ENGLAND ARE CHEATS
jeff...
or does that tag only apply to ian healy for claiming a catch he
genuinely (mistakenly) thought had carried although slow mo replays
later showed otherwise?
jeff...
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/3359/
Great Aussie (and other) guitar tabs PLUS the AFL All Time League Ladder!
Mark Wilson
jeff... wrote:
> or does that tag only apply to ian healy for claiming a catch he
> genuinely (mistakenly) thought had carried although slow mo replays
> later showed otherwise?
>
> jeff...
>
Look mate I don't think it carried either, but that doesn't mean they
are cheats (I think we can forgive Mike for rubbing dirt into the ball
and getting caught). I'm sure Hussain thought he caught it (it is
possible, though not likely IMHO that he actually did catch it).
Cheers
Mark
Conrad Leviston
jeff... (jsc...@midwest.com.au) wrote:
:
: or does that tag only apply to ian healy for claiming a catch he
: genuinely (mistakenly) thought had carried although slow mo replays
: later showed otherwise?
Actually, I must object to the header for this article. Brian
Lara's childish behaviour should not reflect poorly on England, nor Viv
Richards' for that matter. I am in complete agreement that this
highlights how little sportsmanship these two cricketers posess, but
would have given the post a header like "If Greg Blewett was Brian Lara".
The biggest example of West Indian hypocrisy is that during the
tour between the one in which Steve Waugh and Ian Healy took their
controversial catches (I think that in both cases they probably were
catches), a West Indian player in a one day match claimed a catch that
had obviously bounced. This was fair enough as it was probably an honest
mistake and nobody claimed otherwise. It was just galling that nobody
from the West Indies seems to have analysed what would have happened if
it had happened against them.
--
Conrad Leviston | 'Quotation is the refuge of the lame mind'- Confucius
http://yoyo.cc | 'It takes a thief to catch a thief, and for the same
.monash.edu.au | reason it takes a mongoose to catch a snake in the
/~mongoose/ | grass'- Herbert Frond
Stemmo
On Mon, 07 Jul 1997 05:41:24 GMT, jsc...@midwest.com.au (jeff...)
wrote:
>
>or does that tag only apply to ian healy for claiming a catch he
>genuinely (mistakenly) thought had carried although slow mo replays
>later showed otherwise?
I must object to the title of this thread. ENGLAND ARE CHEATS? I
hardly think so. Just Athers and Hussain :-)
1-1 coming up
Steve
Simon J
In article <33c160d1...@news.campaspe.net.au>, ste...@campaspe.net.au
wrote:
Aw, c'mon Stemmo. Hussain thought he'd caught it, so he didn't cheat.
Anyway, you got your 1-1 :0)
Simon J.
--
Records of the month - Radiohead - OK Computer
Echo & the Bunnymen - Evergreen
afr...@rocketmail.com
In article <33c08134...@midwest.com.au>,
jsc...@midwest.com.au (jeff...) wrote:
>
>
> or does that tag only apply to ian healy for claiming a catch he
> genuinely (mistakenly) thought had carried although slow mo replays
> later showed otherwise?
>
I have seen Ian Healy cheating on video and not only in the case
you mentioned.
Australia is also noted for what they call sledging and what I call
slurring,what is the difference?
Australia accused Waqar and Wasim for ball tampering.Flimsy accusation
if they ever was one.Why? They couldn't believe that it was humanly
possible to get the kind of reverse swing these bowlers were getting.
The victory of a team with known cheaters has a diminished value.Not to
mention the unsportmanly(ungentlemanly) conduct of sledging or slurring.
Cricket has a great history of fair play, let us try to keep it that way.
A place where cricket is played fairly
http://www.geocities.com/Baja/6157/
A shop on the Island
http://members.tripod.com/~L_Small/shop.htm
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Kurt Toolsie
Conrad Leviston wrote:
>
> jeff... (jsc...@midwest.com.au) wrote:
> :
> : or does that tag only apply to ian healy for claiming a catch he
> : genuinely (mistakenly) thought had carried although slow mo replays
> : later showed otherwise?
> Actually, I must object to the header for this article. Brian
> Lara's childish behaviour should not reflect poorly on England, nor Viv
> Richards' for that matter. I am in complete agreement that this
> highlights how little sportsmanship these two cricketers posess, but
> would have given the post a header like "If Greg Blewett was Brian Lara".
Well say what you like about Lara, but he always walks when he knows he
has edged the ball unlike any Australian player of modern times.
