Australia v England, 1st Test, Brisbane, 5th day November 29, 2010

Ponting unimpressed with technology

152

Ricky Ponting called the technology used to rule on disputed low catches "a blight on the game" after his take of Alastair Cook was turned down.

The decision had no impact on the result - Cook was on 209 at the time - but Ponting remains upset that the replay issue continues to simmer six years after he tried to secure a gentleman's agreement among international captains.

Ponting was not animated when he claimed Cook's flick low down at midwicket, mainly because England were 1 for 457, but he started to become grumpy when it was given not out by the third umpire. "If it was the first wicket of the innings I might have been a bit more annoyed," he said.

"I do get a little bit annoyed with it because I think it's a blight on the game, trusting in technology that's not good enough to show them. I could have thrown the ball up straight away and nobody would have questioned it."

The Australians were too tired to rush to Ponting when he leaned forward to scoop up the ball and while it looked like he caught it live, the replays didn't totally agree. Cook said he stood his ground because he "wasn't sure". "I don't think Ricky was sure either," he said.

Ponting was told by the umpire Aleem Dar that the decision was "not 100% clear", and he then started discussing with Cook whether the ball had carried. He said it was the only time Cook, who finished with a ground-high 235 not out, was flustered during his innings.

"I said to the umpires straight away that I was pretty sure that I caught it," Ponting said. "That's about all I could do. As soon as they referred it you pretty much know what the end result was going to be."

Before the series Ponting did not chat to Andrew Strauss about accepting the word of fielders in these sorts of cases, and he has grown weary of his lone battle to get the unofficial regulation passed. "It's up to the umpires now, they've set that standard and they have to make it consistent all the way through," he said. "Not that long ago, you look back to a Test match played at Lord's where there was a pretty obvious one that went the other way."

Phillip Hughes was the dismissed batsman on that Ashes occasion and Strauss was the fielder at first slip. "Sometimes you've got to take the good with the bad," Ponting said. "It just highlights the technology is not what it's needed to be."

Cook had added another 13 when Ponting missed a tough chance to his right as the floating slip. It was one of five chances Australia dropped during their 152 overs in the second innings. Ponting said so many spills were "not acceptable" and that fielding was another area that needed to improve before Friday's second Test in Adelaide.

Ponting's day got a little better with an unbeaten half-century as Australia finished the drawn affair at 1 for 107. "The fact that we actually went out and batted the way we did tonight was a good positive sign," Ponting said. There was little else for them to cheer over the final two days.

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • kabe_ag7 on December 3, 2010, 19:34 GMT

    @Meety - Wow, we were talking about it and it happens with Ryan Harris. Hot spot failed to pick a detectable edge (not for the 3rd umpire anyway). It looked like a pretty good deviation even in the slow-motion.

  • kabe_ag7 on December 2, 2010, 14:06 GMT

    @Meety- I'm not sure anymore what exactly are you referring to. But the law 32 (on lords.org) has all the references to grounding the ball, and not in the context of boundaries, but in the context of being in control of your body and the ball. Simply said, ball shouldn't be grounded before you are well in control. And comparing with other examples, Punter's was a very good case of not being in control to me. Hot spot may miss very faint edges. So in some examples, snicko can be more useful than hot spot, at least when you can be sure that there was no other source of sharp noise, like in Clarke's case (and possibly in Roach's case against Australia). Hot spot can prove the existence of an edge, but it can't always prove its non-existence (in cases when insufficient heat is produced). And I apologise for being bit rude in the last post.

  • Fast_Track_Bully on December 2, 2010, 5:09 GMT

    @Peter Bourke. But none of them argued that his stand is correct even if it proved wrong. Also, all of those claims referred to 3rd umpire and umpire only took the decision. And none of them claimed it as OUT after consulting the team mates. They asked for 3rd umpire only. And what Ponting did in his entire career. He argued about it even if he proved wrong. Not just once, doing the same again and again!

  • on December 2, 2010, 5:04 GMT

    OK, here's the deal: 1. Ponting isn't just a whinger & a cheat, he's also the worst captain, tactically, that Australia have ever had. 2. Your current selectors need to be replaced immediately & en masse. They cost you the Ashes in 2009 & they're well on the way to repeating that feat this time around. You have no idea how much glee we Englishmen feel when we see the names of North, Johnson, Doherty & Hilfenhaus on the Aussie team sheet in place of Hughes/White, Harris, O'Keefe/Smith & Bollinger. 3. Invoking Gilchrist's 'integrity' is farcical: am I the only person on the planet who witnessed Gilchrist using the fact that he OFTEN (i.e. when he was CLEARLY out: big deal) walked to influence umpires into either awarding him catches he'd never taken or giving him not out when he clearly was? Gilchrist perpetuated the myth of himself as an old-fashioned sportsman in order to manipulate events to Australian advantage. He may've been a wonderful batsman, but he was also a gigantic fraud.

  • Meety on December 2, 2010, 1:53 GMT

    For some reason my reponse to @ findadiat was not uploaded? Firstly - grounded is only referred to involving the boundary, also the act of taking a catch refers to control of the ball & body. I still maintain Punter was in control of both in Sydney. I did go onto say that I was happy for Punters "catch" to be ruled not out as there was an element of doubt. Regarding Hot Spot arguement; all Snicko does is record a noise that occurred when the ball passes the batsmen. There is nothing in Snicko that proves the bat caused the noise by "edging" the ball. Hot Spot gives a clear indicator when a ball passes the bat whether there has been contact. It can help disprove Snicko - in the instance when a noise has occured when the bat grazes the pitch (common occurrance). If Snicko takes 1/2 hour (your words), to prove then clearly it is INFERIOR to HOT SPOT - no bias involved brother!

  • on December 1, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    Firstly, get over Sydney. Its gone, its almost 3 years ago now, just get over it. Secondly, name me the batters around the world that walk every time. I can only think of Gilchrist, and he's retired. So don't bag out Clarke for not walking in this test, as pretty much every batsmen stands his ground until given out. Thirdly, Ponting and all other Australians aren't the only players to make mistakes over their careers. We just don't care enough about other's mistakes to blast them all over youtube. I'm sure your precious Dhoni, Ganguly, Kumble etc have had instances in their careers where they may have appealed for unclear catches or bad lbws or not walked after nicking a ball, but I'm not going to sit here and downgrade them for it because they still remain great cricket players and a billion times better at the sport than any of us that sit here and write comments.

  • cricket_fan_1 on December 1, 2010, 9:43 GMT

    at least we all know now that some of the catches claimed by Ricky were not legitimate. How can he have the cheek to blame the tech after advocating it for so long. Clarke didn't walk in the 1st innings, after edging the ball. So why expect Cook to walk when he saw that the catch was not clean. Without McGrath and Warne, Ricky is toothless and trying to distract critics by blaming the technology.

  • on December 1, 2010, 4:28 GMT

    I wish fans were not so fickle and cruel. For all his deficiencies and uncondonable behaviour, it can simply not be denied that Punter is a legend, if only for batting alone.

  • on December 1, 2010, 4:25 GMT

    @Kaze: Technology wont work in all cases and Punter's idea wont work in ANY case. And as someone prudently said, this the reason for the existence of the unwritten rule of cricket, that the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. So we should keep using technology as best we can and if everyone follows this rule, there will never be any disagreements or accusations of bias :)

  • Kaze on December 1, 2010, 1:54 GMT

    @Aina Maria Waseem It works two ways, as Ponting is saying you have to take the good with the bad. He is not advocating against technology, he is saying that technology won't work in all cases.

  • kabe_ag7 on December 3, 2010, 19:34 GMT

    @Meety - Wow, we were talking about it and it happens with Ryan Harris. Hot spot failed to pick a detectable edge (not for the 3rd umpire anyway). It looked like a pretty good deviation even in the slow-motion.

  • kabe_ag7 on December 2, 2010, 14:06 GMT

    @Meety- I'm not sure anymore what exactly are you referring to. But the law 32 (on lords.org) has all the references to grounding the ball, and not in the context of boundaries, but in the context of being in control of your body and the ball. Simply said, ball shouldn't be grounded before you are well in control. And comparing with other examples, Punter's was a very good case of not being in control to me. Hot spot may miss very faint edges. So in some examples, snicko can be more useful than hot spot, at least when you can be sure that there was no other source of sharp noise, like in Clarke's case (and possibly in Roach's case against Australia). Hot spot can prove the existence of an edge, but it can't always prove its non-existence (in cases when insufficient heat is produced). And I apologise for being bit rude in the last post.

