PDA

View Full Version : Spirit of Cricket : sub-continent vs Australia- New Zealand style


Miraz
January 6, 2008, 11:45 AM
"Spirit of Cricket" is one of the mostly used term and administrators believe players should upheld the spirit of cricket for the greater interest of the game.

They are reluctant to introduce more technologies as according to them it's not 100% foolproof and rather depending on the players on the basis of "spirit of cricket" on crucial decision makings.

Now what's spirit of cricket?

Over the last few days we have seen Ross "cheat" Taylor claimed a catch which never carried to him, Matthew "cheat" Sinlair claimed a catch after grassing it and Michael "cheat" Clarke claimed a catch after grassing it which potentially resulted in an Indian loss which could have been a draw.

In all those three occasions umpires relied on players in line of the "spirit of cricket".

On the other hand we see Mohammad Rafiq asks Umar Gul to come back to the crease in the infamous Multan Test without dismissing him when taking off the bell could have been the first Test victory for Bangladesh in opponents soil.

In the same Test Rashid Latif claimed a catch which was never there and was severely penalized for acting against the "spirit of the game".

I am sure nothing will happen to Aussie and Kiwi cheats.

I am citing here the extreme example, I am sure there are other examples.

No what's this spirit of cricket is all about??

To be honest, I am not a big fan of this dubious phrase.

Either you punish them all or simply introduce the technology for controversial decisions.

Miraz
January 6, 2008, 11:50 AM
I think this thread belongs to Bangladesh Cricket, I made a mistake here. Moderators can you please move this thread to Bangladesh Cricket?

Inferno
January 6, 2008, 12:44 PM
My First Reaction: Let the Ozs, the Kiwis and English play cricket with each other and cheat to glory. I believe all the subcontinetal teams should unite (BD, PAK, SL and IND) and boycott these crooks. They still have the old British mentaility that asians are a bunch of poor people and they are doing a big favor by playing with us. They can do whatever atrocity they want against us but not ready to take it back. They still love the divide and rule policy and try to ignite hatred among subcontinental teams. Enough said, you can perhaps do a thesis.

One World
January 6, 2008, 04:02 PM
"Not walking is not cheating. Claiming a catch you know you have not caught cleanly is; the same goes for claiming a bat-pad catch when you know it was nowhere near the edge. The difference is that in one you are leaving the umpire to make his decision, in the other you are openly trying to deceive him"

- That makes Symonds, Clarke and Gilchrist cheaters and in the process Ponting also.

Surfer
January 6, 2008, 04:10 PM
"Not walking is not cheating. Claiming a catch you know you have not caught cleanly is; the same goes for claiming a bat-pad catch when you know it was nowhere near the edge. The difference is that in one you are leaving the umpire to make his decision, in the other you are openly trying to deceive him"

- That makes Symonds, Clarke and Gilchrist cheaters and in the process Ponting also.

You just hit the nail on the head.

Surfer
January 6, 2008, 04:23 PM
My First Reaction: Let the Ozs, the Kiwis and English play cricket with each other and cheat to glory. I believe all the subcontinetal teams should unite (BD, PAK, SL and IND) and boycott these crooks. They still have the old British mentaility that asians are a bunch of poor people and they are doing a big favor by playing with us. They can do whatever atrocity they want against us but not ready to take it back. They still love the divide and rule policy and try to ignite hatred among subcontinental teams. Enough said, you can perhaps do a thesis.

Thats never gonna happen dude....I am just coming from a Pakistani forum and they are all celebrating supporting Australia and the umpiring decisions. We Asians will always keep fighting and losing all the causes.

bharat
January 6, 2008, 04:28 PM
"Not walking is not cheating. Claiming a catch you know you have not caught cleanly is; the same goes for claiming a bat-pad catch when you know it was nowhere near the edge. The difference is that in one you are leaving the umpire to make his decision, in the other you are openly trying to deceive him"

- That makes Symonds, Clarke and Gilchrist cheaters and in the process Ponting also.

You forgot the greatest cheater among all ..mr Pointing.He claimed a catch against Dhoni after grassing it .Luckily for him Mr.Buckoner was not in his elements and gave it not out....as per NZ even before the tour started I cautioned you guys agaisnt them in one of the other threads (without any response from u guys..).

nzfan
January 6, 2008, 04:37 PM
why do you people think New Zealanders are cheaters? we are not you take two examples and class us as cheaters from that, what should i do class your team as crap on the case of them being young

grow up as this really offends me,

sandpiper
January 6, 2008, 04:42 PM
Ross Taylor pretended to take the catch while it was clearly grounded. This is as simple as that. If you saw that incident and still think he is not a cheater, then I have nothing to say on this issue. :-| /:)
why do you people think New Zealanders are cheaters? we are not you take two examples and class us as cheaters from that, what should i do class your team as crap on the case of them being young

grow up as this really offends me,

nzfan
January 6, 2008, 04:44 PM
yeah HE may be a cheater that doesnt mean nEW ZEALAND are cheaters. if you call them cheaters you call me a cheater

Miraz
January 6, 2008, 04:44 PM
why do you people think New Zealanders are cheaters? we are not you take two examples and class us as cheaters from that, what should i do class your team as crap on the case of them being young

grow up as this really offends me,

Nobody is branding New Zealanders as cheaters. You got it wrong.