> The biggest example of West Indian hypocrisy is that during the
> tour between the one in which Steve Waugh and Ian Healy took their
> controversial catches (I think that in both cases they probably were
> catches),
... here you display your obvious bias. Still no harm in that, we are
all guilty of that to one degree or another.
Speaking of hypocrisy, today's Sydney Morning Herald article was quite
steamed about the catch Hussein was supposed to have taken. Their beef
was
that Hussein displayed no doubt whatsoever but was jubilant in claiming
the
catch... in other words an exact repeat of the catch (which all but you
and Waugh agree was not a catch) taken by Waugh. Of course, the SMH
did not see fit to remind their obviously short-memoried readers of
any such similarity.
a West Indian player in a one day match claimed a catch that
> had obviously bounced. This was fair enough as it was probably an honest
> mistake and nobody claimed otherwise. It was just galling that nobody
> from the West Indies seems to have analysed what would have happened if
> it had happened against them.
>
Well everyone so often we go through this again, The difference Hooper
realized his error when he saw the replay while Waugh claims he was in
the right, to this day. In other words, no similarity, get it?
>
Kurt
Paul Husbands
Never mind the Aussies (allegedly) cheating.
What about the even more alleged cricket supporters in Australia who
piss into water pistols and then spray the opposition with them when
they are fielding ?
Paul
James Matthew Rice
In article <5ppki2$cjo$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
Conrad Leviston <mong...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>jeff... (jsc...@midwest.com.au) wrote:
>:
>: or does that tag only apply to ian healy for claiming a catch he
>: genuinely (mistakenly) thought had carried although slow mo replays
>: later showed otherwise?
>:
> Actually, I must object to the header for this article. Brian
>Lara's childish behaviour should not reflect poorly on England, nor Viv
>Richards' for that matter. I am in complete agreement that this
>highlights how little sportsmanship these two cricketers posess, but
>would have given the post a header like "If Greg Blewett was Brian Lara".
>tour between the one in which Steve Waugh and Ian Healy took their
>controversial catches (I think that in both cases they probably were
>mistake and nobody claimed otherwise. It was just galling that nobody
>from the West Indies seems to have analysed what would have happened if
>it had happened against them.
Just to add some facts (IIRC). The "catcher" in question was Hooper
(c&b chance I think) and the batsman was Bevan. Bevan went on to win the match
with a 4 off the last ball (or close to last) with Glenn "bunny" McGrath at
the other end. It was only a ODI, but it really went to show that all
players can make mistakes (Hooper thought he caught it) but the replay
showed 100% that the umpire made the right decision. I think this is why
Steve gets so much for his "catch" and Hooper's is NEVER mentioned.
There is no doubt that Bevan was not out, and the umpire gave him not out,
and was correct. Even in the replay of Steve's "catch" there is doubt
and people are split as to whether it was a clean catch. But all that aside,
the important facts are that both Hooper and Steve took the ball on the second
grab, and they both appealed. This is their right, and (I hope) it shows
that they didn't know what happened, so they correctly asked the umpire.
What the umpire did is then OUT OF THEIR HANDS (pardon the pun) and neither
Steve nor Hooper, nor, for that matter Hussain and Healy are cheats. It is
just that what the umpire saw want against Lara and for Bevan.
I really hope people would look at Hooper's catch and subsequent appeal, before
labeling anyone a cheat. It really shows that appealing for a dodgey chance
is a long way from cheating. It should go in to the same catogory as appealing
for on that you know hit the pad outside off.
Just as an extra anecdote (and I would appreciate corrections/attributions.)
I recall a story from someone where the ball was hit to the slips on the
bounce and the whole cordon went up. The umpire went to the catcher and
asked
"Did you catch it?"
and the fieldsman replied
"Yes."
and the batsman was given out. When the cordon settled for the next ball,
one of the other players said to the catcher
"I thought that bounced?"
to which the catcher replied
"Yes."
"So why did you say you caught it?"
"I did catch it, and if asked if I caught it on the bounce I would have
said 'yes' but I was never asked."
I wonder what the reply would have been if the umpire asked
"Is the batsman out?"
I hope the reply would have been
"Ump, that is your decision, I don't ask you to field, don't ask me to umpire."
Unfortunately I have forgotten the attribution for this story, but I know
it was in the days before the bloody TV replay, in the days when cricketers
were "cricketers" and umpires were always right!
Matt
Timmy the Mediocre
Conrad Leviston <mong...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote in article
<5ppki2$cjo$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>...
> jeff... (jsc...@midwest.com.au) wrote:
> :
>Passages deleted......
