in their support of the referral system. If it's scrapped, well then India deserve what they get in the future with incidents like that and there'll be no sympathy from me.

 

[Shri]

In stadiums that have the big screens, the on-field umpire should have the option of taking a second look at the replay on the big screen if the players ask for a review. Everybody wins.


(Blatantly ripped from Sachin's interview a few days back)

 

[andyc]

I always feel the need to point this out when that game comes up, but it was easily one of the most exciting matches I've ever watched.

TBH as exciting as the finish was, I just couldn't really enjoy it because of all the controversy. Would probably have just preferred to see India bat out Michael Clarke's over and the next one really.

 

[Uppercut]

The controversy was what made it so dramatic. It looked as though India were going to overcome all the odds (or, more accurately, all the umpires) to take a draw to Perth then suddenly the tail folded to Michael Clarke's gentle LAO. It was an epic balls-up that was covered up Alex Ferguson-style by the focus on the failings of the umpires.

The whole game was seriously exciting though.

 

[Cruxdude]

The controversy was what made it so dramatic. It looked as though India were going to overcome all the odds (or, more accurately, all the umpires) to take a draw to Perth then suddenly the tail folded to Michael Clarke's gentle LAO. It was an epic balls-up that was covered up Alex Ferguson-style by the focus on the failings of the umpires.

The whole game was seriously exciting though.

The tail shouldn't be blamed for that match though. It was the top order that lost us the game. That it became close was because of Kumble and Dhoni.

But this defeat really helped India in getting its act together for the rest of the series.

 

[Jono]

Yuvraj should have copped more **** then he did.

The way he got out to Andrew Symonds was pathetic.

I was in an airport lounge at the time. Dravid's dismissal made me quite angry, but then seeing Yuvraj snick Symonds. Wow.

Yuvi is so infuriating at times.