I have cited two examples where two New Zealand players (read Roos Taylor and Sinclair) didn't act in line of the spirit of cricket.

I can call those incidents as cheating as they claimed catches in controversial fashions knowing the fact that they weren't clean.

nzfan
January 6, 2008, 04:45 PM
Yeah but i have been reading post after post of people claming the team as a bunch of cheaters based on two people, one of which is an Australian!(Matthew Sinclair)

Zunaid
January 6, 2008, 04:48 PM
I can call those incidents as cheating as they claimed catches in controversial fashions knowing the fact that they weren't clean.

Do you know they know they weren't clean?

Miraz
January 6, 2008, 04:50 PM
Do you know they know they weren't clean?

A fielder can easily differentiate the feeling between a ball directly coming into hand and the one which bounces just in front.

I know it from my own experience as a cricketer.

Zunaid
January 6, 2008, 04:50 PM
Nobody is branding New Zealanders as cheaters. You got it wrong.

I have cited two examples where two New Zealand players (read Roos Taylor and Sinclair) didn't act in line of the spirit of cricket.


Perhaps the thread title is misleading then? This becomes and "us vs. them" issue.

Sovik
January 6, 2008, 05:26 PM
i was never a fan of "The Spirit of game" phrase. why wouldn't they use the technology. Its may not be perfect but still the best thing so far.

nobody
January 6, 2008, 11:58 PM
Miraz Vai, you miss another one. In our england tour the "Cheat" Jones with his equally "Cheat Leader Vaughan" claimed a catch which probably ended the career of Nafees Iqbal. It is not between We and They. Include the Pakistanis and Indians also. Shoeib and Tendy was fined for tempering the ball - which is also against the spirit of law.

ialbd
January 7, 2008, 01:12 AM
nzfan, no one is calling newzealanders cheaters (generalising a whole country like that is as foolish as it can be). maybe some of us are getting the words wrong expressing their thoughts. Its like we are shocked to see cricket totally changing from a gentleman's game to a 'its-all-about-deceiving-the-umpire' game.

boycotts and bans and suspensions are never gonna be a permanent solution. The only solution is the proper use of technology (camera, replay, snickometer, hawkeye etc). Umpires giving out wrong decisions, players taking controversial catches all of these are changing the outcome of the game but nothing is being done.

I just hope everyone just writes to ICC about this more than asking for Ponting's punishment, cuz one ponting will keep coming after another. Too bad modern players are not capable of honoring the spirit of the game....

akabir77
January 7, 2008, 11:50 AM
I don't understand if Latif (pak wkt) can be banned for 5 match for taking a grounded catch just like NZ player did why is there no complaint and punishment against him?

Pointing made some one out by giving him self out first (i saw that in one video) same thing he did against aftab in one of the test and no buddy complaint? when did he became the 5th ump?

Miraz
January 7, 2008, 11:57 AM
I don't understand if Latif (pak wkt) can be banned for 5 match for taking a grounded catch just like NZ player did why is there no complaint and punishment against him?

Pointing made some one out by giving him self out first (i saw that in one video) same thing he did against aftab in one of the test and no buddy complaint? when did he became the 5th ump?

I am happy that finally someone could see my point and raised it.

When someone from sub-continent acts against the spirit of cricket , he definbitely gets the punishment but that never happens for Kiwi-Aussie cricketers, not even a single charge is brought.

That's really ridiculous.

al Furqaan
January 7, 2008, 12:32 PM
why do you people think New Zealanders are cheaters? we are not you take two examples and class us as cheaters from that, what should i do class your team as crap on the case of them being young

grow up as this really offends me,

...

al Furqaan
January 7, 2008, 12:36 PM
yeah HE may be a cheater that doesnt mean nEW ZEALAND are cheaters. if you call them cheaters you call me a cheater

that is wrong. even if 100 new zealanders are cheaters it doesn't mean that all are. if anyone said that, they should apologize.

i think by NZders they mean the team only...and not all nationals.

but apologies are in order...

Kabir
January 7, 2008, 12:47 PM
I don't blame NZfan...all he's doing is reacting to what is ACTUALLY being said...he's not making things up...

IMO, the thread title is quite misleading. What does sub-continent mean? Cricket teams from there? Or us fans too?

Miraz
January 7, 2008, 01:21 PM
I don't blame NZfan...all he's doing is reacting to what is ACTUALLY being said...he's not making things up...

