Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
aussie wombat
21 Dec 09 01:45
Joined:
Date Joined: 15 Dec 04
| Topic/replies: 154 | Blogger: aussie wombat's blog
To all forumites out there who made excuses for Dougy last time, are you prepared to do the same now? I am amazed how little media attention this has received , IMO disgraceful effort, clearly bounced... **ING is what it is called and a repeat offender
Pause Switch to Standard View Doug Bollinger's other "Catch"
Show More
Loading...
Report Lies, DamnLies, and Statistics December 21, 2009 4:08 AM GMT
i take it it was saturday? didn't see it myself - youtube?

what stage of the match?
Report Mushtaq December 21, 2009 6:00 AM GMT
I thought it was out.
Report Deadly Earnest December 21, 2009 7:33 AM GMT
I saw the 2nd catch, I haven't seen the first one, but my general view - and one that I raised on here at the time - is that it cannot be taken as a certainty that a player knows every time whether he has caught a low catch on the full or whether the ball has touched the ground.

After watching the replay of the second Bollinger incident, I would say he had every reason to be asking that the replay be looked at rather than claiming it as a catch. It appeared to bounce before he caught it, then he definitely scraped it on the ground after having it in his grasp. It would take an unusual lack of awareness not to know the ball had touched the ground at some point, but of course it is entirely possible Bollinger possesses such a great lack of awareness.

So it appears poor form by D Bollinger. I still maintain my general point though. If it is true that players know for certain when a ball has touched the ground before or whilst they have it in their hands then there exisits a long list of cricketers we should think of as having been prepared to **, including:

Strauss, Collingwood, Bravo, Steve Waugh, deVilliers, Bollinger, and many more I cannot recall off the top of my head.
Report Max and Paddy December 21, 2009 7:35 AM GMT
When was this Collingwood "catch"?
Report Deadly Earnest December 21, 2009 7:39 AM GMT
Can't recall the precise match, it was in England in an ODI about 2 years ago, maybe against NZ. He was at point, the ball was smashed at him and he dived to his right and took it one handed, it was a great take but was shown on replay to have clearly bounced first and was eventiually given not out. Collingwood claimed the catch and did not ask for a replay or express any resrvations about claiming it.
Report Smalltime Punter December 21, 2009 7:55 AM GMT
I'm definitely not in the "players 'know' whether or not they've caught it" camp, but I saw the second Bollinger catch and simply cannot believe he had the front to claim it.

I can just about accept that he genuinely thought it had gone into his hands on the full, but he practically ploughed a furrow with it after that! And while I haven't seen his first one, I'm guessing that it attracted a fair amount of attention and didn't make him look too good. In which case you'd think that he'd be erring on the side of caution to say the least (de Villiers looked scared to claim anything below head height after replays showed him celebrating one against England in 2008 that bounced six times).

Bollinger is bowling very well at the moment, but he would appear to be a pie-faced tool of the highest order when it comes to claiming catches.
Report mittheimp December 21, 2009 1:41 PM GMT
I genuinely think Strauss caught his controversial catch - and if he didnt then at least he thinks he did. I remember Bravo claiming one he clearly dropped, (and then looking abit sheepish and embarrassed in the field) and Steve Waugh of course, caught Brian Lara on the third bounce, an act of **ing that won them the Frank Worrel trophey for the first time in years.
Report Deadly Earnest December 21, 2009 2:23 PM GMT
And Collingwood taking one with 4 inches of topsoil on it Mit?
Report Yossarrian December 21, 2009 4:06 PM GMT
Deadly - players know when they have taken a clean catch, simple as that

And fielders asking for the 3rd umpire to make a ruling is very weak

The 3rd umpire gives the batsmen not out 100% of the time
Report GrimReaper December 22, 2009 8:24 AM GMT
I wonder if all this nonsense about Bollinger will finally lay to rest St. Ricky ridiclous assertions that we should "take his players word"
Report far cough December 22, 2009 8:33 AM GMT
he didn't cach it. he knew he didn't catch it. forget all the flannel from the ex-player commentators. if you think he didn't know you haven't played cricket.
Report Deadly Earnest December 22, 2009 8:57 AM GMT
The only way you should ever take players word is if there is some horrific sanction for those that are shown to have been wrong.