> :
> Actually, I must object to the header for this article. Brian
> Lara's childish behaviour should not reflect poorly on England, nor Viv
> Richards' for that matter. I am in complete agreement that this
> highlights how little sportsmanship these two cricketers posess, but
> would have given the post a header like "If Greg Blewett was Brian Lara".
> The biggest example of West Indian hypocrisy is that during the
> tour between the one in which Steve Waugh and Ian Healy took their
> controversial catches (I think that in both cases they probably were
> catches), a West Indian player in a one day match claimed a catch that
> had obviously bounced. This was fair enough as it was probably an honest
> mistake and nobody claimed otherwise. It was just galling that nobody
> from the West Indies seems to have analysed what would have happened if
> it had happened against them.
>
Here bloody here!
Tim
Conrad Leviston
Kurt Toolsie (ktoo...@mindspring.com) wrote:
:
: Well everyone so often we go through this again, The difference Hooper
: the right, to this day. In other words, no similarity, get it?
Brian Lara stormed into the Australian dressing room and branded
Ian Healy a cheat before Healy had a chance to see the video. You would
also have to be blind to think Hooper caught what he had claimed. I am
sorry but I see no evidence of objectivity in your post.
Rick Eyre
afr...@rocketmail.com wrote in article <8683051...@dejanews.com>...
>
> I have seen Ian Healy cheating on video and not only in the case
> you mentioned.
Name me one example where you can say without doubt that Healy was, as you
describe it, "Cheating"... preferably, name all of them...
> Australia accused Waqar and Wasim for ball tampering.
Are you sure that it was just Australia? Or even that Australians were the
main complainiants about W&W?
> A place where cricket is played fairly
> http://www.geocities.com/Baja/6157/
Hmm... where are some stones to throw at your glass house :-)
Rick
D...@england.win
ste...@campaspe.net.au (Stemmo) wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jul 1997 05:41:24 GMT, jsc...@midwest.com.au (jeff...)
>wrote:
>>
>>or does that tag only apply to ian healy for claiming a catch he
>>genuinely (mistakenly) thought had carried although slow mo replays
>>later showed otherwise?
>I must object to the title of this thread. ENGLAND ARE CHEATS? I
>hardly think so. Just Athers and Hussain :-)
>Steve
Hussain didnt cheat. He *thought* he had caught the ball, which doesnt
make him a cheat. Whether the million replays cast some doubt on
whether he did actually catch it is irrelevant.
Dan
Jason Surendran
Hussain has cheated before :
vs India ist test egbaston caught behind on 19 .. scored a century
--
Jason Surendran
Rohan Chandran
ste...@campaspe.net.au (Stemmo) said
>your intellectual capacities for believing it. This is a public forum,
>not a pub full of drunken parochial slobs who believe every two-bit
Could have fooled me mate, you really could have.
cheers,
Rohan.
--
Mark Ravin Ramprakash, Middlesex and England (if the selectors get it right)
1997 First Class Batting Record
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matches Innings NO Highest Runs Avge 100s 50s Catches
10 14 2 145 780 65.00 3 5 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Laws
On 9 Jul 1997 06:08:54 GMT, mong...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Conrad Leviston)
wrote:
>Kurt Toolsie (ktoo...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>:
>: Well everyone so often we go through this again, The difference Hooper
>: realized his error when he saw the replay while Waugh claims he was in
>: the right, to this day. In other words, no similarity, get it?
>:
> Brian Lara stormed into the Australian dressing room and branded
>Ian Healy a cheat before Healy had a chance to see the video.
Well considering the 'stumping' in 92-93 (?) I can see why Lara wouldn't be too
happy about Healy. Added to which Lara has admitted that what he did was a _big_
mistake.
> You would
>also have to be blind to think Hooper caught what he had claimed.
That's _not_ what Kurt wrote. What Kurt wrote is reproduced above and is that
when he saw the replay 'Hooper realized his error'. Which he did iirc Michael
Holding said while commenting on the next match that Harper (the actual person
involved) had been convinced that he'd taken it and then he saw a replay and
realized that he hadn't.
> I am
>sorry but I see no evidence of objectivity in your post.
Well actually I think it's more worrying that everyone is blaiming _Hooper_ when
it was Roger _Harper_ who dropped the caught and bowled.
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.sandybay.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
Hamish Laws
On 8 Jul 1997 03:04:33 GMT, jm...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (James Matthew Rice)
wrote:
>In article <5ppki2$cjo$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>Conrad Leviston <mong...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>> The biggest example of West Indian hypocrisy is that during the
>>tour between the one in which Steve Waugh and Ian Healy took their
>>controversial catches (I think that in both cases they probably were
>>catches),
The Steve Waugh one isn't the Healy one I'm _very_ dubious about, although I
don't think that Healy could have known that it wasn't.