IMO, the thread title is quite misleading. What does sub-continent mean? Cricket teams from there? Or us fans too?

Kabir, what is ACTUALLY being said?

Care to explain?

The thread title says about spirit of cricket and the post cites examples where both sub-continent and Aus-NZ players cheated. Where from you are coming into the conclusion that the threat says the whole NZ as cheaters?

Care to explain? Please don't make things up.

Tigers_eye
January 7, 2008, 02:04 PM
Not walking is unethical. Gilchrist walks and Symonds does not. So what would one say about the Australians? Similarly, May be Ross knew that wasn't a catch and he didn't ask the batsmen or his captain to bring him back. But that doesn't make McCullam and others cheat or unethical. We sit here and with the virtue of re-plays call players names even those who may not have seen the incident while fielding. That is not right. Generalizing is not the way to go. If that was the case then I am the biggest cheater, fraud person in the World. Why? Because my country is proud to hold the distinction of being the most corrupted country in the world for few years in a row. Majority cheats in their daily life. Let alone a cricket game.

NZfan,
I am sorry that you got hurt by our comments. My appologies. Nothing is vented towards you. I know you know how we feel from the below par umpiring. Because not so long ago your team visited Australia. Your coaches allegations to me are somewhat true.

Spirit of the game!! Only special people have that. Walsh had it. Ponting doesn't.

Rabz
January 7, 2008, 02:10 PM
but again England is a better country now than then ..as they off-shored their crooks down under.Lucky for England.

Now...that is a really pathetic shot at it.
As you cant take 'em on the field nor you can match thier performance, what you do you comment on things you barely know about and involves you.

Stick it to cricket, and this particular incident, if you must.

Miraz bhai, you title is misleading. There is no us vs them.

If it was so, Australians wouldnt stand to be the country who has helped the most for the growth of Bangladesh cricket. If it was merely us vs them and ensuring the upper hand on cricket politics, we would not have got that "Australian" vote for our test status.

if it is Aus-NZ-Eng belt against us subcontinentals, why is one certain subcontinental team is yet to host us? Why it is NZ bother to host us in thier prime cricketing season?

Again, the incidents you mention, some of them involves between two subcontinental teams.

May be they get away because they are good at bargaining and presenting thier case, unlike us.

tonoy
January 7, 2008, 02:14 PM
Now...that is a really pathetic shot at it.
As you cant take 'em on the field nor you can match thier performance, what you do you comment on things you barely know about and involves you.

Stick it to cricket, and this particular incident, if you must.

Miraz bhai, you title is misleading. There is no us vs them.

If it was so, Australians wouldnt stand to be the country who has helped the most for the growth of Bangladesh cricket. If it was merely us vs them and ensuring the upper hand on cricket politics, we would not have got that "Australian" vote for our test status.

if it is Aus-NZ-Eng belt against us subcontinentals, why is one certain subcontinental team is yet to host us? Why it is NZ bother to host us in thier prime cricketing season?

Again, the incidents you mention, some of them involves between two subcontinental teams.

May be they get away because they are good at bargaining and presenting thier case, unlike us.

Rabz, for president.

akabir77
January 7, 2008, 02:14 PM
...

If it was so, Australians wouldnt stand to be the country who has helped the most for the growth of Bangladesh cricket. If it was merely us vs them and ensuring the upper hand on cricket politics, we would not have got that "Australian" vote for our test status.

...

Please nothing came for free so don't try to play that card. I know you love australia and that's ok but anything blind is bad...

Kabir
January 7, 2008, 02:33 PM
Kabir, what is ACTUALLY being said?

Care to explain?

The thread title says about spirit of cricket and the post cites examples where both sub-continent and Aus-NZ players cheated. Where from you are coming into the conclusion that the threat says the whole NZ as cheaters?

Care to explain? Please don't make things up.

I don't think you read my previous post...but here it is again.

IMO, the thread title is quite misleading. What does sub-continent mean? Cricket teams from there? Or us fans too?

And if that doesn't make any sense, here it is. Let me point out to you what I mean.

Over the last few days we have seen Ross "cheat" Taylor claimed a catch which never carried to him, Matthew "cheat" Sinlair claimed a catch after grassing it and Michael "cheat" Clarke claimed a catch after grassing it which potentially resulted in an Indian loss which could have been a draw.

Nothing wrong here.

On the other hand we see Mohammad Rafiq asks Umar Gul to come back to the crease in the infamous Multan Test without dismissing him when taking off the bell could have been the first Test victory for Bangladesh in opponents soil.

In the same Test Rashid Latif claimed a catch which was never there and was severely penalized for acting against the "spirit of the game".

So, where's the us vs them here? What Rafiq did, you probably wouldn't see that same attitude from many other cricketers in the subcontinent. It's purely the way he plays cricket.

I don't see the point you're trying to make here. And certainly, Rafiq's act and Latif's are very different, and cannot be mixed to make an argument in this scenario.

