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.
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.
And what is your opinion on the catch with all the information at hand?
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.
Its happening too often these days - it looked a half volley to me. End of, they should only give it out if it is 100%. And the fact that Clarke said it was 100% means nothing - he wouldn't know if his arse was on fire.
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.
Fair enough. My opinion is that yes he had those 2 fingers there but along the back of the ball till the ball bounced up off the turf into his hands
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.
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:
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?
Must of been, why else would the video umpire overule the field umpire?
Cant see the video on the first one but going by the image I see that as not out for the same reason I said the for the T20 catch, ball grounded with fingers behind the back of the ball then going into the hands. Both catches not out.
As for looking at back to the pavilion it is pretty clear that you can not do that for deciding a review and the umpire made it clear what Smith was doing was wrong.
“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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
Agreed definitely doubt with both but have to go with the ruling at the time.