>> a West Indian player in a one day match claimed a catch that
>>had obviously bounced.
well that's not _quite_ the situation. Roger Harper dived for the ball, got it
in his hands and it came out. It bounced under his body in a tangle of legs and
he gripped it against the leg. (Not a clear description but probably good
enough)
>> This was fair enough as it was probably an honest
>>mistake and nobody claimed otherwise. It was just galling that nobody
>>from the West Indies seems to have analysed what would have happened if
>>it had happened against them.
I think you have to be very careful to separate the Windies team from the
windies press and ex-players. There was nothing from the team in about the Waugh
catch that I can recall. There was a lot of noise from the press and Viv. So
What? There was a lot of stuff from the Australian press on Hussain taking
Blewett, and there has been whinging from the press and commentators about other
decisions.
>
>Just to add some facts (IIRC). The "catcher" in question was Hooper
>(c&b chance I think)
Wrong, the catcher was _Harper_.
> and the batsman was Bevan. Bevan went on to win the match
>with a 4 off the last ball (or close to last) with Glenn "bunny" McGrath at
>the other end.
The last ball off Harper again. A very good one day innings.
> It was only a ODI, but it really went to show that all
>players can make mistakes (Hooper thought he caught it) but the replay
>showed 100% that the umpire made the right decision.
Yep.
> I think this is why
>Steve gets so much for his "catch" and Hooper's is NEVER mentioned.
Well added to which the tests are rated more important.
>There is no doubt that Bevan was not out, and the umpire gave him not out,
>and was correct.
Yep.
> Even in the replay of Steve's "catch" there is doubt
>and people are split as to whether it was a clean catch. But all that aside,
>the important facts are that both Hooper and Steve took the ball on the second
>grab, and they both appealed. This is their right, and (I hope) it shows
>that they didn't know what happened, so they correctly asked the umpire.
>What the umpire did is then OUT OF THEIR HANDS (pardon the pun)
Well yeah, if the assumption is true. I _think_ that in the Healy catch, Waugh
catch, Harper catch and Hussain catch it probably is. I'm less convinced of the
Healy stumping and _completely_ convinced that the slips must have seen the ball
missed the stumps.
I'm _also_absolutely_convinced_ that Greg Dyer knew that he'd dropped Andrew
Jones.
> and neither
>Steve nor Hooper, nor, for that matter Hussain and Healy are cheats. It is
>just that what the umpire saw want against Lara and for Bevan.
_if_ they believed that the catch was fair, or to be more generous if they
weren't sure.
>
>I really hope people would look at Hooper's catch and subsequent appeal, before
>labeling anyone a cheat. It really shows that appealing for a dodgey chance
>is a long way from cheating.
No, appealing for a catch you _know_ wasn't taken fairly is cheating. The
question is whether any of the players involved did and I don't think that we
can be sure of that.
> It should go in to the same catogory as appealing
>for on that you know hit the pad outside off.
>
Well actually if you _know_ that it is not out by the laws of cricket and appeal
anyway I'd say you're either
a) playing games with the batsman's mind - dodgy at best
b) trying to pressure the umpire - cheating
So at best if you appeal when you _know_ that it wasn't out then I'd say you're
cheating.
If you appeal when you aren't sure that's another matter.
>Just as an extra anecdote (and I would appreciate corrections/attributions.)
>
>I recall a story from someone where the ball was hit to the slips on the
>bounce and the whole cordon went up. The umpire went to the catcher and
>asked
>"Did you catch it?"
>and the fieldsman replied
>"Yes."
>and the batsman was given out. When the cordon settled for the next ball,
>one of the other players said to the catcher
>"I thought that bounced?"
>to which the catcher replied
>"Yes."
>"So why did you say you caught it?"
>"I did catch it, and if asked if I caught it on the bounce I would have
>said 'yes' but I was never asked."
>
Well actually the story as I read it was that Ian Chappell was batting in South
Africa and hit the ball to 'Tiger' Lance (iirc). There was a big appeal but no
decision from the umpire so Ian asked the fielder if he'd caught it. The fielder
said "yes" and Ian walked.
the aftermath was as you've written.
the source I have is a cricket humour book by Ian Chappell so it should be
pretty authorative.
>
>I wonder what the reply would have been if the umpire asked
>"Is the batsman out?"
>I hope the reply would have been
>"Ump, that is your decision, I don't ask you to field, don't ask me to umpire."
>
I'd hope the answer would be "No, the ball had bounced."
In fact I consider the episode to be cheating in any case. The fielder _knew_
that Chappell wasn't out.