  • Fast_Track_Bully on December 2, 2010, 5:09 GMT

    @Peter Bourke. But none of them argued that his stand is correct even if it proved wrong. Also, all of those claims referred to 3rd umpire and umpire only took the decision. And none of them claimed it as OUT after consulting the team mates. They asked for 3rd umpire only. And what Ponting did in his entire career. He argued about it even if he proved wrong. Not just once, doing the same again and again!

  • on December 2, 2010, 5:04 GMT

    OK, here's the deal: 1. Ponting isn't just a whinger & a cheat, he's also the worst captain, tactically, that Australia have ever had. 2. Your current selectors need to be replaced immediately & en masse. They cost you the Ashes in 2009 & they're well on the way to repeating that feat this time around. You have no idea how much glee we Englishmen feel when we see the names of North, Johnson, Doherty & Hilfenhaus on the Aussie team sheet in place of Hughes/White, Harris, O'Keefe/Smith & Bollinger. 3. Invoking Gilchrist's 'integrity' is farcical: am I the only person on the planet who witnessed Gilchrist using the fact that he OFTEN (i.e. when he was CLEARLY out: big deal) walked to influence umpires into either awarding him catches he'd never taken or giving him not out when he clearly was? Gilchrist perpetuated the myth of himself as an old-fashioned sportsman in order to manipulate events to Australian advantage. He may've been a wonderful batsman, but he was also a gigantic fraud.

  • Meety on December 2, 2010, 1:53 GMT

    For some reason my reponse to @ findadiat was not uploaded? Firstly - grounded is only referred to involving the boundary, also the act of taking a catch refers to control of the ball & body. I still maintain Punter was in control of both in Sydney. I did go onto say that I was happy for Punters "catch" to be ruled not out as there was an element of doubt. Regarding Hot Spot arguement; all Snicko does is record a noise that occurred when the ball passes the batsmen. There is nothing in Snicko that proves the bat caused the noise by "edging" the ball. Hot Spot gives a clear indicator when a ball passes the bat whether there has been contact. It can help disprove Snicko - in the instance when a noise has occured when the bat grazes the pitch (common occurrance). If Snicko takes 1/2 hour (your words), to prove then clearly it is INFERIOR to HOT SPOT - no bias involved brother!

  • on December 1, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    Firstly, get over Sydney. Its gone, its almost 3 years ago now, just get over it. Secondly, name me the batters around the world that walk every time. I can only think of Gilchrist, and he's retired. So don't bag out Clarke for not walking in this test, as pretty much every batsmen stands his ground until given out. Thirdly, Ponting and all other Australians aren't the only players to make mistakes over their careers. We just don't care enough about other's mistakes to blast them all over youtube. I'm sure your precious Dhoni, Ganguly, Kumble etc have had instances in their careers where they may have appealed for unclear catches or bad lbws or not walked after nicking a ball, but I'm not going to sit here and downgrade them for it because they still remain great cricket players and a billion times better at the sport than any of us that sit here and write comments.

  • cricket_fan_1 on December 1, 2010, 9:43 GMT

    at least we all know now that some of the catches claimed by Ricky were not legitimate. How can he have the cheek to blame the tech after advocating it for so long. Clarke didn't walk in the 1st innings, after edging the ball. So why expect Cook to walk when he saw that the catch was not clean. Without McGrath and Warne, Ricky is toothless and trying to distract critics by blaming the technology.

  • on December 1, 2010, 4:28 GMT

    I wish fans were not so fickle and cruel. For all his deficiencies and uncondonable behaviour, it can simply not be denied that Punter is a legend, if only for batting alone.

  • on December 1, 2010, 4:25 GMT

    @Kaze: Technology wont work in all cases and Punter's idea wont work in ANY case. And as someone prudently said, this the reason for the existence of the unwritten rule of cricket, that the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. So we should keep using technology as best we can and if everyone follows this rule, there will never be any disagreements or accusations of bias :)

  • Kaze on December 1, 2010, 1:54 GMT

    @Aina Maria Waseem It works two ways, as Ponting is saying you have to take the good with the bad. He is not advocating against technology, he is saying that technology won't work in all cases.

  • kabe_ag7 on November 30, 2010, 20:46 GMT

    @Meety: No such thing as "grounding the ball" when it comes to taking a catch? Check out law 32. You'll find about 10 references to 'grounding' the ball. Clarke was given not out. I should not be writing any more since you can't remember something that happened less than a week ago and don't have any idea of the rules. But I'm tempted to. Hot Spot is more accurate technology? There goes the proof of your bias. Hot spot is used not because it is more accurate but because it can produce quick results, unlike Snicko which can at times take half an hour to produce a result. But you have established in your mind that Hot spot is more accurate because it helped you think Clarke was not out. If UDRS was used at Mohali, India would have won by 2 wickets instead of 1. They managed Ishant because of a poor decision. You should update your definition of 'being in control'. Ponting's claim in Sydney match is a good example of not being in control. He dives, catches, grounds it, and falls further.

  • kabe_ag7 on November 30, 2010, 19:51 GMT

    @Naveed Khan - Your logic has just gone for a huge six, because India have declined to accept UDRS in S. Africa as well. And those pointing that Indians have claimed bump catches as well are hugely missing the point. Everybody, knowingly or unknowingly, has claimed bump catches, including Ponting (in other cases, if not this one). But nobody else (except Ponting) has the audacity/foolhardiness to insist that their word must be believed always. The self-righteousness on display is amazing. What else is amazing is his belief in righteousness of his team-mates. (Sydney being a point in case where he pointed to the umpire that Clarke's catch was clean while replays suggested otherwise.) He is making it seem like he is the lone righteous guy who should always be believed, while he is like everybody else or maybe worse. He has forgotten the difference between playing tough and playing God. He's doing the latter, crying every single time that he was correct, which he was clearly not.

  • bigwonder on November 30, 2010, 14:29 GMT

    Here are few watch points for Auzzie fans. 1) Punter has always favored UDRS - he is now blaming his inability on Technology. 2) All previous grass catchers (even if not true) do not claim to be honest as Punter does. 3) Hypocrisy cannot help you win matches all the time.4) Punter never was and never be a legend. 5) Modesty does not mean anything to Punter. Good luck for Ashes, may England win the series.

  • katwash on November 30, 2010, 12:37 GMT

    Now I know why the Indian posters are so unhappy, Sachin has just lost the No.1 batting ranking. Seriously though, if Ponting is a cheat, then you have to judge Gangully, Dhoni and Strauss the same way, as these guys have taken "catches" that they must have known to have hit the ground.

  • on November 30, 2010, 11:51 GMT

    I remember Dhoni taking Inzy behind the wicket. It wasnt a catch and Billy Bowden decided to ask Dhoni. Replays showed, and in that case werent inconclusive in anyway, that he had picked it off the ground. It wasnt just a matter of whether his hands touched the ground during the catch i.e whether it was a "clean catch". It was pretty obviously picked from the ground. However, since Billy Bowden saw fit to ask Dhoni about it and Dhoni said its out, Inzy had to leave. The point Im trying to make here is that the estimable Mr Ponting should consider the falliblity of all that is good in people in situations such as this, before he makes a suggestion that would be outrageous anywhere but the garden of eden. Technology may be unreliable but atleast it will try its best to be honest. Also, such replays arent like Hawkeye which is based on predictive algorithms.I may be wrong but this seems to me to be slow photography which captures many images, all of them true.How can it possibly be WRONG?

  • Divotsinthegreen on November 30, 2010, 11:32 GMT

    If punter says its out , its out Read the article! It wouldnt have no outcome on the game.Ricky is saying the technology is not up to speed. Hes not crying as Junaid Asif puts it, hes just standing up for what he thinks is right. God forbid that he has an opinion

  • othello22 on November 30, 2010, 10:14 GMT

    @Jignesh - How mature. And you call Ponting a cry-baby? The fact that you guys are always going out of your way to rubbish this guy at every opportunity only illustrates just how much he owns you. Ponting is a legend and no matter how much that annoys you, it doesn't change the fact that he is a legend. Get over it. As for the catch and the replay well, Cook is entitled to stand his ground until given out, but Punter has a point too - It seems to me that everyone in the world (particularly those from certain subcontinental countries) is entitled to claim grassed catches, just as long as their name is not Ricky Ponting, in which case it suddenly becomes a heinous crime. Hypocrites.

