Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
aussie wombat
05 Dec 09 01:23
Joined:
Date Joined: 15 Dec 04
| Topic/replies: 1,682 | Blogger: aussie wombat's blog
what i find the most troubling about him claiming a catch that clearly bounced in front of him is that Ponting & co have always wanted to take the fieldsmans word and have stated that if a fieldsman is caught doing the wrong thing he will be exposed by the media and his reputation tarnished.

However in the above example the commentators have gone quiet ( with the exception of mark nicholas "dougy dougy")....poor effort, they should call as they see it and not make excuses for **ING
Pause Switch to Standard View Doug Bollinger's "Catch"
Show More
Loading...
Report Innocent Bystander December 5, 2009 1:25 AM GMT
for commentators read cheerleaders....
Report Lix December 5, 2009 1:26 AM GMT
hard to PROVE it was **ing . He must've thought it was a clean catch. Very silly in this day and age to claim anything unless 100% sure, given it'll be referred or at least replayed to viewers.
Report dougydougy. December 5, 2009 1:28 AM GMT
what?
Report mittheimp December 5, 2009 1:35 AM GMT
cant belive he knew it had bounced 100%ly - why would he risk being exposed as a ** on TV?

However i agree that Aussies ** more than most and their commentators are the most myopic and appalling of them all.
Report Max and Paddy December 5, 2009 1:38 AM GMT
Who **s the most, mitt?
Report In Tuition December 5, 2009 1:41 AM GMT
The Aussies ** the most apart from the Pakistanis, and of course the South African's always being known for their commitment for going for the win...
Report Craig The Speculator December 5, 2009 2:58 AM GMT
and strauss's catch in the ashes???????
Report Mushtaq December 5, 2009 8:17 AM GMT
Yes that was a catch.
Report Lies, DamnLies, and Statistics December 5, 2009 8:29 AM GMT
strauss' catch was about as legitimate as dougy's hair...

:)
Report smeagors December 5, 2009 8:31 AM GMT
he should sell some to MV imo ;)
Report mittheimp December 5, 2009 8:44 AM GMT
though Strauss was a catch - if it wasnt , then at least he thought it was.

Australia are definately up there as the biggest **ers. id say -

Pakistan
Australia
India

daylight

South Africa
New Zealand
England
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Report brentford December 5, 2009 8:46 AM GMT
did you see the last SA tour ?

two bounces De Villiers with Boucher and Smith watching :0

not really into the blame game but that was as a single incident as bad as I've seen.
Report Deadly Earnest December 5, 2009 8:48 AM GMT
English right up the top and Australia right down that list for mine Mit.
Report Mushtaq December 5, 2009 8:55 AM GMT
Based on what?
Report Deadly Earnest December 5, 2009 9:08 AM GMT
My point exactly.
Report GrimReaper December 5, 2009 10:23 AM GMT
Based on the apparent fact that Deadly Earnest is transmogrifying from an intelligent, (reasonably) open minded and impartial observer into an Aussie cheerleader of a magnitude that would make Mark Nicholas blush.
Report Captain Wurzel December 5, 2009 10:29 AM GMT
You little ripper.
Report Deadly Earnest December 5, 2009 10:43 AM GMT
I am merely acting as a shield for the reputation of the Australians here, not as a sword attacking the reps of others.

If people make generalised statements regarding something on here without providing something to support their view I am happy to put some pressure on them to do so. There were some pretty poor posts on this thread from people who could do better imo.

This issue of people taking catches that appear on camera to have bounced first comes up periodically. Is anyone prepared to say the Australian team is over represented in such incidents compared to other teams and support this with some sort of evidence?

Imo it just seems to happen every now and then that a player feels he has caught a ball that has pitched. There is no way of knowing whether the player genuinely believes he has caught it really, despite people like Botham claiming you 'know' if you have caught one, which opinion I feel lacks sophistication. Occasionally a fielder instantly signals the ball has pitched. Are Australians under represented in these incidents compared to other teams? Sometimes the fielder says he is not sure, are Australians under represented here too?

