In Sydney Anil Kumble rehashed the old Bill Woodford quote about one side playing cricket.
Amongst the many things he was mentioning was Australia’s policy of claiming any catch where the ball ends up in someone’s hand.
This is the same man who appeals for wickets that on occasion he would know could not be out.
And I don’t blame him, so would I.
But why can bowlers appeal for wickets that they know are not out, and we just brush them off, and fielders can hold aloft dodgy catches and they are vilified like they just sodomized a queen.
Both players are appealing for wickets that they know are not out.
In the current test AB claimed a catch that had a bit of grass on it.
When South Africa batted, the English team appealed for an LBW for Amla that may not have hit a 7th stump.
The wicket keeper, even one as rubbish as Tim Ambrose, would have known one hundred percent it was not out.
The next day Monty appealed for an LBW where the ball hit the pad outside off and was spinning further away from off.
Monty may not have known it hit the batsman just outside the line, but he knew it was a orthodox ball, that was spinning away from the stumps, and could not have possibly hit the stumps.
No one calls him a cheat, no one bags him.
The games just goes on.
AB is booed and trashed.
Why?
Is there a difference between a fielding team appealing for a decision they know isn’t out, and a fielder doing the same?
Cricket is a game of appealing.
I wonder how many bowlers have never appealed for wickets they don’t believe are out.
I’d say less than 10%, but how many of them are known as cheats?
If a fielder does it once in a career, they can be branded cheats forever.
Seems a bit odd, and remember this is a bowler writing this, one who has appealed for all sorts of things, and even didn’t call back a batsman who was given out bowled, when the ball obviously rebounded off the keeper.
And please don’t say, but the fielder knows he didn’t catch it, where as the bowler is unsure, bowlers may think most of the time they appeal it’s out, but there are more than one an innings that they know aren’t out.
I never appealed for wickets I didn’t think were out, but that’s because I was a silly and naive bowler. Also when I finally did get an LBW to go my way, I was as shocked as anyone because it was a first.And I haven’t seen the AB incident but there has to be a definition between appealing and celebrating the wicket. I hate to say it, but Adam Gilchrist rarely appealed, he just celebrated, especially for stumpings.
A slight variation on your ‘don’t say…’. An appeal is just that — an appeal. Claiming a catch is saying that something has happened.That said a lot of bowlers do appeal knowing that if it had been given out then it would be a mistake.
Rob, You still have to appeal a claimed catch.
jrod, you’re being too logical here. Since when was cricket ever logical? It’s a game of strategies and tactics, and players use appealing as an tactical move, whether they believe it or not. It’s the way you go about it, not how it is. It’s got not much to do with being decent or rational blokes, old chap.
The difference is that for an LBW or a nick, the umpire is best placed to make an assesment of out or not out, and hence is a decision best left to the umpires. For a dodgy catch on the other hand, the umpire is only as well-placed as anyone else on the field. There may be an argument that a fielder has a “moral obligation” to help the umpire out, by not appealing wrongfully.
John, I would argue for caught behinds and for LBW’s the keeper is quite often in the best position, and they appeal regardless.
i do agree with rusty, that a fielder is as much of a non-cheat as the bowler.that said, i am a fielder in close positions, and there have been times, when i as a fielder have appealed for a catch, that i thought was clean, but everyone including the ones on my team, thought there was a bump.you may argue, that may be i was being blind, but the fact is that when the fielder takes a position to catch, the mind is focussed on the judging the place where the ball will land.if the ball does bump and land in the hands, the mind refuses to believe that, since it was prepared for a clean catch.technology is best placed to judge this one.
I’ve seen so many dubious appeals for LBW from Panesar now that I wonder if he actually understands that a batsmen isn’t automatically out if the ball touches his pad.
