Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by spadmanab.. » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:55:00


Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day.  Koertzen
missed it.  Tendulkar held his ground.  Most would agree that this is
not cheating.

On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
that he knew that it was not a fair catch.  Why do some of you
consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
getting away with something.

So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
dishonesty?

Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)?  But if so, why
are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
as claiming an illegal catch?

 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by StraightDriv » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:29:58


Quote:
> Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day.  Koertzen
> missed it.  Tendulkar held his ground.  Most would agree that this is
> not cheating.

> On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
> that he knew that it was not a fair catch.  Why do some of you
> consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

> It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
> and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
> getting away with something.

> So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
> dishonesty?

> Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
> appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
> is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)?  But if so, why
> are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
> as claiming an illegal catch?

Because of the context of this series. Ricky Cheating proposed an
agreement with Kumble and then backstabbed India at Sydney.

Batsmen walking was not part of the agreement.

Symonds catch was not referred to the third umpire as it should have
been since the two umpires on the field couldnt be certain if it the
catch was legal.

 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by Rishi » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:39:11


Quote:
> Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day. ?Koertzen
> missed it. ?Tendulkar held his ground. ?Most would agree that this is
> not cheating.

> On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
> that he knew that it was not a fair catch. ?Why do some of you
> consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

> It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
> and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
> getting away with something.

> So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
> dishonesty?

> Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
> appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
> is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)? ?But if so, why
> are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
> as claiming an illegal catch?

Because that's what the Aussies call it. Explain why Murali is
cheating even if he chucks.

 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by FiLtH » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:09:10


Quote:



>> Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day.  Koertzen
>> missed it.  Tendulkar held his ground.  Most would agree that this is
>> not cheating.

>> On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
>> that he knew that it was not a fair catch.  Why do some of you
>> consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

>> It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
>> and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
>> getting away with something.

>> So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
>> dishonesty?

>> Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
>> appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
>> is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)?  But if so, why
>> are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
>> as claiming an illegal catch?

> Because of the context of this series. Ricky Cheating proposed an
> agreement with Kumble and then backstabbed India at Sydney.

> Batsmen walking was not part of the agreement.

> Symonds catch was not referred to the third umpire as it should have
> been since the two umpires on the field couldnt be certain if it the
> catch was legal.

Why would the umpires refer it to the third umpise when the rules are as
follows, read them...

3.2.3.1 Clean catches
a Should the bowler's end umpire be unable to decide whether or not a catch
was taken cleanly, he shall first consult with the square leg umpire.
b Should both umpires be unable to make a decision, a not out decision shall
be given by the bowler's end umpire.
Only if the line of vision of both umpires is obscured shall the bowler's
end umpire be entitled to refer the decision to the third umpire as in
Clause 3.2.2 (b).

So, by reading that, they CANT go to the third uipre umless both of their
views were obscured, which obviously they werent.

GREAT CATCH SYMONDS

 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by Jack of all trade » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:04:52



Quote:
> Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day. Koertzen
> missed it. Tendulkar held his ground. Most would agree that this is
> not cheating.

> On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
> that he knew that it was not a fair catch. Why do some of you
> consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

> It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
> and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
> getting away with something.

> So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
> dishonesty?

> Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
> appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
> is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)? But if so, why
> are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
> as claiming an illegal catch?
> Because that's what the Aussies call it. Explain why     >  Murali is
> cheating even if he chucks.

Murali does not chuck under new laws. Just like Bhajji and Lee

J

 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by will_ » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:02:58


Quote:



>> Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day.  Koertzen
>> missed it.  Tendulkar held his ground.  Most would agree that this is
>> not cheating.

>> On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
>> that he knew that it was not a fair catch.  Why do some of you
>> consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

>> It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
>> and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
>> getting away with something.

>> So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
>> dishonesty?

>> Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
>> appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
>> is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)?  But if so, why
>> are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
>> as claiming an illegal catch?