For Ponting to say that every player's word should be taken, he seems to believe that every player would automatically know every time whether he had taken a clean catch or not. Imo, like Yossarian above, and many other posters on here and Ian Botham and many people in cricket, he would be wrong to start from that assumption. It is elementary that everywhere you go with something after starting from an incorrect assumption is in danger of being equally wrong.

It would be interesting to hear Ponting questioned over his suggestion in light of Bollinger's actions. If Ponting believes all players automatically know when they have taken a clean catch, he believes Bollinger is a deliberate **, something that should not be acceptable. If he doesn't think all players automatically know when they have taken a clean catch then he should never have suggested the fielder's word be taken.

If all players automatically know they whether they have taken a clean catch every time there are a lot of **s in the international game prepared to be known as **s, when you consider the scrutiny the cameras place them under.
Report bigpoppapump December 22, 2009 9:05 AM GMT
HDEDACAB?
Report Smalltime Punter December 22, 2009 1:25 PM GMT
HDEDACAB?

Has Deadly ever defended a convict ** before?

Not that he is particularly defending one this time, but I thought I'd have a go at deciphering the acronym.
Report bigpoppapump December 22, 2009 3:17 PM GMT
**ing aussie were the two missing words.

:)

love to read deader's "oh so reasonable" style, and always the same message: there's a reason why the aussie looks like he **ed but let's make a few suggestions as to why he might just have made an error...
this one's laughable - Bollinger caught it on the rise. there's no "entirely possible that bollinger lacks the necessary awareness" about it. total politician's codswallop. it bounced and he knew it bounced.

blah blah blah blah blah blah to fade......
Report Deadly Earnest December 22, 2009 3:31 PM GMT
Hysteria ad summary judgements are better, you are right. ;)
Report bigpoppapump December 22, 2009 4:10 PM GMT
there's nothing hysterical about

it bounced

very calm. deep breaths. let's do it again.

it bounced.

see?
Report Deadly Earnest December 22, 2009 5:10 PM GMT
Who apart from Bollinger has said otherwise?
Report Mushtaq December 22, 2009 5:40 PM GMT
Me? ;)
Report Deadly Earnest December 22, 2009 5:51 PM GMT
Jesus Mushy, you must be blind. That, or have great faith in the character of D Bollinger Esq.

Alright then, who apart from Bollinger and Mushy said it didn't bounce? :) (Was it Python who had a sketch along those lines?)
Report bigpoppapump December 23, 2009 10:30 AM GMT
It would be interesting to hear Ponting questioned over his suggestion in light of Bollinger's actions. If Ponting believes all players automatically know when they have taken a clean catch, he believes Bollinger is a deliberate **, something that should not be acceptable. If he doesn't think all players automatically know when they have taken a clean catch then he should never have suggested the fielder's word be taken.

you're starting from the wrong assumption.ie that Ponting would find it unacceptable to learn that bollinger deliberately claimed one he knew he hadn't caught. it flies in the face of all recent evidence to think Ponting would put a bigger picture in favour of the game and "fairness" [as an overlying principle] before the short term gain of getting a decision in Australia's favour. If Ponting was for fairness before short term gain, his own behaviour in persistently pressuring umpires would be totaly different.
FWIW I'm not making some moral case that Ponting is necessarily worse than all others [in his behaviour]. But he is very bad, and this particular aussie team - as they lack the talent to dominate - are not pretty to watch in their behaviour. What I find ridiculous is that people even listen to RP pontificate on these sorts of occasions, or hope to hear him quizzed in detail in the expectation of that he'll experience some sort of epiphany about his modus operandi. Just aint gunna happen. He is what he is...
Report Sterling Morrison December 23, 2009 10:43 AM GMT
a cheet
Report Smalltime Punter December 23, 2009 11:20 AM GMT
All Australians are an ignorant, unruly mob.

D Jardine, circa 1932/33.

Present company excepted Deadly, LDLS etc.

