The umpiring decisions and the racism slur against Harbajan was bad enough, but what has incensed every cricket lover is that Ponting's boorish behaviour right through the match went unnoticed by the so called authorities.
His response to being given out by Benson in the first innings was worse than that of Yuvraj in the previous test, and yet it was Yuvraj who was called for a hearing by the match refree.
Then at the start of India's innings (in the second over before lunch) there was an appeal for LBW against Dravid and one should have seen Ponting's expression when it was turned down.
Ofcourse, his behaviour after claiming a catch which he had actually grounded is well documented. The final straw was his putting his finger up to declare that Clarke had taken the catch and Ganguly was out. There was no need for Benson to then put his own finger up. He could have sinply asked Ponting to stand in his place and carried forth the proceedings and the match could have ended much earlier. Is Cricket Australia and the ICC in denial? Did they not see all this? Or is this what they mean by 'Australia playing tough and fair game' I am sure, if requested, Star Cricket would put forward the highlights of Ponting's behaviour - it makes for ugly viewing.
RE:Sidney Test
by on Jan 08, 2008 09:45 PM Permalink
After Yuvraj was CLEARED by Proctor on the basis that he was SHOCKED by the decision, not showing dissent (which I believe was incorrect by Proctor), there is no basis upon which Ponting or anyone else could be cited for a hearing. End of story.
As for his catch and Clarke's catch - again read my comment analysing the rules, Latif's "catch", Ponting's "catch" and the differences.
On the umpiring front - Kumble agreed with Ponting that if there was a dispute, the fielder and the captain's word was final. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT WAS TO AVOID ENDLESS REFERRALS TO THE THIRD UMPIRE. Ponting is the one who has been pushing this for 2 years now.
Ponting went to Clarke, Clarke stated that he believed he caught it, and Benson, knowing that this agreement was in place, asked the fielding team's captain for confirmation, which Ponting gave. If you've played cricket at any decent level, you will know that if there is doubt like that on a catch and the umpire asks for the fielding captain's final word, the universal signal from the captain is to put the finger up to indicate "out".
Again, separate the emotion from the facts and then analyse. Or reverse the facts - if Jaffer had dived forward at gully, Kumble would have been the man putting his finger up and Benson would have been the one following.
RE:Sidney Test
by Mohit Jain on Jan 08, 2008 09:49 PM Permalink
I agree with you on this Micheal. However, I think Kumble erred on agreeing to this as he did not know that Ricky and his team would even lie to win, lest cheat. But yes, India should not raise hell on this one. We called it upon ourselves the moment we agreed to it.
RE:Sidney Test
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 09:53 PM Permalink
If you've played cricket at any decent level, you will know that if there is doubt like that on a catch you'd have to admit that its not taken cleanly. if i were in micheal clarke's place i'd say 50-50 instead of out. :p what crap.