I am sure nothing will happen to Aussie and Kiwi cheats.

And here, this is what I meant by what is "ACTUALLY" being said. I understand you are referring to the examples cited above, but I don't think you did a good job at referring to the guilty ones here. IMO, this is what threw nzfan off, and I don't see a reason why he shouldn't be offended. And even more, if you refer to this part and the title, you will get a very different meaning out of it.

If I were you, I would've formulated it differently. For example:
"I am sure nothing will happen to the cheats when they belong to a more powerful side...such as Aussies and Kiwis".

The title is misleading...and there's nothing wrong in saying that.

Beamer
January 7, 2008, 02:40 PM
A fielder can easily differentiate the feeling between a ball directly coming into hand and the one which bounces just in front.

I know it from my own experience as a cricketer.

Without a smidgen of doubt, the fielder knows when he catches one and when he grasses one to claim a catch..

Beamer
January 7, 2008, 02:43 PM
The same rulers of cricket actually changed the bouncer rule per over to avoid body/mind blows from the West Indian bowlers. It started a while ago..

Miraz
January 7, 2008, 02:59 PM
Kabir, unfortunately I could not buy your logic, you are trying to point out the phrasing of a sentence and ending up saying that the title is misleading.

I am sorry to say that you failed to understand the whole point of this thread.

Kabir
January 7, 2008, 03:11 PM
Miraz bhai,

It's quite simple. You started off with individual players and their issues. You ended with "Australian and NZ cheats". I don't think I need to point to the title now.

If you didn't understand what I've said, it's all right. You don't have to buy into my logic. But you should be able to see how you failed to provide the logic here.

BANFAN
January 7, 2008, 03:29 PM
Kabir Jan, Don't mind, I was not mislead. I thought it is ok. The conclusion/suggestion/opinion (last sentense) was probably misleading to you. Infact the last sentence is very strong, conspicuous and so sudden that it might seem to be different. But that also comes naturally at the end of dealing with the topic.

AsifTheManRahman
January 7, 2008, 03:57 PM
I'll make a bold statement here: I don't blame the Aussies for what they've done. I think many people are singling them out because given a similar situation, any other team in the world (barring very few individuals) would've done the same. Batsmen don't want to walk off and fielders don't want half chances to slip. All blame goes to the umpires, who have been pretty ordinary IMO.

You can't really blame the Aussie players because most of the decisions were pretty close or at least seemed so in real time, which always gives them the option of getting away with it by claiming that they weren't sure. Now I'm not claiming that they were, but even if they were, they have this loop hole to their advantage. They have a right to ask a question and stand their grounds after edging one to the slips - it's up to the umpires to make the final call, and in this case they did a Bangladesh by refusing to learn from their mistakes and call for the third umpire on several occasions. India were unlucky, but they only have the umpires to blame.

As for Latif, that guy literally dropped the ball and picked it up from the ground after a split second. It wasn't even half a chance, and he should have been banned.

By the way, cricket is not a gentleman's game. That would be the 50's. Sport has changed and so has cricket. There's no point in expecting players nowadays to show the same spirit that they used to 50 years ago. That's what the law enforcement team aka the umpires and referees get paid for.

Spitfire_x86
January 7, 2008, 04:25 PM
I didn't see Ross Taylor / Sinclair / Clarke catches, but from the description it seems that those catches dropped short very marginally before the fielder caught it. This can be referred as plain umpiring issue, just like the LBW appeals. The fielder may have thought he caught it cleanly, or may not be completely sure. It's nothing new, I first saw such thing in this match (http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/66077.html) where Rhodes took a similar "catch" to dismiss Tendulkar. The umpires are to blame in such cases for not referring the catch to 3rd umpire. IMO, the umpire should take the fielder's word for granted only if he says he didn't catch cleanly. To give a batsman out, it should be doubtlessly proved that the he indeed was out.

Do you call bowlers / fielders "cheat" when they appeal for LBW, and get one wrong decision in their favor? The same case here with those dubious "catches". The way this situation is currently being being handled should be blamed. How many of you called our players "cheat" when they got an LBW decision in their favor even though TV replays showed the batsman was not out?

The Latif case was unique. He dropped the ball from good height, he picked it again and celebrated as if he caught it cleanly. Because neither the on-field umpires, nor our batsmen saw it, it was given out. The slip fielded was clearly surprised by Latif's act, but joined the celebration as Latif picked up the ball from ground and claimed catch. I highly doubt anybody ever saw such thing since TV replay was introduced or will ever see similar thing again. If Gibbs got away with picking the ball from ground after he dropped Steve Waugh in the 1999 WC match (in case it avoided the umpire and batsman's eye), that would be comparable to the Latif case.