  • pom_basher on November 30, 2010, 9:30 GMT

    @Meety and other aussie supporters - yout lot have a very weak and selective memory. You talk about Ganguly and Dhoni claiming grassed catches... Weill Ponting's case is not only about claiming those catches, but insisting that they were clean catches and going on to blame the opposition and umpires about the same. Now that is something that no one does. You know aussies are in the wrong here.

  • on November 30, 2010, 9:20 GMT

    If he does not believe in technology, why is he agreeing for UDRS? If he gets something in his favor, then it would be a different question. Agreement with opposition captain is not the way to go about. Same aussies used that agreement against India when India toured Aus last time. Sydney test match where Ponting gave Batsmen out.Its time ponting starts worrying about how to get 20 wickets rather than comment on technology, atleast it would give aussie a chance to win the ashes, which is unlikely at the moment.

  • Hariafromhyd on November 30, 2010, 8:45 GMT

    Why do the Aussies always change their Point of View according to the situation. I believe such behaviour on a cricket field should not be tolerated. The rules should be one for all the Players when it comes to dissent. Aleem Dar has been one of the best umpires, if not the best over the last couple of years. This is a shame and an insult to the basic sensibilities.Ponting 'WAS' a great player, he will be remembered as one of the most insensitive players with no respect for the opposition. I hope he is also remembered for losing 3 Ashes.

  • Fast_Track_Bully on November 30, 2010, 8:13 GMT

    @ Naveed Khan..."India is known for tempering with Pitches" ---at last I got it..LOL..very funny..

  • Rukus_NZ on November 30, 2010, 7:59 GMT

    I was more dissapointed in the Australian fielding than the tecnhology - I guess Pointing has a point, but then again this is international sport - no one wants to lose andif they can, they will try one way or another.

  • kabe_ag7 on November 30, 2010, 7:51 GMT

    @SFay: Incorrect. Ponting didn't have the ball under control. In fact his dive ended with the ball touching the ground. Finn never even touched the ball on the ground. I'm sure you made both these things up in your mind. Because it's impossible to refute both if you actually watched them. There's still time. Go watch it on youtube. And sure, Ponting simply appealed, the same thing that happens multiple times in every test. But that's not the point Mr. SFay, is it? The point is Ponting can't strike a deal with captains about not appealing for bump balls and then go ahead and do the exactly opposite (oh and then blast journalists for questioning his 'integrity'). I could still give him benefit of doubt for not realising he touched it on the ground. But what's wrong with you?

  • on November 30, 2010, 7:25 GMT

    This is the problem with Ricky Ponting. Even before the Umpire gives the decision, Ricky gives the batsman out. He believes that only Australians are honest and others are cheats, which is wrong. Sportive gestures are something 'rare' nowadays. In fact, Australians who continue to do sledging - not only the opposition, but also the umpires.

  • Jaggadaaku on November 30, 2010, 7:12 GMT

    CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY CRY BABY

  • Elegant5 on November 30, 2010, 7:02 GMT

    Ricky Ponting (CRY BABY).............ha ha haaaaaaa ;-)

  • on November 30, 2010, 7:02 GMT

    ponting is a cry boy...... aussies are not used to losing alot.... therefore when they are put on back foot they get really frustrated..... and specially when its ponting..... remember ponting run out by 12th man during ashes in england.....was crying then and is crying still :)

  • on November 30, 2010, 7:00 GMT

    First of all technology is not about impress or not. It is based on fact images as camera picks and as always in that scenario benefit of doubt goes to batsman. And What, If Ricky Ponting is in the place of Alistair Cook, Will he walk out to pavillion or just does what Alistair Cook did? And so far FAIR or UNFAIR is concerned, It is all what thrid umpire sees in the footage? If he thinks out, its out, or the other way.

  • on November 30, 2010, 6:42 GMT

    Its new technology that makes thing perfect, but the catch wasn't clear enough thats why it was not giving out. I think that was the right decision. I watch India and NZ 1st oneday when V Kholy was not giving out when he was in 5 or 6 and then he made a Century which India have won the match.

  • on November 30, 2010, 6:33 GMT

    agree tht there are incidents wher othr players ve taken catches similar to this one.. but no one used to argue with the umpires after the incident. :P

    Moral of the story: Ponting does anything to win, when Aussies are in trouble.

    This shows his desperation.

  • on November 30, 2010, 6:25 GMT

    You cannot trust Ponting at any cost! The umpires are aware of that.

  • on November 30, 2010, 6:07 GMT

    @Githike Dinith De Silva Who says Indian players are saints?In fact no body has the obligation to be a one when someone plays for their country.Most of the Indian batsmen except Dhoni don't walk.But surely no one from the Indian team preaches others to walk.Thats what Ricky did to Murali Karthik in 2007 even though in the next series in Australia Ricky didn't walk in Sydney after being caught down the leg side.That's plain hypocrisy.I along with others also criticize the non-sense opposition of UDRS by the BCCI and some of the Indian players who are only selfish in this regard.Mahela used the system perfectly and won against India with Kumble wasting their reviews with not so smart work.I along with majority of saner Indians give credit where it is due.Srilanka and India has relations dating back to 2300 years and more and the squabbling between its cricket fans are not at all good.

  • arun_gga on November 30, 2010, 5:36 GMT

    There is one fundamental matter with Ponting. Aleem knew that only because it was Ponting, there is no reason to believe him. Ponting may preach a lot about gentlemanly behavior etc, but at the end of the day, Aleem knew it would be much too risky to take Ponting for granted. Perhaps he may have had a different opinion if it was somebody like Sachin or Md. Yusuf or somebody with that kind of a credibility, may be even Aravinda De Silva. So Aleem took a rational decision and sent it up for referral. What transpires therafter is not in Aleem's hands!

  • landl47 on November 30, 2010, 5:33 GMT

    BTW, the caption to the photograph is wrong. The third umpire did not turn down the appeal, he said the TV review was inconclusive and referred it back to the on-fiekl umpires. They turned down the appeal.

  • landl47 on November 30, 2010, 5:29 GMT

    Ponting is just plain wrong on this. I've seen catches claimed which looked good and which I've no doubt the fielder thought he caught, but which weren't out. AB DeVilliers 'caught' one in the gully against England and the replay clearly showed it hit his hand, went to the ground, and bounced up again into hs hand. I'm sure it felt to him as though he'd knocked it up and caught it on the second attempt. In this case, Ponting was only 'pretty sure' he'd caught it; that's not enough. Neither umpire was sure and the third umpire simply referred the matter back to them, so technology played no part in the decision. If there had been no review the decision would still have been not out. As for Cook, why is he supposed to give himself out ? If the umpires aren't sure, how can Cook be sure? Ponting talks a lot about sportsmanship but he's the worst captain for getting in the umpire's face when he doesn't like a decision. Accepting the decion with good grace would be more sporting.

  • Cricketer2010 on November 30, 2010, 5:02 GMT

    Well....Well its quite obvious that Ponting is highly frustrated..I was a big big fan of Ponting but now i m lost. Ponting must remember claiming a catch against India during their last visit to Australia(whaich was actually not a catch)...and winning that match which was obviously a draw...it looks as if Aussies are not ready to accept that they are not good enough to finish the things cleanly....if some Asian would have argued some Aussie Umpire, the whole intl media would have blasted him...but its Ponting who has ruled the world cricket I always thought that Ponting is a big cricketer and a true gentleman.but when its rainy days for Aussies it looks as if he WAS a big cricketer now he looks like a cheat, who is ALWAYS ready to claim a fake catch .....but on the other side ALWAYS ready to continue bat...if some one else is claiming a genuine catch... its rightly said that Character is what one shows in difficult times.. where is sportsmanship?? really feeling sorry for Ponting

  • sonjjay on November 30, 2010, 5:01 GMT

    As an Indian i would like to request all my fellow fans to forget the sydney test and move on shall we? The game is not played in the spirit and probably every team voilates it so lets just accept the fact and get over it.

  • Quazar on November 30, 2010, 4:57 GMT

    This is ridiculous! Everytime Ponting gets a decision in his or australia's favour, he's very happy to honour the umpire's decision, but anytime things go against him, he openly dissents (on the field) and gripes about it (on and off the field). @ThosedefendingPonting's SCG catch - how in the world can he be said to have the ball "in control" when 50% of it is resting on the ground?? (Ponting cupped it from the top, while the bottom half was resting on the ground when he landed) I mean, if Ponting had been near the boundary and the bottom half of the ball had touched the rope...forget claims of a catch, it would have been ruled a six! @Meety - I saw the SRT so-called-tampering match live...and it was a ridiculous decision by Mike Dennes...neither the SA players nor the commentators saw it as tampering...he was clearly removing grass that was wedged in at the seam...plus, clearly visible was that SRT had very short nails, with no chance of the ball getting scratched / roughed up.