I don’t know of any clear principle which makes appealing for obvious not-outs OK and knowingly appealing for non-catches blatant cheating.But I know that that the latter is blatant cheating. A couple of irrelevant asides:The fielder doesn’t always know if it’s a catch or not. I saw Greg Blewett once say that he didn’t catch a ball and the replay showed that it never got near the ground. I was playing in my low level of cricket one day and had dropped two catches. The bowler persisted, and on the third occasion I did manage to tumble forward and juggle a catch, but I did catch it. The batsman stood his ground and didn’t take my word for it. I was offended, though I could see where he was coming from. He eventually left the field.
Allpaddedup, I see now that I made a similar point to yours. But I STRONGLY disagree that technology is the way to go on low catches. Cameras are hopeless at them, with loads of fair catches being ruled not out.
DB, if a fielder doesn’t always know its a catch, then surely they are in a similar place to the rest of the fielders, and that means they are less likely to be cheats, doesn’t it?APU, the main problem with technology, is that at the moment there are no definitive ways of telling what is a catch and what is not.
JRod, saying that a wicketkeeper (along with the umpire) is best placed to make a judgment on LBWs and nicks is quite different from saying the umpire is not in a good place to make a judgment.
John, what i’m saying though, is that wicket keeper sometimes would know 100% something isn’t out, it wont stop them appealing. But they are not looked at as cheats.
That is okay, because the wicketkeeper knows that the umpire (one of 2 best placed men on the field)can do the job that he gets paid to do. For a dodgy catch, it is asking too much to let the umpire (one of fourteen people who dont have a clue) to make that decision.This does not explain the ‘cheat’ fixation, but tells you something about how as cricket viewers, we’re wired into the umpires’ predicaments.
Great discussion. I have a feeling it’s one of cricket great unresolvables (maybe kind of like playing against the Invincibles, futile but necessary).Do any of you know when the definition of “fair catch” changed? Wasn’t it once a requirement that your hands didn’t touch the ground?
John, i think keepers and all players appeal all the time because they know people wont call them cheats.
Actually, thats not a Bill Ponsford quote, its Bill Woodfull.
Jrod, I agree that since fielders don’t always know if it’s a catch, it’s wrong to always accuse them of cheating if they claim it and the replays show a clear bounce. But if they do know that they didn’t catch it cleanly, and still appeal, then it’s cheating and they deserve a suspension for it.And sometimes fielders do knowingly appeal for catches they know they didn’t take. There was that wicket-keeper a few months ago, for instance (sorry, can’t remember who).I don’t know if de Villiers knew or not. But I’d have joined the booing if I’d been in the crowd.
dcsiva…i agree. how do we define a fair catch?(i am speaking mainly of catches given not-out by the third umpire because of doubt, not having seen AB’s ‘catch’)where is the line drawn?does the ground start at the top of the grass or the bottom?wherever the line is drawn, there is always doubt… in the fielder’s mind, in the umpires’you just have to accept that technology is rubbish at this and people make mistakesand every one blabs on about cheating until someone in their side does ityou’re spot on jrodwhere’s the petition to put you on the ICC panel when the next scapegoat is put out to pasture?
Do any of you know when the definition of “fair catch” changed? Wasn’t it once a requirement that your hands didn’t touch the ground?I can’t find any reference to this in the old versions of the Laws – it just refers to the ball not touching the ground. I don’t know how it was interpreted.The clarification (that the hands may be touching the ground while taking a catch) was added in 1947.
Samir, well spotted, too many Bills from that era.DB, If a fielder can know it’s not a catch and be a cheat, and a bowler or fielding side can appeal knowing something is not out, then they are also cheats and should be thrown out as well. MP, ICC panel, hmmmmmmm…
this is great, just sorry I am so late opening it up.Jrod, interesting thought that all fielders and especially the keeper and bowler are cheats just for asking the question. Even tho it is their right, I was often amazed how the bloke at fine leg or 3rd mad could appeal for LBW. They were obviously cheats. As a bowler I always knew it was out when I appealed. ALWAYS, even when the Ump did not so if I got one that just maybe perhaps might not quite have been out, stiff shit. The Batsman was a tosser anyway. But seriously, if the fieldsmen are not sure and the Umps are not sure, it’s NOT OUT. There is about as much need for the third umpire as there is for Tony Gr