Is it only me that doesnt think that the Strauss ball didnt carry?

whats ritchie benaud on about

how can he tell that he has succesfully caught that ball from where we can see it had bound to touch floor whats is going onnnnnnnn 57-4 surely not surely

 

Looks grounded to me an all.

He's an Aussie you know.

 

Me too.

Tried to look at it objectively and the there's no way that ball wasn't on the grass.

Still ne' mind eh?

 

Question regarding fielding

Is there any restriction as to how near the fielders can stand to the batsman.

Are they allowed to stand inside the crease?
Can the stand on the batting track?



TIA
Stephen

 

I'd probably have said he didn't catch it cleanly a while ago, but having watched a large amount of cricket both live and on TV and seeing a number of those decisions, I'd say he got his fingers under it and caught it.

 

RE: Question regarding fielding

I don't think they can stand on the wicket.

The crease in theory goes all the way to the boundary, but the fielders can't stand in the crease that's on the wicket.

 

I would say it carried and its fair to say that he had the ball under control but if it wa England wouldn't everyone be saying that it did carry?

 

RE: whats ritchie benaud on about

wouldn,t argue with richie benaud best sports commentator theres ever been.

 

It hit the ground. I think the commentators realised that on second viewing.

 

Tough call with grainy images..

..but it hit the ground before he caught it IMHO

Not to worry though it made for a BFC type go to the wire when its not needed type finale.

Credit to aussie bowlers though..never gave up.

Cant wait for the 5th...and I largely find cricket tedious

 

RE: Tough call with grainy images..

Warne - arrogant git, but hates losing. You have to respect the guy.

 

RE: Question regarding fielding

Could they stand between the umpire and the stumps at the non-striker's end?

 

RE: Question regarding fielding

How could the umpire see what was going on then?!

 

I presume you didn't see the later slo-mo images Roundsie??

They appeared to prove that the catch was clean - JUST!!

Besides, even if it wasn't - it only makes up for the (non)dismissals of Ponting (first innings) and Katich in the second!! The umpires gave the decisions and the records show that all 3 were out, so we have to live with it, even though replays showed that the two Ozzies weren't out.

The technology currently being used (pioneered by SKY incidentally and NOT Channel 4 as is being stated in the current satellite/terrestrial coverage debate) is fantastic though, and imho should be used more in the game. The replay of the Lee 'run out' yesterday where Jones hadn't even got the ball in his gloves was a case in point.

As for Warney - big-headed he may be, but he's a fighter in the Flintoff mould, he's a class cricketer and despite his age, he'd walk straight into the England team simply because we haven't got anybody close to his abilities.

 

RE: I presume you didn't see the later slo-mo images Roundsie??

Can't argue with that, but I still disagree about the catch being clean.It's interesting to note that the lbw which the umpire disallowed in the Jones/Lee run out miss was proved to be plum. It's not just the Aussies getting bad calls.