  • on November 30, 2010, 4:47 GMT

    Alright, so we all want cricket to be clean, and that is why the umpire is there Punter, had it been for cricketers accepting the decisions of their counterparts then there wouldn't be a single umpire. I guess the situation of the match got to him. Technology was used by Punter on the first ball, in England's second innings. Where was "trusting the umpire and a human, and the cricketing spirit back then?"

    I like Punter but I think at times he gets carried away with his version of cricket. He has to realise that technology is to improve the game of question marks and not stain the already stained image of cricket.

  • on November 30, 2010, 4:38 GMT

    It is not a "Gentelman's Game" anymore....too much at stake for for any player to play by the olden standards....why is Ponting wanting to get a gentleman's agreement before every series on catches claimed, why does he not also get an agreement to batsmen walking when they have nicked behind....there have been onfield umpires since the start of the game, let them do their job, human error is part and parcel of all field in life, UDRS or Umpire refferal should be in all test matches or none based on a consensus reached....on a lighter note, it's quite funny to see Ponting whine and grgue decisions with the umpires and get away with it :-)

  • Jaggadaaku on November 30, 2010, 4:31 GMT

    @ lankan_neutral (RAAVAN) Aus Ass Kisser, you Sri Lankans are the ONLY reason why India don't accept the UDRS. About 2 years ago India visited Sri Lanka and accepted UDRS. During that series, whenever the Indian batsmen looked not out depending on UDRS rule, your Sri Lankan third third umpire gave them out, and whenever the Sri Lankan batsmen were out-clearly shown on the screen your third umpire gave them not out. So, since then India learned that weather we have UDRS or not, the third umpire does what he wants. So, first improve your umpiring and don't interfere without having strong reason, otherwise don't forget we have a "Brahmastra". If we will use them you and your whole country would destroy like lord Ram destroyed Raavan.

  • nzcricket174 on November 30, 2010, 4:22 GMT

    Guys commenting, get your facts right. This is NOT the UDRS system, so stop talking about it as if it was. This is a 3rd umpire decision, the same as referring a run out.

  • on November 30, 2010, 4:12 GMT

    Ricky Ponting is very much disappointed with ICC, how Aleem dar was permitted to do umpiring instead of his beloved Steve Buckno(only umpire to know the rules) And also he is protesting that Alistar Cook should be banned for series because he made 200 runs in one inning nobody is allowed to score 200 runs in an inning but punter..... He is very much disappointed with umpires as they never ask him before making decisions.... This is totally unfair....

    A piece of advice for Australian selectors U should have dropped Ponting after infamous sydney 08 test match but instead u guys suported him and it was all downhill from there.... If somebody does something wrong correct them don't encourage them!!!! I can't forgive ponting for what he has done in sydney test....and people who actually supported him.... As it is writen n bible" HIS judgement cometh and cometh real fast...." so there r more humiliations to follow!!!

  • mysay on November 30, 2010, 3:57 GMT

    Why not do away with UDRS, Sniko Meter, Hot Spot, TV Reviews and the rest of the works. Give the umpires some beach chairs to sit while officiating matches, and to take the players words on every decision. As for the Gentleman's' game...to hell with it.

  • pappadu on November 30, 2010, 3:55 GMT

    @Meety @ McIntosh - While I agree with your comments, Punter and Oz sportsmanship changes according to the game situation. If it's on the 5th day and they have a chance, they will cheat to get there!

  • STondulkar on November 30, 2010, 3:28 GMT

    Calling SRT as blatant cheater in the ball tampering incident shows biased views and should not be discussed or given importance to .

  • Mitcher on November 30, 2010, 2:58 GMT

    One other thing, why aren't we talking about Anderson getting physical with Watson? I don't mind if we all ignore the odd incident or two like that but all this hysterical whining about Ponting is getting old. Time for Indian fans to get a life/job/running water and move on. Life is too short.

  • on November 30, 2010, 2:24 GMT

    Ponting has a bad reputation, an Umpire was dismissed.

  • on November 30, 2010, 2:10 GMT

    It's nice to see you Indian lot are over that Sydney test.....

  • on November 30, 2010, 2:03 GMT

    Soupietwist u r absolutely right.

    I would say just go by technology and accept the rule of game.......................... benifit of doubt must go to batsman.......and be consistent with it.

    I cannot figure out why ponting doesn't shout when benifit of lbw goes to batsman.

    I would say if hawkeye shows a ball just clipping the edge of of stump or leg stump then benifit of doubt must go to barsman but if hawkeye projects ball to be impacting any othe the stumps completely then batsman should be given out

  • on November 30, 2010, 1:46 GMT

    Taking India as an example to reject UDRS is a mistake. Indian cricketers, Cricket Board (IPL) are cheats. When it comes to close catching and Umpiring Indians cheat a lot in India. Even the most respected amongst Indian players like Tendulkar and Gangualy have cheated when taking low down catches. India cheats by preparing pitches that support their type of bowlers. India is known for tempering with Pitches Between Breaks when opposition is batting.

    India does not accept UDRS because India plays pre-dominantly home games and Umpires irrespective of their neutral disposition tend to favor Home Teams in close decisions. India would not be #1 in test cricket if UDRS had been introduced in India.

  • msvknight on November 30, 2010, 1:43 GMT

    Since the comments have diverged so severely from the sunject I felt I should put my oar in. India didn't lose because of the claimed catch by Ponting. They lost because Harbhajan, RP Singh and Ishant couldn't survive 6 balls from Michael Clarke. That massive choke not the claimed catch lost the match. You can be as revisionist as you want, but with one over to go, India had the draw well in hand.

  • johntycodes on November 30, 2010, 1:20 GMT

    I'm afraid ponting is fighting a losing battle on this one. Can you imagine the cheating indians and pakistani's, they would say they caught every ball just like gangully in the world cup final. It's in their nature to cheat.

  • Jaggadaaku on November 30, 2010, 1:05 GMT

    @ lankan_neutral (RAAVAN) Aus Ass Kisser, you Sri Lankans are the ONLY reason why India don't accept the UDRS. About 2 years ago India visited Sri Lanka and accepted UDRS. During that series, whenever the Indian batsmen looked not out depending on UDRS rule, your Sri Lankan third third umpire gave them out, and whenever the Sri Lankan batsmen were out-clearly shown on the screen your third umpire gave them not out. So, since then India learned that weather we have UDRS or not, the third umpire does what he wants. So, first improve your umpiring and don't interfere without having strong reason, otherwise don't forget we have a "Brahmastra". If we will use them you and your whole country would destroy like lord Ram destroyed Raavan.

  • pakistanitiger786 on November 30, 2010, 1:03 GMT

    that's what i like about ponting...he's a class player and aggressive.....you won't see many captains fighting for every single bit in a game nowadays..Oz's have given a lot to test cricket in last decade...they have been king of world cricket..i can't forget those lovely moments of my life when we used to play cricket and want other people to feel like gilli or ponting is batting lolzz..it was crazy but they have been superstars amazing simply amazing..hats off to them..

  • Soupietwist on November 30, 2010, 0:31 GMT

    Calling someone a cheat and so on is little unfair, Ganguly claimed he caught Gilly in '03 World Cup, the ball came of the pad and bounced 3-5 cm in front of his hands, but he threw it up as if he had taken a catch, is he then a cricketing cheat defined by so many on this blog. Also re: Ponting's catch in Sydney he controlled the ball and it may have brushed the ground on completion of the catch - he thought he caught it just like Ganguly and so many others (Strauss Ashes last year). There are so many other examples of this in cricket each year the reason is that your eyes do not track the ball for the last few cm of trajectory and all you feel is the ball in your hands and you assume it is a catch. Possible not may actual cricketers writing comments on this matter.