I didn't see the Bollinger 'catch' so I can't comment on how bad it looked. But even if it rolled along the ground it doesn't establish that Australians ** more than other international teams, no matter what people want to believe is true.
Report Lori December 5, 2009 10:46 AM GMT
I think the Aussies tend to be more likely to make a claim (one way or the other... leading to cries of ** and honest) than other teams. This possibly stems from the fact they're probably the most confident in their own abilities and feel they can call when they've done/not done something.
Report d13phe December 5, 2009 10:49 AM GMT
what annoys me about this whole debacle is when people claim it and celebrate like a nob without asking the umpire to check first

i dont care what anyone says, you know when it is close to the ground

that for me is the **ing part whether you have caught it or not
Report Innocent Bystander December 5, 2009 11:05 AM GMT

Lori 05 Dec 11:46
I think the Aussies tend to be more likely to make a claim (one way or the other... leading to cries of ** and honest) than other teams. This possibly stems from the fact they're probably the most confident in their own abilities and feel they can call when they've done/not done something.



I think its more to do with St Ricky pontificating about the Spirit of Cricket whilst openly showing dissent to Umpires and getting his team to bowl at 12 overs per hour
Report Lori December 5, 2009 11:06 AM GMT
It could also be that.
Report mittheimp December 5, 2009 11:16 AM GMT
to be honest my 'ranking the **ers' post was based on what i thought would get the best reaction :)

However Aussies very self rightious attitude, particularly Ponting recently, and also there commentators does gets people backs up - so any transgression will get pounced on more than other teams.

i always remeber this in the Frank Worrel trophey which aussies finally won in the windies...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5580900175166039456#

Lara being Lara, just walked off.
Report Green Scream December 5, 2009 12:07 PM GMT
I couldn't see sh1t in that video.
Report Green Beard December 5, 2009 12:57 PM GMT
i hate the defence of, "he might not have known it bounced"

look at his initial reaction, he rolls over and it blatantly isnt a reaction of a man who thinks hes just made the catch
and also, ive caught about 1000 balls, and can confirm what everyone knows, you KNOW when you have caught a ball, when its on the way up and hits your hand you can feel it, if your scraping it off the ground you know you are

but his one bounced well before him, and then he rolled over on the floor, and then thought..."hm maybe noones watching" and said yep he caught it
Report Innocent Bystander December 5, 2009 1:03 PM GMT
ive caught about 1000 balls

Thinly veiled I went to Bangkok in the middle of the cricket season last year post imho :0
Report Smalltime Punter December 5, 2009 1:25 PM GMT
Anyone on here who says that they 'KNOW' when they have caught the ball is missing the point - all that you 'KNOW' is that you think you have caught the ball.

None of us have half a dozen cameras on us with super slow motion replays to undermine our certainties. Some of the catches that you 'KNOW' that you caught may not have actually carried. Others may have carried but may not appear to have done so when viewed on television.

It was the same last winter when Haddin claimed that stumping when replays showed that he took the ball in front of the stumps - club cricketers on here jumped in and said that keepers 'KNOW' if they've taken the ball early, and therefore Haddin was a **ing convict**bag.

But how can you possibly 'KNOW' that you've momentarily got your gloves a centimetre further forward than you should have done? And it seems a bit rich for people whose word has never been tested because they have never been televised to start pontificating about someone whose every take can be analysed ad nauseum.

I haven't seen the Bollinger catch so can't comment on that - it just annoys me when people say that they 'KNOW' on this sort of thing.

