> In article <7870f868-e540-441c-8931-7e6caa216581
> > > The ball from Lateef actually dropped out of his hands to the ground and
> > > he picked it up, at no stage did that happen with either Clarke or
> > > Ponting.
> > The law makes no distinction between a ball dropped to the ground and
> > picked up and a ball grounded in the act of catching. ?Both are not
> > catches. ?You have to really try harder and come up with a better
> > response.
> The law makes a distinction between appealing when you clearly know you
> haven't taken a catch, and appealing when you think you might have. ?One
> is a penalisable offence and the other isn't. ?You have to really try
> harder and come up with a better argument.
> PS. The All Blacks are chokers.
Exactly, except that you are missing the point of what is being said.
The initial claim made by the Aussie nettors was that it was a clean
catch, now we have conclusively shown both subject were not "clean".
So, the discussion is about whether the claims constitute sharp
practice including intent to mislead the umpire. Now, the response
has turned into oh, they did not know it touched the ground, so it is
not a penalisable offence.
Just ask yourself: On the face of it, do you honestly believe Clarke
did not know the ball touched the ground? I mean he used the ball to
get up! You think no one else fielding around him noticed this? Why
do you think the replay focuses more on this portion? You have got to
be kidding me if your claim is that Clarke did not know that the ball
touched the ground. The guy claimed to be***-sure that he had
caught the ball clean when we know he had not, when Saurav Ganguly
knew he had not, and in spite of the evidence you want us to take his
word on it? How does the MR or umpire even know what Clarke knows or
does not know until an inquiry is held?
What about the case two weeks back against NZ in the one-day game off
Hopkins? That was clear cut as any. In many people's opinion, Clarke
is a suspect when it comes to catches -- serial offenders don't
deserve any benefit of doubt.
By now you should also know that many similar cases had cheating
charges successfully placed on them, and I don't see a reason why this
should be any different.
You can try and pull over some people's eyes, but the world is
watching. In any case, the least Ponting can do is to sincerely
apologize for claiming both the catches when they did not carry, even
if he claims that he was not aware at the time they were taken the
ball had been grounded. What did he do? He claims the ball was not
grounded even though the evidence is to the contrary and took off on a
reporter who suggested that his claim was off a grounded ball -- why?
Guilt? What is this guy's credibility now? Why should the world
I can hear a chorus of exhortions from the Aussie nettors demanding an
apology from Ponting. NOT!!