>
>Unfortunately I have forgotten the attribution for this story, but I know
>it was in the days before the bloody TV replay, in the days when cricketers
>were "cricketers" and umpires were always right!
Sure, have a look at the amount of flack they took when Compton (?) or Washbrook
was given out lbw in a match after the war. The press photographers took the
photo _after_ the batsman had moved outside leg _after_ being hit by the ball.
Bradman also mentions a match where the umpires were massively criticised for
giving him not out lbw early. He believed that the ball would have gone over the
stumps.
Criticising umpires isn't _just_ a modern thing.
Stemmo
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:14:27 GMT, D...@England.Win wrote:
>Hussain didnt cheat. He *thought* he had caught the ball, which doesnt
>make him a cheat. Whether the million replays cast some doubt on
>whether he did actually catch it is irrelevant.
OK Dan, point taken. Hussain *isn't* a cheat, and Athers *is*. :-)
Steve
Stemmo
Yeah right. They just stand in the outer at the MCG, flop out Mister
Weenie, and piss into a water pistol (bloody good aim!) and then fire
it over some yards at an opposition player. I assume you're talking
about men, and not women.
This kind of urban myth does nothing for the image of the sport, or
your intellectual capacities for believing it. This is a public forum,
not a pub full of drunken parochial slobs who believe every two-bit
anti-Australian story you can toss up.
Steve
Stemmo
On Mon, 07 Jul 1997 15:02:26 -0600, afr...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>I have seen Ian Healy cheating on video and not only in the case
>you mentioned.
>
>Australia is also noted for what they call sledging and what I call
>slurring,what is the difference?
>
>Australia accused Waqar and Wasim for ball tampering.Flimsy accusation
>if they ever was one.Why? They couldn't believe that it was humanly
>possible to get the kind of reverse swing these bowlers were getting.
Only Australia cheats, eh? Viv Richards never called anyone a 'white
coward' and Desmond Haynes never asked an opposition player to 'come
behind the stands after the game'. And eleven West Indian cricketers
didn't know the rules when Dean Jones was run out after being bowled
by a no-ball. And Keith Arthurton and Brian Lara didn't carry on like
five-year-olds by not letting opposition players into the WI dressing
rooms after the game because of an on-field clashes.
Your views are distorted by your parochialism. You seem to have some
fantastic philosophy which contends that *only* your side plays the
game in the right manner, and that if anyone beats you, then they are,
ergo, cheats and sledgers. How do I put this nicely? Your head is up
your bottom.
>The victory of a team with known cheaters has a diminished value.Not to
>mention the unsportmanly(ungentlemanly) conduct of sledging or slurring.
So Australia shouldn't have soundly defeated WI in the last two
series, is this what your getting at?
>Cricket has a great history of fair play, let us try to keep it that way.
It also has a great history of one-eyed nationalism, and you're doing
*your* best to keep it that way.
Steve
Des Thomas
Mark Wilson wrote:
> Look mate I don't think it carried either, but that doesn't mean they
> are cheats (I think we can forgive Mike for rubbing dirt into the ball
>
> and getting caught).
Very easy to forgive seeing that he wasn't cheating against Aus in that
match. Would you have forgiven him quite as easily if he had done it in,
say, the first test of this series? The fact that he was carrying the
dirt and grit in his pocket made that particular crime rather pointedly
premeditated.
Des.
Rohan Chandran
jm...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (James Matthew Rice) said
>
>Just to add some facts (IIRC). The "catcher" in question was Hooper
I have seen countless posts in this thread talking about this alleged
Hooper incident. Carl Hooper is nothing if not a complete gentleman
cricketer, one of very few left in the game.
For what it's worth, the catcher in quesion I believe was Roger
Harper. Not Carl Hooper.
cheers,
Rick Eyre
Stemmo <ste...@campaspe.net.au> wrote in article
<33c5c29d...@news.campaspe.net.au>...
>
> Only Australia cheats, eh? Viv Richards never called anyone a 'white
> coward' and Desmond Haynes never asked an opposition player to 'come
> behind the stands after the game'. And eleven West Indian cricketers
> didn't know the rules when Dean Jones was run out after being bowled
> by a no-ball. And Keith Arthurton and Brian Lara didn't carry on like
> five-year-olds by not letting opposition players into the WI dressing
> rooms after the game because of an on-field clashes.
You left out Roger Harper's appeal for an obvious non-catch in a one-dayer
at the SCG in the season before last :-)
Rick
Rick Eyre
Jason Surendran <ja...@slsystems.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<jOMvoCA4...@slsystems.demon.co.uk>...