This thread is just another thread where emotion and voice of majority rules over logic and reasoning.

tonoy
January 7, 2008, 04:29 PM
Thank you asif and spitty. That is exactly how I felt. I just dont understand the us and them mentality we got here. Infact, love him or hate him, Ponting is adorned by his teammates and is a natural leader. We would be more than lucky to get someone with his type of mentality and aggressiveness. He definately brings the right approach towards a game.

BANFAN
January 7, 2008, 04:49 PM
I'll make a bold statement here: I don't blame the Aussies for what they've done. I think many people are singling them out because given a similar situation, any other team in the world (barring very few individuals) would've done the same. Batsmen don't want to walk off and fielders don't want half chances to slip. All blame goes to the umpires, who have been pretty ordinary IMO.

You can't really blame the Aussie players because most of the decisions were pretty close or at least seemed so in real time, which always gives them the option of getting away with it by claiming that they weren't sure. Now I'm not claiming that they were, but even if they were, they have this loop hole to their advantage. They have a right to ask a question and stand their grounds after edging one to the slips - it's up to the umpires to make the final call, and in this case they did a Bangladesh by refusing to learn from their mistakes and call for the third umpire on several occasions. India were unlucky, but they only have the umpires to blame.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, cricket is not a gentleman's game. That would be the 50's. Sport has changed and so has cricket. There's no point in expecting players nowadays to show the same spirit that they used to 50 years ago. That's what the law enforcement team aka the umpires and referees get paid for.

You are so right. One can earn respect by acting like Rafique, but you can't condemn someone for wrong appealing, it's purely umpiring fault.

In the Ind/Aus match, the umpire even didn't bother to consult the sq leg umpire, instead he asked ponting and took his word, that was poor and arrogance.

"Either you punish them all or simply introduce the technology for controversial decisions." is the solution IMO.

akabir77
January 7, 2008, 05:08 PM
well i see a lot of supporters of aussiess but i fail to see why they r so proud? So if you try to defend your cheaters you are a big hero now?

Lets not forget they did this stuff with us NUMBER 9 in the test ranking team.

As much as i hate to go with india here i think they r right and Aussies should know that this has to stop.

Like steve wagh said calling monkey in our part is not a big deal. Show me a signle person who grew up in S. asia didn't get that from their teachers let alone from friends and parents?

So if its not a raciest comment in S aisa how can it be a racist comment said by an asain? and who decides which is within the line? what ever aussies, brits and those rich country says r within the line and what ever we S asian says is over?

Shaan
January 7, 2008, 05:37 PM
Just got a mail from a friend and this is what he forwarded to me, so thought to share with you guys :))

After watching the test match, someone has written some rules have to be incorporated by ICC to give the other teams a perfect clarification

(1)Ricky Ponting – (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED) should be considered as the FOURTH UMPIRE. As per the new rules, FOURTH UMPIRE decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. ON-FIELD umpires can seek the assistance of RICKY PONTING even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the FOURTH UMPIRE.

(2)While AUSTRALIAN TEAM is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance), the batsman is to be considered OUT irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the FOURTH UMPIRE. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with SPORTIVE SPIRIT by all the teams.

(3)While BATTING, AUSTRALIAN players will wait for the ON-FIELD UMPIRE decisions only (even if the catch goes to the FIFTH SLIP as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each AUSTRALIAN batsman has to be out FOUR TIMES (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY, this can be higher.

(4)UMPIRES should consider a huge bonus if an AUSTRALIAN player scores a century. Any wrong decisions can be ignored as they will be paid huge bonus and will receive the backing of the AUSTRALIAN team and board.

(5)All AUSTRALIAN players are eligible to keep commenting about all players on the field and the OPPONENT TEAM should never comment as they will be spoiling the spirit of the AUSTRALIAN team. Any comments made in any other language are to be considered as RAC ISM only.

(6)MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advice only. Player views from the other teams decisions will not be considered for hearing. MATCH REFREES are to be given huge bonus if this rule is implemented.

(7)NO VISITING TEAM should plan to win in AUSTRALIA. This is to ensure that the sportive spirit of CRICKET is maintained.

(8)THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: If any bowler gets RICKY PONTING - "THE UNDISPUTED CRICKETER WITH INTEGTIRY IN THE GAME OF CRICKET" more than twice in a series, he will be banned for the REST OF THE SERIES. This is to ensure that the best batsman/Captain will be played to break records and create history in the game of CRICKET.

These rules will clarify better to the all the teams VISITING AUSTRALIA.

pocha
January 7, 2008, 05:49 PM
Just got a mail from a friend and this is what he forwarded to me, so thought to share with you guys :))

After watching the test match, someone has written some rules have to be incorporated by ICC to give the other teams a perfect clarification

(1)Ricky Ponting – (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED) should be considered as the FOURTH UMPIRE. As per the new rules, FOURTH UMPIRE decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. ON-FIELD umpires can seek the assistance of RICKY PONTING even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the FOURTH UMPIRE.