> Because of the context of this series. Ricky Cheating proposed an
> agreement with Kumble and then backstabbed India at Sydney.

and once again you forget that it was an Indian in Melbourne who started it
all
 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by Mister » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:00:36


Quote:
> Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day.  Koertzen
> missed it.  Tendulkar held his ground.  Most would agree that this is
> not cheating.

> On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
> that he knew that it was not a fair catch.  Why do some of you
> consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

> It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
> and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
> getting away with something.

> So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
> dishonesty?

> Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
> appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
> is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)?  But if so, why
> are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
> as claiming an illegal catch?

The men in white control the game just like any other sport. You play always
play the umpire. Cricket is the only game that this 'gentlmen' bullshit
comes into it.
 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by dechuck » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:12:56


Quote:



>> Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day.  Koertzen
>> missed it.  Tendulkar held his ground.  Most would agree that this is
>> not cheating.

>> On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
>> that he knew that it was not a fair catch.  Why do some of you
>> consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

>> It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
>> and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
>> getting away with something.

>> So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
>> dishonesty?

>> Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
>> appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
>> is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)?  But if so, why
>> are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
>> as claiming an illegal catch?

> The men in white control the game just like any other sport. You play
> always play the umpire. Cricket is the only game that this 'gentlmen'
> bullshit comes into it.

Golf where you are expected to call penaltys on oneself

- Show quoted text -

 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by Dave -Turne » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:39:27

Quote:
> and once again you forget that it was an Indian in Melbourne who started
> it all

That doesnt count. We're only attacking Australians in this newsgroup.
 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by Dave -Turne » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:40:07

Quote:
> Murali does not chuck under new laws.

Because they changed the rules to accomodate him, so of course he's no
longer a chucker.
 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by Jack of all trade » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:08:39


Quote:
>> Murali does not chuck under new laws.
> Because they changed the rules to accomodate him, so of course he's no
> longer a chucker.

You can't have it both ways. If murali chucks then so do others. if others
don't chuck, murali does not chuck either.

J

 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by Paul Robso » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:16:44


Quote:

>> Because that's what the Aussies call it. Explain why     >  Murali is
>> cheating even if he chucks.
> Murali does not chuck under new laws. Just like Bhajji and Lee

***ing javelin thrower wouldn't chuck under the "new laws".
 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by will_ » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:49:28


Quote:
> Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day.  Koertzen
> missed it.  Tendulkar held his ground.  Most would agree that this is
> not cheating.

> On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
> that he knew that it was not a fair catch.  Why do some of you
> consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

> It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
> and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
> getting away with something.

> So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
> dishonesty?

> Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
> appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
> is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)?  But if so, why
> are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
> as claiming an illegal catch?

cheating is when someone that is not Indian does anything
 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by will_ » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:50:25



Quote:



>>> Murali does not chuck under new laws.
>> Because they changed the rules to accomodate him, so of course he's no
>> longer a chucker.

> You can't have it both ways. If murali chucks then so do others. if others
> don't chuck, murali does not chuck either.

> J

I usually have a good chuck after reading your posts
 
 
 

Symonds: Even if he knew it was no catch, why is it cheating?

Post by Ravi » Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:01:01


Quote:
> Tendulkar surely knew that he nicked Clark the other day.  Koertzen
> missed it.  Tendulkar held his ground.  Most would agree that this is
> not cheating.

> On the Symonds catch last night, let's assume for the sake of argument
> that he knew that it was not a fair catch.  Why do some of you
> consider it cheating simply because "he held his ground"?

> It seems to me that in both cases, the umpires were the ones to err
> and that in both cases, the player in question knew that he was
> getting away with something.

> So, why is fielding dishonesty considered more culpable than batting
> dishonesty?

> Perhaps, it's because the fielder takes a positive dishonest step by
> appealing (i.e., crime by commission) whereas the batsman's dishonesty
> is simply not confessing (i.e., crime by omission)?  But if so, why
> are ludicrous LBW appeals (crimes by commission) also not as culpable
> as claiming an illegal catch?

Do explain why Latif was hauled by the MR for a similar incident and
why Ponting, Clarke and Symonds have not been?