  • on November 30, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    I think Aus NEEDS STEVE BUCKNOR to win! lol

  • Meety on November 29, 2010, 23:53 GMT

    @VipulPatki - well said. UDRS is different to the referral by the umpire. I can understand that the Umpire was not sure, I am bemused by Cook's comments - I believe he knew it was out - but as he was enjoying himself - he quite rightly waited for the decision, which as Punter rightly said - tends to favour the batsmen. I think he caught it - but because of one angle, the right decision was made. @ALL BLOGGERS BLEATING ABOUT PUNTERS SCG TEST CATCH - look up the laws of cricket on this site, no such thing as "grounding the ball" when it comes to taking a catch.

  • Meety on November 29, 2010, 23:46 GMT

    Anybody throwing up bad sportsmanship @ the Aussies need to check their own back yard as almost every nation barring NZ & Bangladesh have had disciplenary issues. Also - note that Anderson deliberately bumped Watson on Day 5, notice any whinging or reporting on that? No? That's because the game is played by men, and not sooks like some countries (& their fans) appear to be! @Rohit Sharma - the Snicko clearly showed a sound at about the time the ball travelled past the bat, however at the same time Hot Spot are more accurate technology showed no sign of an edge. If Clarke did hit it & was given out, why would he have had it reviewed? Clearly you my friend have manipulated the evidence to have a swipe @ Punter/Aussies - pretty thin edge their mate! @Popcorn - I'd also throw in the go slow tactics at Cardiff in the drawn first Test too! @ paddyking - you're arguements are moot because when teams play India there is no UDRS - so you have to take what's given!!!!!

  • on November 29, 2010, 23:43 GMT

    @Ravi Gandh @Asis Rou , some cricketer in some team does this at one point and Indian players are no saints either. Watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiY75NfKzKg , My point is that this an Australia England match, not Australia vs India so let the English fans worry about this. You guys remind me of that famous saying from Hunchback of Notre dame - "He saw corruption everywhere but within" and thats exactly what I describe you guys. Anyways if you really want to go back to history, I hope you remember how Ajay Jadeja didn't when he literally glided the ball to the keeper's gloves off the bowling of Sajeewa Silva and the "Indian" umpire scratched his head after lifting his finger three quarters of the way, yep, "It's an easy game with the replay".

  • Meety on November 29, 2010, 23:31 GMT

    @ALL INDIAN FANS WHO ARE LINKING THIS TO UDRS - this is chalk & cheese. UDRS, is designed to stop terrible decisions, in this in succeeds. Nobody wants to see a batsmen given out LBW when he has snicked the ball with his bat. Nobody wants to see a batsmen given out LBW when the ball pitched outside leg stump. In terms of caught behind - I don't trust Snick-o-meter in its own right, but combined with hotspot it would be great supporting evidence. UDRS works! @ALL INDIAN FANS STILL BLEATING OVER SCG TEST - total hypocrisy. If UDRS was used at Mohali - Oz would of won the test & at least drawn the series. India lost in Sydney because they weren't as good as Oz in that match. I cannot believe any fair minded fan would say that their side has never been the recipient of a favourable decision. @ JigneshPatel_007 - hypocrite saying Punter is childish but at the same time calling him "Mr Hairy" & a cry baby. I think you must be about 8yrs old!!!!

  • SPKay on November 29, 2010, 23:24 GMT

    Saichandm, the fielders can claim what they want. But using that as a gentleman's word is dangerous. By the same token, if the batsman stands his ground, the fielding captain should cancel the appeal, or recall the batsman if given out by the umpire.

  • razors_1981 on November 29, 2010, 23:18 GMT

    even though Ponting want a gentleman's game and trust the fielders call on catches when the table turn on him he is not prepare to go. in 2006 VB Series - 2nd final Ponting stood his ground when mahela the one who caught say to him that it was a clean catch. this is cricinfo commentary of that.

    Perera to Ponting, no run, fraction short, Ponting cuts it away in the air to Jayawardene and a low catch taken, Ponting unconvinced and stands there, Umpires discuss and they give it in favour of Aussies but that looks like a clean catch So why the world any one believe Ponting word if Ponting him self not gona believe any one else.

  • Meety on November 29, 2010, 23:12 GMT

    @ sachisgod (& all others referring to the SCG Test) - the "no-catch" everyone refers to as being an example of "unsportsmanship" - the fact is that Punter had caught the ball before it hit the ground. The doubt about his "catch" was whether he had control of it when (whilst in his hand) the ball then touched the ground. I have always maintained that was a catch because he had control of the ball at all times. @ ALLIPLWINNERS - don't forget your "trusted" SRT has been blatantly caught on camera ball tampering, & changed his story during Monkeygate v Symonds. I believe SRT has integrity but it is subject to unsportsmanship just like most professional sportspersons. @Dubby49 - there is nowhere in the Rule of Cricket that refer to "Grounding" in taking a catch. It refers to control of the ball, I always maintained that ball was never going to be spilled by Punter he could of landed in a pit of venomous spiders & would of come up with that ball totally secure.

  • on November 29, 2010, 23:11 GMT

    Why is Ricky Ponting allowed to argue with the umpires about their decisions? It literally makes me sick to see Australia whining every time blows are being administered to a struggling and overrated Australian team. Truth is, the technology is doing just fine, except for the fact that more referrals are needed! Mike Hussey would certainly not have wanted his case referred. As long as a batsman who is "out" is allowed to carry on and make a hundred, then the results of many a test match will not accurately reflect the relative strengths of the teams. Hussey's "not out" when he was in fact "out" let Australia off the hook. England had the Aussies almost wanting to declare even though they were fielding. Spare a athought for James anderson. He is an excellent speedster!

  • on November 29, 2010, 22:49 GMT

    Ponting's got worse things to worry about then a catch which would've had made that much of a difference, As an Aussie I'm sick to death of the Australian team and their so called showpony's who play like crap and deserve to be treated like rockstars! pull your heads in boys to act like the best you gotta be the best! big flipping difference!!

  • on November 29, 2010, 22:46 GMT

    Punter looks frustrated and it is obvious because he is not performing with bat as well as his captaincy is not up to his standards. Good Luck Ponting for the next match. England has proved once again that they are the most improved side in the last 1-2 years.

  • on November 29, 2010, 22:43 GMT

    Total and utter hypocrisy. Please explain why Clarke didn't walk in the 1st innings when snicko showed a clear edge.

  • mukpatel on November 29, 2010, 22:30 GMT

    Joke of the year!!! Punter is demanding to accept his word !!! Mr. Punter, go and learn sportsman spirit from your neighbor country - NZ.

  • mukpatel on November 29, 2010, 22:30 GMT

    Joke of the year!!! Punter is demanding to accept his word !!! Mr. Punter, go and learn sportsman spirit from your neighbor country - NZ.

  • CricketConnect on November 29, 2010, 21:47 GMT

    Pointing think that he is another umpire on the field and "according to him. it's out in every such cases". He should learn respecting the belief that both teams have shown while signing the UDRS for Ashes. It's obvious sign of weakness and frustration.

  • Stevo_ on November 29, 2010, 21:44 GMT

    @Pinn Also that catch was caught fairly ( but not out as it came off the pad not bat), Ponting had the ball under control before it touched the ground (which is the law)

    Look at Finns caught and bowled, he touched the ball to the ground after he had it under control, completely legal, its the exact thing you Indian fans harp at Ponting about. Learn the rules and don't believe everything you read in the media ( maybe actually watch the game ??) .

  • Stevo_ on November 29, 2010, 21:40 GMT

    @pinn

    Incorrect - the catch wasn't reviewed at all , the umpired decided (rightly) that there was no edge. Ponting simply appealed, the same thing that happens multiple times in every test.

  • OutdoorMiner on November 29, 2010, 21:21 GMT

    Ponting, the problem is, you Aussies are the least trust-worthy team. Although yesterday's had to be a catch, where else could his fingers be except under the ball?

  • cricket_for_all on November 29, 2010, 21:12 GMT

    @ Shabbir Ali: 100% sure technology?. You better go to another world which has ideal udrs system and take MSD and Sachin with you (May be in the heaven). Be practical man; We first need to approve the current system then try to improve it. If you wait for 100% udrs system then you will be drwan in MSD's pool!!!! lol!!!

  • on November 29, 2010, 21:03 GMT

    Ponting must be nominated for the ICC Grumpiest Player of the Year award

  • on November 29, 2010, 20:38 GMT

    If Ponting and other Aussies didn't keep adamantly claiming grounded catches (think Bollinger last season) I, and maybe his opposition, might have more sympathy for his point. Similar to Haddin flicking off the bails against NZ last year and claiming the batsman had been bowled. No one believes the boys who cried wolf, and I for one have more trust in the TV replay than I have in the word of Ricky Ponting.