(2)While AUSTRALIAN TEAM is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance), the batsman is to be considered OUT irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the FOURTH UMPIRE. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with SPORTIVE SPIRIT by all the teams.

(3)While BATTING, AUSTRALIAN players will wait for the ON-FIELD UMPIRE decisions only (even if the catch goes to the FIFTH SLIP as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each AUSTRALIAN batsman has to be out FOUR TIMES (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY, this can be higher.

(4)UMPIRES should consider a huge bonus if an AUSTRALIAN player scores a century. Any wrong decisions can be ignored as they will be paid huge bonus and will receive the backing of the AUSTRALIAN team and board.

(5)All AUSTRALIAN players are eligible to keep commenting about all players on the field and the OPPONENT TEAM should never comment as they will be spoiling the spirit of the AUSTRALIAN team. Any comments made in any other language are to be considered as RAC ISM only.

(6)MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advice only. Player views from the other teams decisions will not be considered for hearing. MATCH REFREES are to be given huge bonus if this rule is implemented.

(7)NO VISITING TEAM should plan to win in AUSTRALIA. This is to ensure that the sportive spirit of CRICKET is maintained.

(8)THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: If any bowler gets RICKY PONTING - "THE UNDISPUTED CRICKETER WITH INTEGTIRY IN THE GAME OF CRICKET" more than twice in a series, he will be banned for the REST OF THE SERIES. This is to ensure that the best batsman/Captain will be played to break records and create history in the game of CRICKET.

These rules will clarify better to the all the teams VISITING AUSTRALIA.

Ponting should be made the President of America! Only he can challenge Bush !:notworthy:

BangladeshFan
January 7, 2008, 07:27 PM
I didn't see Ross Taylor / Sinclair / Clarke catches, but from the description it seems that those catches dropped short very marginally before the fielder caught it. This can be referred as plain umpiring issue, just like the LBW appeals. The fielder may have thought he caught it cleanly, or may not be completely sure. It's nothing new, I first saw such thing in this match (http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/66077.html) where Rhodes took a similar "catch" to dismiss Tendulkar. The umpires are to blame in such cases for not referring the catch to 3rd umpire. IMO, the umpire should take the fielder's word for granted only if he says he didn't catch cleanly. To give a batsman out, it should be doubtlessly proved that the he indeed was out.

Do you call bowlers / fielders "cheat" when they appeal for LBW, and get one wrong decision in their favor? The same case here with those dubious "catches". The way this situation is currently being being handled should be blamed. How many of you called our players "cheat" when they got an LBW decision in their favor even though TV replays showed the batsman was not out?

The Latif case was unique. He dropped the ball from good height, he picked it again and celebrated as if he caught it cleanly. Because neither the on-field umpires, nor our batsmen saw it, it was given out. The slip fielded was clearly surprised by Latif's act, but joined the celebration as Latif picked up the ball from ground and claimed catch. I highly doubt anybody ever saw such thing since TV replay was introduced or will ever see similar thing again. If Gibbs got away with picking the ball from ground after he dropped Steve Waugh in the 1999 WC match (in case it avoided the umpire and batsman's eye), that would be comparable to the Latif case.

This thread is just another thread where emotion and voice of majority rules over logic and reasoning.

the fielder knows when he catches the ball, just like a batsman knows when he nicks the ball behind (and almost always he will look behind quickly). and i think thats true even for the slightest of edges or closest to the ground catches. lbw is a different thing, neither the batsman, bowler or umpire can be sure about it.

I agree with you on that the batsman should only be given out if it is doubtlessly proven. And there should be more technology assisting the umpires not fielders/captain's word.

BD Tigers
January 7, 2008, 09:34 PM
One of the NFL (american football) coach always says "You play to WIN the game" and that's what Aussie always does. Doesnt matter they play with No. 2 or No.9 team. They always play hard and I respect that. Sometimes they get on your nerve but that comes with the game. The umpires made the blunder not the players.

Beamer
January 7, 2008, 10:20 PM
Spitfire

I like your points.

cricket_king
January 8, 2008, 12:13 AM
I'll make a bold statement here: I don't blame the Aussies for what they've done. I think many people are singling them out because given a similar situation, any other team in the world (barring very few individuals) would've done the same. Batsmen don't want to walk off and fielders don't want half chances to slip. All blame goes to the umpires, who have been pretty ordinary IMO.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Brings us back to the point that umpires are not required in cricket any longer. A simple replacement would be referees who can keep the players behaving. Why have all this new technology if they aren't going to be used? They certainly should not only be there as entertainment for people watching at home.