> Hussain has cheated before :
> vs India ist test egbaston caught behind on 19 .. scored a century
Err how does this make Hussain a cheat? What physical powers does he have
over the location of the umpire's finger (so to speak)???
Rick
Rick Eyre
Hamish Laws <h_l...@tassie.net.au> wrote in article
<33c4a59b...@newsroom.tassie.net.au>...
>
> Well considering the 'stumping' in 92-93 (?) I can see why Lara wouldn't
be too
> happy about Healy. Added to which Lara has admitted that what he did was
a _big_
> mistake.
Except that Healy was an innocent party in the "Stumping" at the Gabba in
1992.
Rick
Shaun
ro...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Rohan Chandran) wrote:
>jm...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (James Matthew Rice) said
>>
>>Just to add some facts (IIRC). The "catcher" in question was Hooper
>>(c&b chance I think) and the batsman was Bevan.
>
>I have seen countless posts in this thread talking about this alleged
>Hooper incident. Carl Hooper is nothing if not a complete gentleman
>cricketer, one of very few left in the game.
>
>For what it's worth, the catcher in quesion I believe was Roger
>Harper. Not Carl Hooper.
>
Hooper.
It was definetely Harper and i think he just appealed on instinct like
most bowlers do. No big deal, but the look Bevan gave him as he appealed
was not pretty. Just like a bowler appealing for lbw when half a second
later he knows there was no way it was going to be out.
Ian Galbraith
D...@England.Win wrote in article <5q1ujb$thr$1...@opera.iinet.net.au>...
: Hussain didnt cheat. He *thought* he had caught the ball, which doesnt
: make him a cheat. Whether the million replays cast some doubt on
: whether he did actually catch it is irrelevant.
caught the ball? I haven't heard any reports here in Aust. about Hussain
making a statement about it. From his reaction straight after he caught it
he seemed to have a doubt as to whether he caught it, and he was then
convinced by the other fielders.
--
Ian Galbraith
i.gal...@latrobe.edu.au%delete_this
(To email me remove %delete_this from my address)
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure, and the
intelligent are full of doubt."
- Bertrand Russell
D...@england.win
ste...@campaspe.net.au (Stemmo) wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:14:27 GMT, D...@England.Win wrote:
>>Hussain didnt cheat. He *thought* he had caught the ball, which doesnt
>>make him a cheat. Whether the million replays cast some doubt on
>>whether he did actually catch it is irrelevant.
>OK Dan, point taken. Hussain *isn't* a cheat, and Athers *is*. :-)
>Steve
Athers was drying his fingers, we all know that
Dan
James Matthew Rice
In article <33c4a6b5...@newsroom.tassie.net.au>,
Hamish Laws <h_l...@tassie.net.au> wrote:
>On 8 Jul 1997 03:04:33 GMT, jm...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu (James Matthew Rice)
>wrote:
>
>
Thanks for correcting me on this.
>
>>Just as an extra anecdote (and I would appreciate corrections/attributions.)
>>
>>I recall a story from someone where the ball was hit to the slips on the
>>bounce and the whole cordon went up. The umpire went to the catcher and
>>asked
>>"Did you catch it?"
>>and the fieldsman replied
>>"Yes."
>>and the batsman was given out. When the cordon settled for the next ball,
>>one of the other players said to the catcher
>>"I thought that bounced?"
>>to which the catcher replied
>>"Yes."
>>"So why did you say you caught it?"
>>"I did catch it, and if asked if I caught it on the bounce I would have
>>said 'yes' but I was never asked."
>>
>Well actually the story as I read it was that Ian Chappell was batting in South
>Africa and hit the ball to 'Tiger' Lance (iirc). There was a big appeal but no
>decision from the umpire so Ian asked the fielder if he'd caught it. The fielder
>said "yes" and Ian walked.
>
>the aftermath was as you've written.
>
>the source I have is a cricket humour book by Ian Chappell so it should be
>pretty authorative.
Again, thanks for putting me on to the reference. I will look it up when
I get a chance.
>>
>>I wonder what the reply would have been if the umpire asked
>>"Is the batsman out?"
>>I hope the reply would have been
>>"Ump, that is your decision, I don't ask you to field, don't ask me to umpire."
>>
>I'd hope the answer would be "No, the ball had bounced."
>In fact I consider the episode to be cheating in any case. The fielder _knew_
>that Chappell wasn't out.
>>
>>Unfortunately I have forgotten the attribution for this story, but I know
>>it was in the days before the bloody TV replay, in the days when cricketers
>>were "cricketers" and umpires were always right!