Agree totally with the comments re Ponting and his sanctimonious 'Spirit of Cricket' crap though.
Report d13phe December 5, 2009 1:28 PM GMT
agreed SP

but you "know" when its close and running off to celebrate just makes you look like a **ing t1t imo
Report Green Beard December 5, 2009 1:31 PM GMT
personally think you should see the catch

and then say from his reaction he didnt know
Report Titan's Chlamydia Green Light December 5, 2009 1:31 PM GMT
i dont know about others but personally i was never 100% certain when i caught a dodgy one...i remember one case where i had dived to make a 'stop' on the half-volley and the batsman walked off and my team-mates surrounded me...maybe because i'm riddled with self-doubt i guess :(
Report bigpoppapump December 5, 2009 4:09 PM GMT
nobends these aussies. always have been, always will be. wasn't a catch and he knew it, but it's understandable - if the umps can give the caught behind for the ninth wicket then they can give anything so you claim anything. but like i say - utter filth.
Report mittheimp December 5, 2009 4:13 PM GMT
:)
Report Deadly Earnest December 5, 2009 6:30 PM GMT
Excellent post STP, youdealt with the issue perfectly there.

Nice post from Bigpop too, one of few f*cking poms who realise it is ok to hate the opposition just because they are the opposition without pretending to be decent about the whole thing.
Report naive December 5, 2009 7:36 PM GMT
If you've played at any decent level - indeed at any level - you know whether you've made a clean catch, or not. End of story. What you choose to do thereafter reveals much about the character.
Report dougydougy. December 5, 2009 8:44 PM GMT
One thing i like about the referal system is the new Ponting stiffled appeal, The **ing little weasle now knows he can't go up like a deranged idiot for every half chance and you can actually see him catching himself now. Where as before the entire slip cordon would have gone up like a well rehearsed choir when the ball clipped off the helmet or was sliding miles down leg, they now realise they can't get away with it.
Report Joel December 6, 2009 4:59 AM GMT
How is appealing **ing?
Report oitoitoi December 6, 2009 5:14 AM GMT
The **ing pecking order:

Pakistan.

Lightyears. Many many lightyears.

Australia under Ponting
England
- n.b. neither of these sides really **, they more bend the rules to such a ridiculous extent (e.g. comfort breaks) and play in a poor spirit (racism, claiming bad catches, not walking when clearly out etc.), however they're usually safe in the knowledge that any minor media shi t storm will blow over pretty quickly as there's more money to be made from popular cricketers than unpopular ones. I mean Ponting essentially got off scot free for the farce that was the 07 Sydney test, even Symonds had the decency to become a stereotypical drunk ;).

Harbhajan Singh - doesn't **, is just a bit of a**.
Report Ratbag December 7, 2009 11:31 AM GMT
I'm with STP, really good post.

Woudl also make the distinction between a catch where the fielder is diving directly forward, where they usually turn their head very late, as a reflex to avoid getting skulled. In these cases it's very tricky to know as a fielder, and as STP says, we as amateurs never know if we knew - no cameras.
Report BigMig December 7, 2009 12:33 PM GMT
Bollinger has received an official reprimand for showing dissent at the rejected lbw decision against Nash.
Report GrimReaper December 7, 2009 2:04 PM GMT
He should also get a reprimand for being a right ugly fecker as well.
Report Mr. Moustache December 7, 2009 2:07 PM GMT
Yep, massive forehead.
Report GrimReaper December 7, 2009 2:08 PM GMT
Looks like Herman Munster's ugly brother.
Report BigMig December 7, 2009 2:20 PM GMT
Piggy face
Report GrimReaper December 7, 2009 2:36 PM GMT
With greedy little eyes too...much like a Wallaby Centre staking out an unoccupied house in the dead of night....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/8397819.stm

You just can't shake off genetics, I suppose :^0
Report Bernie Larkham December 7, 2009 10:12 PM GMT
Born in NZ is "our" boy Cooper GR ;)

I bet there was no lamb roast left in the fridge either...
Report Joel December 7, 2009 10:52 PM GMT
http://0616.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/goonies_sloth.jpg
Report good value losers December 7, 2009 11:50 PM GMT
naive 05 Dec 20:36
If you've played at any decent level - indeed at any level - you know whether you've made a clean catch, or not. End of story.