  • elephasMaximus on November 29, 2010, 20:27 GMT

    Ricky (is) Pointing lives by his standards. Just a couple of years back playing against India he was claiming a catch there never was - slow motion replays was all that was needed to confirm. And here he is again, winging like a six-year old. Dude, did you ever sit down and thought about why no one takes you up on your 'captains agreement'?

  • green_jelly on November 29, 2010, 20:09 GMT

    @ Damien Chandler - Yes, other players have claimed bumped catches. But when the umpires overturned them, they gracefully accepted the decision. But Ponting is the only one who thinks he is above all umpires, and has argued with them time and again. Truly a gentleman, isn't he?

  • on November 29, 2010, 20:01 GMT

    Get over the Sydney Test will you!! The same Test where Ponting DIDNT claim the catch off Dravid? The same Test where Clarke went into the Indian dressing rooms after the days play and apologised for the catch he claimed....when was the last time Ganguly did that after claiming catches that bounced...Dhoni either for that matter! Pontings point is that any low catch when sent for a review always comes back as not out and he's right...and I love the fact that the character of Kumble and Tendulkar cannot ever, EVER be questioned...ridiculous.

  • on November 29, 2010, 19:50 GMT

    In reply to Geethike Dinith De Silva's comment saying "Its funny, theres probably more concerned Indians about this than all of England's cricket fans combined" -

    It should equally be funny that these same concerned Indians are contributing more towards Cricket's revenue than all the Cricket fans from rest of the world including England can ever think of contributing! Actually Geethike its not funny but its the thing driving the Cricket economy!

  • on November 29, 2010, 19:40 GMT

    Oh punter, for god sake man, you are a captain of a nation who has won 4 world cups. Show some honesty. We all know what happened in 2008 and you are stupid enough to even talk about this? Amazing...

  • thebrownie on November 29, 2010, 19:15 GMT

    ROFL Ricky. you might wanna see this first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS2EZo4EMrM&feature=related

  • on November 29, 2010, 19:08 GMT

    ponting..........stop crying for not winning game.........but i like to c ur frustration......strauss....keep it up and beat aus in home ground.... wanna really c ponting s crying face and give resignation for not winning...............all the best england............

  • on November 29, 2010, 18:52 GMT

    It was a pleasure to see the tantrumized Ricky "I Always Walk" Ponting. However, saying that he does have a point, it looked a good catch. Perhaps a tweak to the rules is required so that a batsman can only be given not out if there is a clear bounce?

  • mohsan123 on November 29, 2010, 18:43 GMT

    ohh my dear pointing is one those player who want win at any cast he dont care spirt of game and if there is technology we have better and fair results ,.........

  • allyouknow on November 29, 2010, 18:34 GMT

    Think before you Ink Mr. Punter.

  • on November 29, 2010, 17:54 GMT

    @Geethike Dinith De Silva What is funny about Indians commentating about Ricky's wretched code of conduct?Have you forgotten this is the same man who stood his ground when Mahela Jayawardene claimed a catch of his in VB series in 2006?Have you forgotten whose country's sponsors are the most efficiently sponsoring the ICC events?Do you know where this site is based?Its all because of the unflinching love of the Indian fans for Cricket.

  • Dhanno on November 29, 2010, 17:54 GMT

    Yea right Mr. Ponting. Why didnt your effing umpires take up the word of indian wk when he had caught clarke ? And only choose to accept clarke's word when he "took" a miraculous catch ? You go eat your sour grapes and prepare for adelaide. Its the ghost of your past, cheating teams past which is haunting you.

  • VipulPatki on November 29, 2010, 17:52 GMT

    Unfortunately UDRS has found more opponents. At least one angle of the replays suggested that the ball has bounced before touching Ponting's palms. On that evidence, Cook survived. But that shouldn't question the utility of UDRS. And please! forget the Sydney test.

  • Saichandm on November 29, 2010, 17:38 GMT

    I have a question for everyone who blames ponting for that controversial catches in the sydney test... Most batsman who nick the ball and get caught still wait for the umpire to give them out... This includes the so called GOD of Cricket. So if that is not wrong how is claiming a catch wrong... If there is anyone to be blamed then the umpire for not making the right judgment then...

  • tcherian on November 29, 2010, 17:25 GMT

    Is it not funny or the Indians have more vision? They have been against this damn technology for long time

  • on November 29, 2010, 17:17 GMT

    I second Aravind. Besides, there are many youtube videos which clearly show Australians including Ponting having appealed after they've grassed catches. Apparently, in Australia, grassed catches are considered to be legitimate, as long as they win the game.

  • Aspraso on November 29, 2010, 17:16 GMT

    Ponting has only himself to blame (not the opposing captains) for the fact that no opposing captain is willing to have a "gentleman's agreement" with him on claiming catches. For him to be still lamenting about shows he has neither grown up nor has he grown any smarter.

  • mrmonty on November 29, 2010, 17:04 GMT

    Ponting getting annoyed by things, when they don't go his way. So, what's NEW!!

  • westindiancanadian on November 29, 2010, 16:57 GMT

    Is there a SINGLE captain in cricket that would agree to this against Ponting??!!! The Aussies have single handedly destroyed ANY gentlemanly aspect that the game had. I like the technology. They should bring in more technology to combat the cheating Aussies.I remember the Sydney test and will never forget it and neither should any captain playing Australia. Ponting was frustrated that his bowlers and team are on the way down and there is not fan (except Australians) that will feel sorry for them.

  • on November 29, 2010, 16:46 GMT

    ricky ponting and australia are nothing but cry babies.... their supremacy is over in world cricket now. now stop whining and complaining and concentrate on the cricket. he should teach JOhnson and his other bowlers how to bowl better..

  • vinodkd99 on November 29, 2010, 16:45 GMT

    Today's catch was of no consequence as match was already a dead draw by then However in case we relive 2008 SCG test, one can remember the Clarke-Ganguly stuff that cost India the match.

  • iamright on November 29, 2010, 16:38 GMT

    Ha ha look who is crying wolf now. Grapes are certainly sour Mr Ponting. You should never have been the captain, It should have been Warne all along... Pity we the spectators have to put up with you and your losing habits....Australia and its cricketing traditions rule, but you are an exception to that rule....

  • Jarr30 on November 29, 2010, 16:36 GMT

    There you go...Cry babies have started crying AGAIN....Grow up Punter.. NO player in the right sense will belive Ponting's word specially while taking low catches.

  • on November 29, 2010, 16:31 GMT

    Better we go to unreliable technology than take the fielders word for it. If batsmen stand their ground after nicking a ball they cannot be trusted as fielders.

  • willsrustynuts on November 29, 2010, 16:30 GMT

    Debating the issue during and after the game is simple sour grapes.

    Personally I would like to believe that the catcher knows best and they should be trusted on their word but in a World where games can be bought for a leather jacket or players will (apparently) bowl no balls on demand why should anyone accept that a player was 'pretty sure' he caught it?

    Pathetic is a word not used enough in sport.

  • SPKay on November 29, 2010, 16:26 GMT

    The Aussies first need to learn to play in the spirit of the game. They haven't been able to walk the walk, hence all the muted talk. Otherwise we know how these guys behave on the field. And regarding the gentleman's agreement, how about training yourself your boys on not claiming grassed chances? Sydney 2008 anyone?

  • catalyst213 on November 29, 2010, 15:54 GMT

    Aleem Dar has been voted the best umpire by the ICC, he is experienced and knows a few teams and players very well. Ponting is perhaps trying to save his face by arguing now. Sorry Punter, its a definately a gentlemen's game where you have been playing (somehow) for so many years !!!

  • pinn on November 29, 2010, 15:45 GMT

    Mr. Ponting , dont you remember the match vs India in sydney 2009, where you have claimed a catch, which was declined rightly by the technology ? Also, dont you remember the Ganguly's so called 'catch' in the same match ? Technology is helping you to make better decisions. No need to blame on these tight decisions.

  • shri619 on November 29, 2010, 15:37 GMT

    that's what tendulkar is saying man technology is not perfect even in udrs there is a need of improvment in it

  • CricketPissek on November 29, 2010, 15:15 GMT

    haha... ok grandpa. the rest of the world is waiting til india and ponting grow a pair and take on the new technology. it helps the players so much, the captains just have to be intelligent enough to use it well.