>
I thought I would put a :-) at the end of this in case people did not see the
sarcasm. Then I thought to give the benefit of the doubt. I see I was wrong
to do that!
Stemmo
On 11 Jul 1997 01:15:07 GMT, ro...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Rohan Chandran)
wrote:
>>Just to add some facts (IIRC). The "catcher" in question was Hooper
>>(c&b chance I think) and the batsman was Bevan.
>
>I have seen countless posts in this thread talking about this alleged
>Hooper incident. Carl Hooper is nothing if not a complete gentleman
>cricketer, one of very few left in the game.
>
>For what it's worth, the catcher in quesion I believe was Roger
>Harper. Not Carl Hooper.
Yes, it was indeed Roger Harper. But you can't really blame people for
getting them mixed up:
i) Both play for the West Indies
ii) Both have similar surnames
iii) Both bowl crap offspinners
:-)
Steve
Stemmo
On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 13:56:13 GMT, D...@England.Win wrote:
>>OK Dan, point taken. Hussain *isn't* a cheat, and Athers *is*. :-)
>Athers was drying his fingers, we all know that
Hmm, so just what was on them, Dan? :-)
Steve
Simon Pleasants
>Hussain has cheated before :
>vs India ist test egbaston caught behind on 19 .. scored a century
Do we know that for a fact? And anyway, given the amount of vibration
reduction technology, plus thick rubber grips *and* heavily padded
batting gloves it is entirely conceivable that Hussain *might* have
got a very fine edge and not even known about it. Same with the
catch. Just as it is highly likely that Shane Warne had no idea that
he should have been out when he flicked the catch off Croft to Crawley
at short leg. You may scrutinise with the benefit of a million
replays at one thousanth actual speed but in real life the decisions
(and the knowledge on the part of the players) is not so easy.
--
Simon Pleasants <sim...@ndirect.co.uk | www.ndirect.co.uk/ples>
Web Designer & Presenter, Mon - Fri, 2 - 4pm 107.1 FM The River
-- "Keep a dream in your pocket.... never let it fade away!" --
Hamish Laws
Exactly what do you mean by that and what do you base it on?
Rohan Chandran
sim...@ndirect.co.uk (Simon Pleasants) said
>On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 13:15:52 +0100, Jason Surendran
><ja...@slsystems.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hussain has cheated before :
>>vs India ist test egbaston caught behind on 19 .. scored a century
>
>Do we know that for a fact? And anyway, given the amount of vibration
>reduction technology, plus thick rubber grips *and* heavily padded
>batting gloves it is entirely conceivable that Hussain *might* have
>got a very fine edge and not even known about it.
We do know for a fact that he was genuinely caught behind, and I think
it's fairly safe to say that he knew it too, although you can never be
sure. However, we also no for a fact that he was not out (the umpire
said so), and what's even more of a fact is that I do not remotely
understand how it is "cheating" to not walk.
This is actually a bit of a double standard, I concede, but I think
it's an appropriate one. If we are going to say that a fielder who
knowingly appeals for a catch which was not clean is a cheat, then for
the sake of consistency we should consider someone who does not walk
when he knows he is out a cheat. Well almost. The subtle difference,
which makes all the difference, is that in the latter case, a batsman
is only out if the umpire declares him so - the decision is not in his
hands, technically speaking. In the other scenario, the decision on
whether to appeal is in the fielders hands.
Actually, although I personally believe in walking at all times, it is
not the committed non-walkers who irk me. The people who really get
under my skin are those who walk under certain circumstances, and not
others - e.g. depending on the opposition, the state of the game,
personal score, and so on. I think this really is an issue on which
you have to choose one option or the other and stick with it.
cheers,
Rohan.
Rick Eyre
> >
> >Except that Healy was an innocent party in the "Stumping" at the Gabba
in
> >1992.
>
> Exactly what do you mean by that and what do you base it on?
Video evidence - the incident is included on the "Australia v West Indies
1992-93 Test Series" video, which is in the shops now. Healy didn't appeal
for Lara's dismissal (although other Australian fieldsmen not close to the
action did) as he was still tumbling around the pitch. The umpire had
given Lara out instantaneously without waiting for an Australian appeal
(which is contrary to the Laws of Cricket), and in fact he was unsighted by
Healy's body. Healy took no action to recall Lara, but that could be
because he wasn't 100% certain at that moment whether he had correctly
stumped Lara or not. The video replays of course show quite clearly that
the ball had rolled out of Healy's hand before he broke the wicket.
In my opinion, Healy did not act improperly throughout this whole incident.