can't say i agree with that. if you've dived forwards or sideways for a low catch. hit the deck hard maybe rolling over afterwards, you could quite easily have caught it on the half volley and not realised amongst all the jolting and general chaos.
Report GrimReaper December 8, 2009 8:29 AM GMT
Bernie Larkham 07 Dec 23:12


Born in NZ is "our" boy Cooper GR


If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas :p
Report spassky December 8, 2009 9:42 AM GMT
naive 05 Dec 20:36
If you've played at any decent level - indeed at any level - you know whether you've made a clean catch, or not. End of story.

GVL :
can't say i agree with that. if you've dived forwards or sideways for a low catch. hit the deck hard maybe rolling over afterwards, you could quite easily have caught it on the half volley and not realised amongst all the jolting and general chaos.


I don't understand why you would post that, GVL. I thought you were a cricketer at a decent level. Rolling over and jolting doesn't change squat. When you take a very low catch (and it is only the VERY close ones that are at issue) you know whether it hit you on the last half of your fingers (and probably jammed the backs of your fingers into the ground) or whether the ball was "rising". You DO know, from the "weight" of the ball whether it has all of its momentum ie it hasn't bounced.

I am also amazed that several people are agreeing with smalltime punter, which I thought was an armchair cricketers version of what they HOPED might be the case. It didn't tally with the Laws of Physics as they applied every time I have taken a catch.

The Haddin wicketkeeper point I have an open mind on ..... wearing gloves means that they can't feel when they broke the wicket. It is impossible to take a catch and not feel when you caught the ball, regardless of how you might be jolted afterwards.
Report good value losers December 8, 2009 10:25 AM GMT
well you're better than me then, spassky. i still think it's quite possible to get it wrong during all the chaos and disorientation of running, diving, rolling over. can you really say you ALWAYS 100% know EVERY time? which is what the original poster and you seem to be saying.
Report spassky December 8, 2009 10:27 AM GMT
Yes.

I thought I explained that.

Do you have numb fingers ? Can you not feel where the ball hit your hand if half a second later you land on your elbow ?

Your physiology baffles me, sorry.
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 12:49 PM GMT
Spassky, when you are running and reaching for a low catch, your brain is very busy doing all sorts of calculations to try to get your eyes and hands to co-ordinate sufficiently to clasp the ball. You are in no position to make a certain forensic assessment of what part of your hands the ball contacted first, especially given the difference between it contacting one part of your hands and another is minute fractions of a second.

If you are stationary when you take a catch I would agree you would stand a much better chance of assessing whether the ball had bounced or not, but you still cannot be as certain as 100% certain.

There may also be a difference in some people's ability to 'remember' the precise sequence of events, which may mean that you could be correct with 98% accuracy where I may only be correct with 50% accuracy on marginal catches, so such differences in ability to 'know' what has happened may inform our viewpoints on the matter to some extent.

So even if you personally(Spassky) are 100% accurate in your assessments as to whether you have taken a clean catch or not you are not in an authoritative position to state what Doug Bollinger, Paul Collingwood, GVL or I might know about whether we had taken a clean catch or not in similar circumstances.

You might say as easily you 'know' when you have edged the ball when batting. Yet we watched with incredulity Peter Fulton recently was given out LBW where replays confirmed he had clearly hit it and it wasn't a faint edge. He had the review system available and could have appealed the decision yet he walked off. He later explained that he didn't think his bat had contacted the ball. Now I grant you this is different to the grounded catch scenario but it does go to demonstrate that the person who does the action is not necessarily always best placed to declare with certainty exactly what has happened, even when it would seem obvious that he would 'know' the precise sequence and description of the manouevre he had just executed.