  • Dubby49 on November 29, 2010, 15:00 GMT

    The limitations of technology being what they are, low catches should be the one exceptin to the rule that the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt. Unless the ball is CLEARLY seen to have touched the ground, the fielder's word should be accepted.

    As far as taking Ponting's word, in the infamous Sydnet test he claimed a catch though he had grounded the ball before being in full control. (Michael Clarke did the same). The law is very clear that the catch is not complete until the fielder is in full control of both the ball and his body. I remember Jonty Rhodes taking a magnificent catch to dismiss Tendulkar. Jonty was flying horizontally when he caught the ball but grounded it when he landed. The catch, magnificent though it was, should have been nulliified. The most ridiculs reasoning given in the post mortem was that Jonty was a "born again Christian" and wouldnt lie. No one accused him of lying as it is reasonable to believe tht he didn't know the ball had touched. But???

  • on November 29, 2010, 14:46 GMT

    Get over the Sydney test already.

  • Lahori_Munde on November 29, 2010, 14:04 GMT

    What goes around comes around. Nobody with right frame of mind will believe you Punter. You have brought Australian cricket so low that I hope you get dumped after this series

  • on November 29, 2010, 14:00 GMT

    remember guys, umpires have been referring these types of catches for years - it has nothing to do with the UDRS.

    I don't think anyone has any complaints about the UDRS and its use in this Test.

    This was purely an umpires decision to go upstairs, nothing to do with UDRS.

  • on November 29, 2010, 13:56 GMT

    See who is complaining.....He never complained after the Sydney test debacle......

  • on November 29, 2010, 13:47 GMT

    Yeah, like any one is going to trust Ponting after the Sydney fiasco in 2008.

  • on November 29, 2010, 13:46 GMT

    Its funny, theres probably more concerned Indians about this than all of England's cricket fans combined

  • Sanki88 on November 29, 2010, 13:39 GMT

    What can I say what goes around comes back around. Once Mahela Jayawerdena caught Ponting in the same fashion and Ponting didn't walk and went on to score a century after the TV umpire gave the decision in favor of him. I'm sure Mahela said the same to the umpire back then. Ponting should perhaps remember all that and stop being a cry baby.

  • on November 29, 2010, 13:33 GMT

    it was a catch. to the people having a go at ponting the past. gangully has claimed bumped catches as well and so has dhoni

  • deepakjm on November 29, 2010, 13:27 GMT

    Tony greig said on commentary that "Its a shame that other captains don't agree on Ponting's proposal of taking fielders' word". Well anybody who will support Ponting on that after what happened to India in Sydney 3 years ago would be fool.

  • anver777 on November 29, 2010, 13:15 GMT

    BETTER LUCK next time !!!!! Mr PONTING........

  • Fast_Track_Bully on November 29, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    "I said to the umpires straight away that I was pretty sure that I caught it," Ponting said -- LOL #Second_Test,_2007-08_Border-Gavaskar_Trophy-Indian 2nd innings-Sourav Ganguly (51). He was 100% sure in that case too!

  • rohanblue on November 29, 2010, 13:01 GMT

    harsh_vardhan2002 its not asad rauf, its aleem dar who did d right thing...

  • ALLIPLWINNERS on November 29, 2010, 12:51 GMT

    I quite like the idea made by Harsha or someone in one of the blogs... That is rather than have UDRS with limited moments to go wrong. Why cant third umpires directly microphone into the umpires ears if they see something blatantly wrong... that would make it fair and there should be no ignimony of whether you want or dont want uDRS

  • on November 29, 2010, 12:46 GMT

    Punter had done nothing wrong this time as he has done it several times in his career..

  • DazTaylor on November 29, 2010, 12:43 GMT

    LOL @ Ponting. Total and utter hypocrisy. So please explain why Clarke didn't walk in the 1st innings when snicko showed a clear edge.

  • indicricket on November 29, 2010, 12:42 GMT

    Oh my my, is nobody trusting the most upright cricketer of 'em all?

  • S.N.Singh on November 29, 2010, 12:41 GMT

    LOOKING AT CRICKET ON THE INTERNET AND T.V. IN MY OPINION, TECHNOLOGY FOR UMPIRING L.B.W. GIVES THE WRONG DECISION. SOMETIMES LOOKING AT IT, SOME DELIVERIES THAT I THINK WITH A TURNING/MOVING BALL WHEN THE BATSMAN PLAYED DOWN THE LINE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE UMPIRE DOUBT GOES THE WRONG WAY. sOMETIMES THE BALL IS PITCHED UP AND TECHNOLOGY SHOW ED THAT IT WILL END UP OVER THE WICKET. THIS SHOULD BE ONLY ON A BOUNCING WICKET. I THINK THE UMPIRE IS THERE TO GIVE A DECISION AND IT SHOULD BE THE LAW. WHEN AN UMPIRE MAKE A WRONG DECISION THROUGH DOUBT AT THE END OF THE DAY HE SHOULD BE CALLED A SHOW WHAT TECHNOLOGY SHOW AND HE SHOULD THE UMPIRE SHOULD BE GIVEN A WARNING OR POINTS AND CHARGE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE UMPIRE. BECAUSE UMPIRE SOMETIMES TAKES SIDES OR THEY ARE AFRAID OF CERTAIN TEAMS AND PERSONALITY ? S. N.SINGH U S A

  • on November 29, 2010, 12:24 GMT

    This is going to be one of those things where all the anti-Australian people are going to say "he's a cheat" blah blah blah. It wasn't clear that the ball bounced in front of him, and the replays couldn't show fingers being under the ball or not, and he . Clearly this isn't him trying to cheat or claim a false catch. But it shows that technology isn't the saviour to everything. Imagine if this happens with a side 9 down and 5 to win.

  • D.V.C. on November 29, 2010, 12:23 GMT

    mrgupta: the UDRS isn't really used for close catches. For LBWs and edges it works, statistically, better than humans. For this, which the umpires can use without a referral and do, it is statistically worse. I don't understand why we are using something that has been shown to be worse than what we had before.

  • on November 29, 2010, 12:21 GMT

    How can anyone take Ponting's word. Mr Ponting ruled Ganguly out when the ball had clearly bounced in Sydney test. Also in the same test, he claimed a catch after brushing the ball on the ground. So probably he should not get annoyed when people now stop trusting him :) Its your own doing Mr. Ponting.

  • popcorn on November 29, 2010, 12:19 GMT

    Ponting is ethical - other captains are not.Especially Strauss - see what happened at Lord's.

  • D.V.C. on November 29, 2010, 12:19 GMT

    On this Ponting is dead right. It has been shown scientifically that a 2D image in slow motion is worse than the human eye at real speed in determining if a catch was taken. (Yes, I am a Physicist.)

  • JerryJose on November 29, 2010, 12:06 GMT

    Hilarious to say the least. "he has grown weary of his lone battle to get the unofficial regulation passed". We all know what happens when unofficial regulations are passed. Remember the sydney test against Ind???

  • CharlieAlanJakeHarperFamily on November 29, 2010, 12:03 GMT

    YEAH RAUF DID A FANTASTIC JOB TO STRIP DOWN THE CHEATER I STILL RUE AND REMEMBER THE GANGULY CATCH IN THE ACRIMONIOUS SYDNEY TEST IN THE SECOND INNINGS WHERE PUPCLAIMED A FALSE CATCH LOOK I AM NO ONE TO JUDGE JUST A MERE FAN BUT ANY KID COULD HAVE SEEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COOK'S CATCH AND GANGULY'S AND IN THE SAME MATCH PONTING EDGED DOWN THE LEG SIDE TO DHONI AND DID NOT WALK WELL THATS HIS DECISION AND WHEN MARK BENSON ASKED PONTING DID CLARKE TOOK THE CATCH HE SAID YES NOW HOW CAN ONE TRUST DOUBLE STD

  • haydenblair on November 29, 2010, 12:03 GMT

    its really great to see the aussies on the backfoot and totally clueless as for pointing ....the only aussie i clearly remember walking was gilcrist.........what i do remember also is ian healy and a number of his contentious catches off the deck.......wavell hinds and his numerous erroneous dismissals..... had the technology been available at the time who knows.......... kemar roach being given out when he clearly didnt touch the delivery.......its only a gentlmans game when its in your favor pointing.....remember jermaine lawson against your team 6 or 7 for spit then claims of him chucking...........take your licks like a gentleman thats all you need to do

  • Rameshn007 on November 29, 2010, 12:02 GMT

    Dear Punter!! The Selective Amnesia is not going to work in the cricket field. Either use all the new age paraphernalia including referrals , or advocate against it entirely. Cribbing when you are the receiving end doesn't look good up on you....Would you have expressed the same concern if your team gained 2 wickets with the help of referral or third umpire?? :)

  • mrgupta on November 29, 2010, 11:54 GMT

    Too bad Mr Ponting, now do u understand why Indians are not in favour of this technology? Any comments on the pitch this time?