His breaking of the stumps without the ball was accidental (meaning that,
while he attempted to effect a stumping, he didn't intend to perform one
without the ball). There was also sufficient uncertainty at that moment
for there to be no reason for him to recall Lara.
Rick
--
| Rick Eyre gl...@bigpond.com ri...@cricket.org |
| Editor, CricInfo Interactive http://www.cricket.org/interactive/ |
| Webmaster, Cricket NSW http://www.cricket-nsw.cricket.org/ |
| personal owner of http://www.ozemail.com.au/~reyre/cricket.html |
jeff...
On Mon, 07 Jul 1997 10:36:42 +1000, Mark Wilson
<m...@management.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>jeff... wrote:
>
>> or does that tag only apply to ian healy for claiming a catch he
>> genuinely (mistakenly) thought had carried although slow mo replays
>> later showed otherwise?
>>
>> jeff...
>>
>Look mate I don't think it carried either, but that doesn't mean they
>are cheats (I think we can forgive Mike for rubbing dirt into the ball
>and getting caught). I'm sure Hussain thought he caught it (it is
>possible, though not likely IMHO that he actually did catch it).
>
>Cheers
>Mark
>
jeff here again...
i don't think england are cheats. i don't think healy, waugh,
atherton, or any other test players are cheats.
i put that header on to make the point that some people jump up and
down about cheating every time a decision goes against them through an
error of judgment. i'm quite sure that if the england players had
thought the ball didn't carry they wouldn't have claimed the catch.
the fact is they were mistaken, but that doesn't make them cheats.
plus i knew it would get a bite...
jeff...
d+r>s TW 1/0/pw tG 4 0 WYWH 13 18
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/3359/
Great Aussie (and other) guitar tabs PLUS the AFL All Time League Ladder!
Jeff Green
On 11 Jul 1997 07:08:13 GMT, "Ian Galbraith"
<i.gal...@latrobe.edu.au%delete_this> wrote:
Personally I still don't know if he caught it, and so I would have
given not out. Ian Chappell on the summary at the end of the day
however said he had watched all the replays and was convinced that
Hussain HAD made a good catch by getting his fingers under the ball
before it bounced.
>D...@England.Win wrote in article <5q1ujb$thr$1...@opera.iinet.net.au>...
>: Hussain didnt cheat. He *thought* he had caught the ball, which doesnt
>: make him a cheat. Whether the million replays cast some doubt on
>: whether he did actually catch it is irrelevant.
>
>Are you a mindreader? Otherwise how do you know Hussain thought that he had
>caught the ball? I haven't heard any reports here in Aust. about Hussain
>making a statement about it. From his reaction straight after he caught it
>he seemed to have a doubt as to whether he caught it, and he was then
>convinced by the other fielders.
Even that doesn't matter surely to claim he was a cheat it is up to
the claimant to show he knew he hadn't caught it not the other way
round?
Simon Pleasants
On 13 Jul 1997 01:48:08 GMT, ro...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Rohan Chandran)
wrote:
>Actually, although I personally believe in walking at all times, it is
>not the committed non-walkers who irk me. The people who really get
>under my skin are those who walk under certain circumstances, and not
>others - e.g. depending on the opposition, the state of the game,
>personal score, and so on. I think this really is an issue on which
>you have to choose one option or the other and stick with it.
And I would have to agree - either you walk, which is fair enough, or
you don't walk and wait for the umpire to give you out, which is also
fair enough. Given that once in a while you will get a rough decision
I don't personally have a problem with those batsmen who see that the
decision is solely the umpires. On that basis, in theory, over the
course of a career the lucky escapes and the unlucky rulings will
balance up.
I can imagine how it might be much "easier" to walk when you have
scored a hundred, compared to when you have scored nothing, and
likewise with the team, 500-1 is not so bad, 17-5 is not so good!
Michael Cullen
ste...@campaspe.net.au (Stemmo), far, far away from here, appears to have
written:
I dunno, you're so cynical Steve. Atherton had finished drying his fingers
with the dirt he kept in his pocket for just that purpose, and then was thrown
the ball which he proceeded to polish on his now dry fingers, as is the common
practice of England captains who do not wish to stain certain parts of the
cricketing apparel with an unsightly red stain. This is the real story of the
incident. Really.
Oh, yeah, because this is rsc - <grin> . And it applies to the whole post,
not just to the sentence it immediately follows, which I would have thought
was *extremely* obvious, but which is a point which seems to escape certain
regular contributors to this ng. (Do I need to add another smiley here?)
cheers,
Mic. (http://netserv.net.au/tiger/)
Cross Purposes Studios (Web & Graphic Design)
Think sideways! - Edward de Bono