I am not saying some players don't claim catches they knew(or could reasonably expect to have known) had bounced. But even if you or I could speak with 100% certainty about our own ability to judge when we have taken a clean catch, we cannot ever assume to know the machinations of the brains of others to such an extent that we 'know' when they 'know' they have taken a clean catch.

You are no dill and I believe you wrote what you did because it is your sincere belief but I feel you will see my points here because they are virtually self evidently correct.
Report spassky December 8, 2009 1:50 PM GMT
:D deadly, particularly liked the last four words. Always good to finish with a non sequitor !!!

There are two types of people : those that think you can't always know whether or not you have caught a ball cleanly, and those who think that the other people are idiots ! We are not going to change each others opinion.

For the sake of continuing the argument though :

"Spassky, when you are running and reaching for a low catch, your brain is very busy doing all sorts of calculations to try to get your eyes and hands to co-ordinate sufficiently to clasp the ball. You are in no position to make a certain forensic assessment of what part of your hands the ball contacted first, especially given the difference between it contacting one part of your hands and another is minute fractions of a second."
There is nothing "forensic" about it. You don't decide whether you have trod on something sharp by re-creating a series of mental images of where you put your feet; you feel the pain. When taking a difficult catch you should be focussing SOLELY on your hands and the ball. The ONE thing you should be able to tell with certainty is which part of your hand it first struck.

Your argumant about the difficulty of knowing whether or not a batsman has nicked the ball also proves my point. If the bat was part of the body (especially if it was incredible sensitive, like a fingertip for instance !!) Peter Fulton would have known ONE HUNDRED PER CENT of the time that he had touched it. It's called "feel". However, as the bat is an inanimate object, he didn't. In my previous post I excused Haddin for the same reason. He might not have known that he was a **ing "fecker" because he could not "feel" that he had broken the wicket before taking the ball. Do you believe that any cricketer in the world WITHOUT gloves could not tell you which had happened first ? It's the same with catching the ball. You DO know with absolute certainty what your hands are feeling, and in what order.

You are no dill and I believe you wrote what you did because it is your sincere belief but I trust that you will now see that my brain is appreciably bigger than yours :x
Report GrimReaper December 8, 2009 2:35 PM GMT
My d!ck is bigger than both of yours. HTH :^0
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 3:08 PM GMT
Spassky, your brain is self evidently bigger, well virtually anyway, because you 'know' things I can only wonder at. ;)
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 3:23 PM GMT
Btw apologies for the slightly presumtuous nature of my seconf from last post Spassky. A woman might call that patronising.
Report good value losers December 8, 2009 3:40 PM GMT
YOU may know with absolute certainty there is a rhinoceros in the room, but is there?
Report smeagors December 8, 2009 5:29 PM GMT
wotta load of horsepoo .. on and on and on and on etc etc .. mick kinane retired from racing by the way .. greatest big race rider since the "long fella" .. he would've have known exactly what was happening in any given moment
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 5:34 PM GMT
Even if that is true of Kinane Smeags, does the same automatically extend to every single jockey?
Report smeagors December 8, 2009 5:39 PM GMT
no .. some don't even know the front end from the back end .. point taken .. its still a load of unresovable horse poo tho .. however .. keeps peeps fingers busy i guess .. ;)
Report Deadly Earnest December 8, 2009 5:53 PM GMT
People are allowed to have a point of view on something that is as you say, unresolvable, are they not?
Report smeagors December 8, 2009 5:57 PM GMT
absolutely .. what would politicians do if it were otherwise .. prob become cricket comms :^0
Report richo13 December 9, 2009 9:03 AM GMT
"There is nothing "forensic" about it. You don't decide whether you have trod on something sharp by re-creating a series of mental images of where you put your feet; you feel the pain"

I love this post above. Thing is it's not right.

It would be fairer to equate it to; if you trod on a dog's turd then claimed it was a broken bottle ie you know full well that you trod in sh*t ;-)
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com