Tigers_eye
January 8, 2008, 12:39 AM
...Why have all this new technology if they aren't going to be used? They certainly should not only be there as entertainment for people watching at home.
Because Technology can be manipulated very easily. A bribe, betting or self interest of the technological companies can change the outcome of the game. One case point I would like to share is UV's out in the first test (the one he didn't wanted to leave). The camera crew showed the may be 7 or 8 times and which confirmed that there was a gap between the ball and bat. The commentators were like hmmm!! No sicco meter was shown at that time. However, after 30 minutes (if I remember there was a break) while the play resumed that sicco meter recorded a knock. What the hell ??? Then the commentators were making UV as a cheat. To manipulate tech it takes may be a minute and cheat. NZ coach had questioned tech manipulation.

Standard of Umpiring needs to increase. May be add another umpire in the field. Both sides of the batsman batting. Another set of eyes can help.

Eshen
January 8, 2008, 01:04 AM
NZC arranged a charity match for hurricane victims in Bangladesh and in return we call them a bunch of cheaters ! It's sad.

cricket_king
January 8, 2008, 02:26 AM
Because Technology can be manipulated very easily. A bribe, betting or self interest of the technological companies can change the outcome of the game. One case point I would like to share is UV's out in the first test (the one he didn't wanted to leave). The camera crew showed the may be 7 or 8 times and which confirmed that there was a gap between the ball and bat. The commentators were like hmmm!! No sicco meter was shown at that time. However, after 30 minutes (if I remember there was a break) while the play resumed that sicco meter recorded a knock. What the hell ??? Then the commentators were making UV as a cheat. To manipulate tech it takes may be a minute and cheat. NZ coach had questioned tech manipulation.

Standard of Umpiring needs to increase. May be add another umpire in the field. Both sides of the batsman batting. Another set of eyes can help.

I don't have a clue of what you have said just there. I'm guessing you're referring to "snicko" as the technology in use, but I don't remember seeing snicko coming into play and picking up a nick for that Yuvraj decision. And I doubt the commentators can just make a piece of technology such as snicko malfunction in such a way.

As for umpires? No more umpires. This should be the end of umpires for good. Another set of eyes simply "helping" should not be tolerated any longer. Umpires have to go.

BANFAN
January 8, 2008, 05:04 AM
well i see a lot of supporters of aussiess but i fail to see why they r so proud? So if you try to defend your cheaters you are a big hero now?

Lets not forget they did this stuff with us NUMBER 9 in the test ranking team.

As much as i hate to go with india here i think they r right and Aussies should know that this has to stop.

Like steve wagh said calling monkey in our part is not a big deal. Show me a signle person who grew up in S. asia didn't get that from their teachers let alone from friends and parents?

So if its not a raciest comment in S aisa how can it be a racist comment said by an asain? and who decides which is within the line? what ever aussies, brits and those rich country says r within the line and what ever we S asian says is over?

That's sledging you are talking about. I am completely with india with this issue. The aussies do it the most and they victimized Harbhajan. Though the verdict smells rascism, but it is also a part of aussie strategy to victimize the best bowler of the opponent, any way they can. it happened with many asian players Murali, shoaib, harbhajan etc

nahaz
January 8, 2008, 05:36 AM
Firstly I wanna say..don't say Aussies or Kiwis are cheaters. Sounds like u just hate the two countries, and not just it's cricketers. I nicked a ball a few weeks ago and umpire said not out. Fielders asked me but I just gave them a smile. I think I cheated, but it was too hard for me to sacrifice my wicket.I felt guilty but didn't walk. This was the umpire's fault I'd say. However if I caught a ball and grassed it but noone else saw it I'd have to own up since I'm the only one who knows..If a fielder cheats noone can stop them ,hence they shouldn't. So I was appalled at how Ponting was eyeballing the umpire for the NO decision after he clearly grassed it.with racism issue Harbajan deserved to be punished given Symonds was taunted by the same remark b4..however a suspended ban would prob have been more appropriate.This ban could could have prob helped scare the Aussies too against any appalling comments on-field. I feel ashamed by their conduct.I think the whole thing was a follow-up from the India tour.

Miraz
January 8, 2008, 05:45 AM
NZC arranged a charity match for hurricane victims in Bangladesh and in return we call them a bunch of cheaters ! It's sad.

This is an unfortunate generalization.

Nobody is calling them of bunch of cheaters, but two of their players didn't act within the spirit of cricket and probably cheated. Plain and simple.

Please don't bring the charity stuff here, it has no relation with how cricket is being played or how it should be played.

No charges are brought for their unethical act and that's what surprises me and hurts me as well.

nahaz
January 8, 2008, 05:55 AM
Hey was it really obvious that they cheated? Did the batsmen know?(I didn't see the match so I'm asking.) If they did, they should have asked the fielder on the spot. And here's sth to sledge them with while batting in the next test. I see it as an opportunity:-)

Miraz
January 8, 2008, 06:21 AM
Hey was it really obvious that they cheated? Did the batsmen know?(I didn't see the match so I'm asking.) If they did, they should have asked the fielder on the spot. And here's sth to sledge them with while batting in the next test. I see it as an opportunity:-)

There is nothing to do with the batsman here still Ashraful stood to his ground by shaking heads and was shown the pavilion by the raising fingers of the umpire.

