Hauritz and Strauss catches, Lord's Test

[Langeveldt]

Strauss's catch looked really horrible, definitely closed his fingers around the ball after it had hit the ground.. You can't as a batsman ask the fielder if he caught the ball, because I don't think the fielder can always be sure.. What happened to the benifit of the doubt going to the batsman during 50/50 calls?

 

[Langeveldt]

FFS, why does every little happening need a separate fj0rking thread? Absolutely nothing has been said here which wasn't already said in the tour thread. If I was still a mod, I'd close this one at least.

Why is there some sort of attitude on this forum against talking about anything remotely controversial?

 

[Manee]

In my humble opinion, Strauss' was most definitely not out and Hauritz's was rightly given not out due to the high degree of doubt, although it did look clean to me.

 

[Johnners]

Didn't think either catch was "taken", and afaic there's no chance Doctrove could clearly tell one way or the other for both catches.

 

[zaremba]

Would it change the impression that one finger (the middle finger) is wrapped around the front edge of the ball and another finger and pinky are obviously up the back of the ball making it look like the ground is helping him keep it in his hands?

The point is, these pictures have been repeatedly been shown to be misleading. It's quite possible that the ball was a couple of inches off the grass (we've all seen the TV boys to demonstrate precisely how that can happen), and it's equally possible that the ball was firmly grounded. Conducting a finger-by-finger analysis is not going to give a remotely reliable answer.

Not quite sure what the best way of dealing with these things actually is. Agreeing to take the fielder's word for it is one approach, but one of the problems is that with this sort of close call, the fielder will say "yep I caught that mate", the batsman walks off, then he and his team-mates see the endless replays which make it look like the catch wasn't clean (even though it may have been, and even though the fielder may genuinely have believed that it was), and relations between the teams become incredibly strained.

 

[Top_Cat]

Why is there some sort of attitude on this forum against talking about anything remotely controversial?

Don't see what that's got to do with my post, tbh. Don't give a crap about the controversy, just don't see why a separate thread needs to be made when people are saying the same stuff in the tour thread.

 

[Richard]

Strauss's catch looked really horrible, definitely closed his fingers around the ball after it had hit the ground.. You can't as a batsman ask the fielder if he caught the ball, because I don't think the fielder can always be sure.. What happened to the benifit of the doubt going to the batsman during 50/50 calls?

Batsmen get far too much in this day and age - I'm quite happy with the benefit of the doubt going to the fielder, especially on a camera image. If it's clearly bounced, yeah, sure, give it n\o, but IMO unless there's clear evidence it hasn't then it should be given out.

 

[Richard]

Don't see what that's got to do with my post, tbh. Don't give a crap about the controversy, just don't see why a separate thread needs to be made when people are saying the same stuff in the tour thread.

Because people are saying 1,000,001 other things in the match thread, which goes at about 50 posts per minute when a game's on, and 90 posts per minute in the eventuality of that sort of scandal. All of which means not even close to all posts on the matter are read, and the ones that make important points (like, well, yes, mine) are easily missed.

Hence, I feel a separate thread is appropos, and would've been distinctly displeased at any mod who elected to close this.

 

[Richard]

And this stuff happens, the umpires got it wrong, but after 5 minutes of anger I'm over it and certainly won't be bringing it up in four years time (like some english supporters seem to do with obscure happennings) or advocating the team pack up and go home (like one certain team likes to do when decisions go against them).

No-one threatened to go home because Umpiring decisions went against them. And whether it's 5 minutes ago, 4 years ago or 2 centuries ago, what happened happened, and if something is being discussed then those matters are going to be brought up whenever the related matters are under discussion.

 

[marc71178]

Rudi responds...

 

[Top_Cat]

Because people are saying 1,000,001 other things in the match thread, which goes at about 50 posts per minute when a game's on, and 90 posts per minute in the eventuality of that sort of scandal. All of which means not even close to all posts on the matter are read, and the ones that make important points (like, well, yes, mine) are easily missed.

Haha, don't even pretend it's not entirely about that.

Gotta respect that level of moxy.

 

[Richard]

TBF, zaremba made it. It's harder for people to ignore if it's in a separate thread TBH. Instead you have to think a bit harder to justify your spontaneous instinctive impression, a la Fuller and McNamara.

 

[zaremba]

TBF, zaremba made it. It's harder for people to ignore if it's in a separate thread TBH. Instead you have to think a bit harder to justify your spontaneous instinctive impression, a la Fuller and McNamara.

What did I do? Missing something here

 

[Richard]

You were the first (in the tour thread) to make the point about the fact that the two weren't anywhere near so similar as most if not every Aussie was trying to make-out.

 

[zaremba]

You were the first (in the tour thread) to make the point about the fact that the two weren't anywhere near so similar as most if not every Aussie was trying to make-out.

ah yep

 

[howardj]

I want to go on the record in my approval of these sub-threads during a Test.

When a huge issue crops up during a game, why should it be lost in the jungle that is an Official Test thread?

 

[pasag]

I want to go on the record in my approval of these sub-threads during a Test.

When a huge issue crops up during a game, why should it be lost in the jungle that is an Official Test thread?

Yeah, and we've already had the most discussion for an Ashes series ever and we're not even half way through the tour.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I want to go on the record in my approval of these sub-threads during a Test.

When a huge issue crops up during a game, why should it be lost in the jungle that is an Official Test thread?

That could almost have it's own thread.

 

[oitoitoi]

TBH I don't think either of them were out, but the real point was consistency in umpiring, but with Doctrove umpiring these things should be expected.

 

[oitoitoi]

Yeah, the man is an absolutely terrible liar. Did no-one see him trying to explain how Jimmy spilt drink on his gloves and they had to send out another pair? Was a hilariously bad cover-up.

Lol yeah, make Swann captain then we won't have any of this type of rubbish! Pisses me off when captains try to be PR men, just tell the truth and leave the bull**** to the people who are paid to deal with it.