:)
Report Deadly Earnest December 23, 2009 4:54 PM GMT
bigpoppapump 23 Dec 11:30


(It would be interesting to hear Ponting questioned over his suggestion in light of Bollinger's actions. If Ponting believes all players automatically know when they have taken a clean catch, he believes Bollinger is a deliberate **, something that should not be acceptable. If he doesn't think all players automatically know when they have taken a clean catch then he should never have suggested the fielder's word be taken.)

you're starting from the wrong assumption.ie that Ponting would find it unacceptable to learn that bollinger deliberately claimed one he knew he hadn't caught. it flies in the face of all recent evidence to think Ponting would put a bigger picture in favour of the game and "fairness" [as an overlying principle] before the short term gain of getting a decision in Australia's favour. If Ponting was for fairness before short term gain, his own behaviour in persistently pressuring umpires would be totaly different.

FWIW I'm not making some moral case that Ponting is necessarily worse than all others [in his behaviour]. But he is very bad, and this particular aussie team - as they lack the talent to dominate - are not pretty to watch in their behaviour. What I find ridiculous is that people even listen to RP pontificate on these sorts of occasions, or hope to hear him quizzed in detail in the expectation of that he'll experience some sort of epiphany about his modus operandi. Just aint gunna happen. He is what he is...



A couple of issues with the bolded bit of your post. First, you have attributed to me a point I did not make, though you do have plenty of priors doing that, so I should not be surprised.

Second, you make the point here that it would be a "wrong assumption"(as distinct from wrong to assume) Ponting would find it unacceptable that Bollinger deliberately claimed a catch he hadn't caught. If you are correct here you have Ponting finding it acceptable for his players to deliberately claim catches that they know are not legitimate. Given that cameras are trained on every such incident, that would be quite something. As evidence for this you use submit Ponting has questioned umpiring decisions in the field.

Are you suggesting:

a) captains should not question umpiring decisions?

b) those that do are more likely to want their players to claim catches even when it is certain the cameras will prove those catches not to be legitimate?

If Ponting's behaviour is so bad, why don't umpires or referees do something about it? Or is it that you are in a better position to judge the acceptibility of his behaviour than those on the ground who can hear what he says?

I personally think Grim raised a legitimate point on this thread regarding the contradiction between Bollinger's actions and Ponting's earlier suggestion that batsmen should take the fielder's word as to whether a clean catch has been taken. I would still like to see Ponting questioned about this anomoly because I would be interested to see what his answer would be, despite your clumsily constructed diversion from the very straightforward point of my post.
Report biggestKINGKONG December 24, 2009 4:22 AM GMT
If Ponting's behaviour is so bad, why don't umpires or referees do something about it? Or is it that you are in a better position to judge the acceptibility of his behaviour than those on the ground who can hear what he says?

interesting.
Report Lies, DamnLies, and Statistics December 24, 2009 5:41 AM GMT
^ umps and refs alike cower under the weight of his 11,000 test runs...

:)
Report bigpoppapump December 24, 2009 7:58 AM GMT
a) captains should not question umpiring decisions? YES - obviously.

b) those that do are more likely to want their players to claim catches even when it is certain the cameras will prove those catches not to be legitimate?
I dont think this question lends itself to YES/NO treatment
Report Deadly Earnest December 24, 2009 8:45 AM GMT
So a batsmen's middle pole gets knocked out of the ground, and the umpire gives it not out, what do you suggest the fieilding captain does, shrugs his shoulders and gets on with the game?

OK an extreme example but it shows why it is accepted in cricket that the captain in particular can question the umpire. There are many other reasons why the captain and umpire may need to communicate in the field not necessarily to do with out/not out decisions.

If the captain is out of order with the way he approaches an ump, presumably he would be reported.
Report bigpoppapump December 24, 2009 8:48 AM GMT
So a batsmen's middle pole gets knocked out of the ground, and the umpire gives it not out, what do you suggest the fieilding captain does, shrugs his shoulders and gets on with the game?

what are you, 6? clown.
Report Deadly Earnest December 24, 2009 9:06 AM GMT
Says it all when that is the way you respond to a legitimate point.
Report bigpoppapump December 24, 2009 9:31 AM GMT
what's legitimate about your bizarre example?

captains have no place yapping at umpires and "giving" decisions from slip as Ponting is wont to do. Arguing like a child that the captain has to be able to talk to an umpire if the middle stump is removed is fine, of course we all agree, but it doen't ever happen does it? i thought it was a real world scenario? consider that a pat on you head little man - your little theoretical debating point has been agreed. if the middle pole was removed but the umpire said not out then the captain would be within his rights to ask what was happening. happy?
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com