FootballNews

Cooper wrote:

Wayne Kerr wrote:Nice to see the English cricketers continue to cheat in the T20 tri-series..... Claiming catches that clearly hit the ground

Yep and Clarke the twat calling it 100% out and a terrible decision, what a grenache sucker he is

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:

Wayne Kerr wrote:Nice to see the English cricketers continue to cheat in the T20 tri-series..... Claiming catches that clearly hit the ground

Yep and Clarke the twat calling it 100% out and a terrible decision, what a grenache sucker he is

When even Channel 9 commentators are saying an australian was out, you know he must be out. Watch when Roy and maxwell shake hands at the end, Roy tells him he was out.

Only an aussie would be caught at long on and try and keep running.

Cooper wrote:And what is your opinion on the catch with all the information at hand?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:And what is your opinion on the catch with all the information at hand?

I believe he caught it, you can see his fingers underneath the ball. Similar to some of the other decisions though, I don't think there was enough evidence to over turn a decision but it's also pretty likely that at least one blade of grass touched the ball.

Cooper wrote:

Wayne Kerr wrote:Nice to see the English cricketers continue to cheat in the T20 tri-series..... Claiming catches that clearly hit the ground

Yep and Clarke the twat calling it 100% out and a terrible decision, what a grenache sucker he is

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:And what is your opinion on the catch with all the information at hand?

I believe he caught it, you can see his fingers underneath the ball. Similar to some of the other decisions though, I don't think there was enough evidence to over turn a decision but it's also pretty likely that at least one blade of grass touched the ball.

Wayne Kerr wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:And what is your opinion on the catch with all the information at hand?

I believe he caught it, you can see his fingers underneath the ball. Similar to some of the other decisions though, I don't think there was enough evidence to over turn a decision but it's also pretty likely that at least one blade of grass touched the ball.

pity the video umpire overturned the original decision by the field umpire, must of not been out.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Wayne Kerr wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
I believe he caught it, you can see his fingers underneath the ball. Similar to some of the other decisions though, I don't think there was enough evidence to over turn a decision but it's also pretty likely that at least one blade of grass touched the ball.

pity the video umpire overturned the original decision by the field umpire, must of not been out.

Clear evidence?

Wayne Kerr wrote:Must of been, why else would the video umpire overule the field umpire?

Wayne Kerr wrote:Nice to see the English cricketers continue to cheat in the T20 tri-series..... Claiming catches that clearly hit the ground

ozzie owl wrote:

Wayne Kerr wrote:Nice to see the English cricketers continue to cheat in the T20 tri-series..... Claiming catches that clearly hit the ground

Can you imagine if that had been Steve Smith trying to claim the identical catch, wouldn't hear the end of it on here.

Mápó Tòfu wrote:When in Rome...

God is an Englishman wrote:

Wayne Kerr wrote:Must of been, why else would the video umpire overule the field umpire?

He thought so obviously, I believe he was wrong. Only needs one person to say it isn't and obviously it isn't clear.

However, I think we all know that you don't actually watch any cricket and certainly don't with both eyes.

Wayne Kerr wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Wayne Kerr wrote:Must of been, why else would the video umpire overule the field umpire?

He thought so obviously, I believe he was wrong. Only needs one person to say it isn't and obviously it isn't clear.

However, I think we all know that you don't actually watch any cricket and certainly don't with both eyes.

Well, your opinion is wrong. An international cricket umpire says it was not out and overuled the field umpire.


case closed

Cooper wrote:Anyone got a link to the contentious Smith catch? Id like to make sure I'm seeing the right one as ive forgotten about it.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Wayne Kerr wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
He thought so obviously, I believe he was wrong. Only needs one person to say it isn't and obviously it isn't clear.

However, I think we all know that you don't actually watch any cricket and certainly don't with both eyes.

Well, your opinion is wrong. An international cricket umpire says it was not out and overuled the field umpire.


case closed

Wrong in your opinion, right in many peoples opinions. Hence, NOT CLEAR.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:Anyone got a link to the contentious Smith catch? Id like to make sure I'm seeing the right one as ive forgotten about it.

http://www.sportingnews.com/au/cricket/ ... avciufvwoe

“Everybody watching knows it's out, the player knows it's out but is there enough conclusive evidence to overturn? Can Aleem Dar say, ‘I’m 100 per cent that he’s caught that ball'?” Warne said.

Wayne Kerr wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:Anyone got a link to the contentious Smith catch? Id like to make sure I'm seeing the right one as ive forgotten about it.

http://www.sportingnews.com/au/cricket/ ... avciufvwoe

“Everybody watching knows it's out, the player knows it's out but is there enough conclusive evidence to overturn? Can Aleem Dar say, ‘I’m 100 per cent that he’s caught that ball'?” Warne said.

The quick thought he had Moeen Ali out four balls later after the left hander edged a good length ball to Steve Smith at second slip, however in the end it was adjudicated to have touched the ground first.

After the decision was originally given not-out by umpire Marais Erasmus, the evidence proved inconclusive and third umpire Aleem Dar didn't overturn the decision.

Those in the Channel 9 commentary box believed Smith had taken the catch cleanly, but there wasn't enough evidence for Dar to send Ali on his way.

“If Steve Smith had just caught it clean, I reckon there wouldn’t have been a review,” former Australian captain turned commentator/shill for Big Air Conditioning Mark Taylor said.

“Marais Erasmus would have given it out and I think Moeen Ali would have walked off.

“The fact that it didn’t finish well brought about the doubt.”

Shane Warne agreed with his commentary box counterpart.

“Everybody watching knows it's out, the player knows it's out but is there enough conclusive evidence to overturn? Can Aleem Dar say, ‘I’m 100 per cent that he’s caught that ball'?” Warne said.

“I think there is a fraction of doubt. We're saying that [Smith caught the ball] because we're slippers and we know.

“You can understand Aleem Dar giving it not out but in reality, it's probably out. I reckon Steve Smith’s caught that.”

Cooper wrote:What's the law on catching in this situation? Can any part of the ball touch the ground? If fingers are on the ball is part of it allow to touch the ground?

My opinion is they are both failed catches as I think its clear the ball was touching the grass.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Cooper wrote:What's the law on catching in this situation? Can any part of the ball touch the ground? If fingers are on the ball is part of it allow to touch the ground?

My opinion is they are both failed catches as I think its clear the ball was touching the grass.

Any part touches the ground then it’s not out. I think both of them have some doubt. As with the others, not enough evidence change the infield decision.