Momtezuma Tuatara
02-02-09, 10:41 AM
and knowing what I know about cricket, which is extensive, as I've scored to a very high level,... I'm totally gobsmacked at Pontings defence of Haddin today.
As far as I'm concerned Neil Broom was dismissed illegally.
1) it's illegal for a keeper to have their hands in front of the wicket when a bowler bowls a ball.
2) Therefore Haddin broke the primary rule which is ingrained into a keeper from day one.
3) His gloves, which were illegally in front of the wicket, contacted the stumps, dislodging the bails, which he allowed everyone to interpret as the ball contacting the bail. He had to know...
4) Wicketkeeper commentators all said that a wicketkeeper feels even a brush against the stumps. Haddin stood there, and looked down on the stumps and then went over, sheepishly, to join the Australian huddle...
5) It therefore defies experience and logic for Haddin to claim that the dismissal was legal, on two counts: his hands were where they shouldn't have been and according to other keepers he would have felt his gloves contact the stumps. As Vettori said afterwards, it was obvious to the New Zealanders right there, that Haddin knew what had happened....
6) For Ponting to defend Haddin is therefore in the realms of Ostrich territory. I hope when Ponting sees the replays that he apologises to Vettori for his comments this morning.
Broom's dismissal was illegal. Period.
It's time for the third umpires to review all dismissals, and the sooner the better.
There.
That's my first rant for the day. There may be others to follow :giggle:
As far as I'm concerned Neil Broom was dismissed illegally.
1) it's illegal for a keeper to have their hands in front of the wicket when a bowler bowls a ball.
2) Therefore Haddin broke the primary rule which is ingrained into a keeper from day one.
3) His gloves, which were illegally in front of the wicket, contacted the stumps, dislodging the bails, which he allowed everyone to interpret as the ball contacting the bail. He had to know...
4) Wicketkeeper commentators all said that a wicketkeeper feels even a brush against the stumps. Haddin stood there, and looked down on the stumps and then went over, sheepishly, to join the Australian huddle...
5) It therefore defies experience and logic for Haddin to claim that the dismissal was legal, on two counts: his hands were where they shouldn't have been and according to other keepers he would have felt his gloves contact the stumps. As Vettori said afterwards, it was obvious to the New Zealanders right there, that Haddin knew what had happened....
6) For Ponting to defend Haddin is therefore in the realms of Ostrich territory. I hope when Ponting sees the replays that he apologises to Vettori for his comments this morning.
Broom's dismissal was illegal. Period.
It's time for the third umpires to review all dismissals, and the sooner the better.
There.
That's my first rant for the day. There may be others to follow :giggle: