>> 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
>> 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...
18.104.22.168 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