He was convinced that the ball didn't carry. In case of Bashar I didn't see the action and can't say whether he walked away immediately or raised his concern.

sandpiper
January 9, 2008, 05:52 PM
Australia approach wins backing

Cricket Australia has defended Ricky Ponting's team, insisting they play "hard but fair", following mounting criticism of their on-field behaviour.

India accused the Aussies of lacking sportmanship in the second Test.

But CA chief executive James Sutherland said: "The team are not perfect but get it right a lot more than they used to. It's Test cricket, not tiddly winks."

And South Africa Test batsman Boeta Dippenaar said: "They always test you but what happens is nothing untoward."

He told BBC Sport: "I haven't found the Australians to be abusive towards me at all.

"It's more a question that they know they can unsettle. They got under the skin of someone like Herschelle Gibbs and it worked well for them because he got involved with it.

"There was nothing personal or untoward said, except they tried from a cricketing point of view to get under his skin and unsettle him, and they managed to do that well."

Dippenaar was backed by former Australia opener Justin Langer, who told the BBC he felt the team had not overstepped the mark with their behaviour on the field.

"Australian cricket, and Australian sports people in general, play very hard. And certainly in terms of the cricket team, it has been a vital ingredient in their extra-ordinary success," he said. "My personal view is that the players are not going too far. The guys play tough and have been brought up that way."

Australia's centrally contracted players released a document in 2003 called 'The Players' Spirit of Australian Cricket' in which they said they would "Play our cricket hard but fair and...not condone or engage in sledging or any other conduct that constitutes personal abuse".

And Sutherland insisted criticism over how aggressively the Australians play the game was "inappropriate".

He added: "It's a tough game and from time to time emotions will boil over. Perhaps some of the words said would not be acceptable in gentle company but they are said and that is what happens."

Dippenaar says Australia are not the only team to engage in verbal warfare or mind games on the field, and believes countries like India object because it is not a natural approach for them.

The 30-year-old also feels it is difficult to clamp down on sledging.

"I don't think it's uncommon but I've generally found the Asian nations have been more soft-spoken on the field," he explained.

"The western nations have always been a bit more verbal. Indian or subcontinental teams have always got on with the game.

"I tend to agree with Mark Taylor's statement that you must be careful about complaining about things you actually practice at times.

"The question will always be what is the acceptable level? Some feel the boundary can be pushed further than other people.

"It is unfortunately a very subjective matter and it's very difficult to pinpoint to an exact stage what is it that is too far."

Cricket's governing body, the International Cricket Council, has appointed chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle to act as a mediator between Ponting and Kumble in an attempt to end the ill-feeling.

Sutherland, who revealed Ponting had made an offer immediately after the end of the second Test to meet with Kumble, said he was "confident" the captains could reconcile any differences.

Ponting has come in for personal criticism, with calls made in Australia for him to resign.

But Langer feels things will calm down and has backed his former skipper.

"The dust will settle quickly. The Australian players and the Indian players get on so well," he said.

"Adam Gilchrist and Rahul Dravid, for example, are really good mates. Anil Kumble is one of the gentlemen of the game - as are Sachin Tendulkar, Brett Lee and Matthew Hayden.

"And Ricky Ponting, who I know is coming in for a lot of criticism at the moment, is one of the most humble and honest people, let alone cricketers or captains, I have ever come across."

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7178634.stm

Zunaid
January 9, 2008, 11:51 PM
This is an unfortunate generalization.

Nobody is calling them of bunch of cheaters, but two of their players didn't act within the spirit of cricket and probably cheated. Plain and simple.

Please don't bring the charity stuff here, it has no relation with how cricket is being played or how it should be played.

No charges are brought for their unethical act and that's what surprises me and hurts me as well.

No it is not - re generalization.

A significant bunch here has extrapolated from these incidents to brand whole peoples as cheats. This has happened to us "sub-continental" and some us are now returning the "favor".

If our own house is not in order, how can I ask for someone to clean theirs?

kalpurush
January 10, 2008, 12:11 AM
Thank you asif and spitty. That is exactly how I felt. I just dont understand the us and them mentality we got here. Infact, love him or hate him, Ponting is adorned by his teammates and is a natural leader. We would be more than lucky to get someone with his type of mentality and aggressiveness. He definately brings the right approach towards a game.
:confused::confused::confused:

lamisa
January 10, 2008, 03:26 AM
Thats never gonna happen dude....I am just coming from a Pakistani forum and they are all celebrating supporting Australia and the umpiring decisions. We Asians will always keep fighting and losing all the causes.

could i have the name of the forum please?

BD-Shardul
January 10, 2008, 04:34 AM
I will be really happy if our cricketers take SPIRIT from our lone test victory against ZIM before the second test against kiwis. :(