  • India_boy on November 29, 2010, 11:46 GMT

    since sydneygate, i dont think anyone is ever going to believe you punter, u urself are a blight on the gentlemen's game.Opposition captains are fools to agree with u over such terms and u continue to prove them wrong!

  • on November 29, 2010, 11:46 GMT

    "I said to the umpires straight away that I was pretty sure that I caught it," Ponting said. "That's about all I could do. As soon as they referred it you pretty much know what the end result was going to be." I might be wrong [and I am happy to be corrected] but didn't Ponting actually say the words "Piss weak umpiring"? At least thats what appears in the videos in cricketcrowd.com....typical Ponting arrogance

  • on November 29, 2010, 11:44 GMT

    ...the slip cordon should have been standing closer in!

  • on November 29, 2010, 11:42 GMT

    Really the UDRS is used to overturn terrible desicions like if the ball is pitching full on middle stump and is smashing middle stump (lbw shout) and the umpire gives it not out, the team have a chance to prove the umpire wrong. But now this technology is available, teams have a chance to review a desicion which is really hard to be given out by a human umpire. But personally I feel the UDRS is a step in the right(ish) direction

  • Kiranbca on November 29, 2010, 11:35 GMT

    "I said to the umpires straight away that I was pretty sure that I caught it," Ponting said. --------

    He is always sure about his n his teammates' catches!! Cannot forget Sydney Test row in 2008!!

  • CMIS on November 29, 2010, 11:34 GMT

    Whenever I hear about this 'gentlemen's agreement, I think its a bad idea. Ponting, in recent times, has grown on me a bit, and I think his team's struggles have made him more humble. I want to believe him when he says he caught it, but there are some incidents, that make his words seem a bit hollow. I'll just put forward one although I can't remember exactly which match it was. It was Aus v NZ, probably in 05/06 in an ODI. A leftie square cut uppishly and Michael Clarke at point dived forward, and in real time it seemed a clean catch, Clarke was whooping about and the umpire gave it out without referral. On replay, though, it was clear that Clarke had closed his fingers over the ball (with palm facing downward) as it touched the ground. Its instances like this that, to my mind, lend Ponting's plea a sinister tone. I don't want to think of it that way, but the thought does pop in. I agree though that the technology is nowhere near good enough, more expensive equipment is required

  • paddyking on November 29, 2010, 11:29 GMT

    Hello all, We have to remember the incident : last time when India toured to australia, one match due to a lot of controversies, India lost it. In that match, crucial moments, Ponting and Symmonds cheated? if the words from ponting was not taken, and had the umpire asked for third umpire. 2-3 important guys of india would not be out, and India would have drawn/won the match.Ponting talked about his integrity.hope he has not forgotten this mess that aussies did.

    When sachin,and India say NO for UDRS, many countries and experts,questioning India's issues. But now they are sensing, the reality and problems involved. Hope people understand things and issues involved

    thanks,

    anand paddy

  • Aussie_Nandu on November 29, 2010, 11:18 GMT

    For this statement to come from him that teams should accept the word of the fielder is a bit high. Ponting himself claimed a catch during the 2nd innings of now famous "Sydney Test" against India, when the replays showed otherwise, and then to top it off, he was "aggressive" against the media who pointed him to the obvious. Umpires are there for a reason. That's always been the catch phrase of Australian teams since Steve Waugh's days, so why change it now. It's the same Ponting who used to say that Gilchrist shouldn't be walking until Umpire says so, then why should Cook be walking until umpire says so. You can't have it both ways.

  • ALLIPLWINNERS on November 29, 2010, 11:16 GMT

    the problem with that great wish of "gentlemanly behavior; Mr. Ponting was that you sealed a deal with the Kumble, a professional of the highest repute and then blatantly stabbed him in the back in the Sydney test. Your batsman claimed bump catches, your batsman didnt walk after edging to first slip and many more of those kinds... Leave aside the racism aspect as we would never know what happened... but I would trust Tendulkar against your word any day... but the level of absolute cheating is astounding that your team generally demonstrates... even when you had players with legendary statuses.... Quite shameful if you ask me...

  • www.mail.yahoo.com on November 29, 2010, 11:15 GMT

    ha ha ha ha:) accepting your word mr. ponting????????? we all know yours and your pals honesty in these things:):) where were you when clarke, who was made to dance like a school boy by anderson and finn, was given not out by the same technology????????? accept the fact that your team is not competent enough to take 20 english wkts and better tell your curators to prepare a sporting pitch rather than a national highway. am pretty sure that if the same match has been played on indian soil then it would have been thoroughly criticized:)

  • on November 29, 2010, 11:13 GMT

    Yet it's fine to challenge an umpire's decision no end. It's so hypocritical of Ponting to take this stance. He should either stand against all use of technology in decisions or keep his mouth shut. If he is really against it, he would refuse to utilise the Decision Review System, however, Test after Test we see him challenging umpire's decisions. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Ricky.

  • Something_Witty on November 29, 2010, 11:13 GMT

    That one at Lord's was an absolute shocker. But that was Rudi on that occasion, and he just had it in for Australia. He also seemed to have missed the part in the rulebook about LBW's and how they're supposed to work.

  • on November 29, 2010, 11:10 GMT

    Aussies, especially Ricky, are notorious for claiming false catches/bump catches and more famous for their on-ur-face unsportsmanship. I m glad dat the 3rd umpire did not rule in their favour even if it meant that Cook got a 2nd life, bcoz the benefit of doubt shud go always to the batsman.

  • abhi_cricinfo on November 29, 2010, 11:09 GMT

    Pointing should have raised his finger instead of arguing with umpire , just like sydney 2008 [ http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/content/image/329397.html?object=291352;page=2 ]

  • boris6491 on November 29, 2010, 11:09 GMT

    I am with Ponting on legislating on the 'Gentleman's Agreement' with regard to these low catches. Cricket is after all widely known as a gentleman's game, so why can this rule not apply? Referring to the third umpire wastes time and often does not prove conclusive in itself. The only way to come up with a reasonable decision is acting on the fielder's word and these days, dishonesty on the field is considered an abuse to the game and is not really a practice that I have seen engaged in.

  • sachisgod on November 29, 2010, 11:06 GMT

    hmm...if umpires start listening to ponting's words on the field, then it might as well turn into the much-discussed sydney test in india..why is this fuss about that catch mr ponting?. umpires are not sure, the batsman is not sure so that's why they referred it upstairs. and tv replies showed it was not a catch..wats wrong in that?. if you were in the same position and batting at 90 odd, i am sure you would do the same to ask for the replies..so please stop this and get on to the more important issues like fielding and your team's abysmal bowling displays..

  • on November 29, 2010, 10:54 GMT

    when indians refuse to use referrals they r called bullies!! i agree wid MSD and Sachin when they say we need to be 100% sure of technology before using it

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on November 29, 2010, 10:54 GMT

    when indians refuse to use referrals they r called bullies!! i agree wid MSD and Sachin when they say we need to be 100% sure of technology before using it

  • sachisgod on November 29, 2010, 11:06 GMT

    hmm...if umpires start listening to ponting's words on the field, then it might as well turn into the much-discussed sydney test in india..why is this fuss about that catch mr ponting?. umpires are not sure, the batsman is not sure so that's why they referred it upstairs. and tv replies showed it was not a catch..wats wrong in that?. if you were in the same position and batting at 90 odd, i am sure you would do the same to ask for the replies..so please stop this and get on to the more important issues like fielding and your team's abysmal bowling displays..

  • boris6491 on November 29, 2010, 11:09 GMT

    I am with Ponting on legislating on the 'Gentleman's Agreement' with regard to these low catches. Cricket is after all widely known as a gentleman's game, so why can this rule not apply? Referring to the third umpire wastes time and often does not prove conclusive in itself. The only way to come up with a reasonable decision is acting on the fielder's word and these days, dishonesty on the field is considered an abuse to the game and is not really a practice that I have seen engaged in.

  • abhi_cricinfo on November 29, 2010, 11:09 GMT

    Pointing should have raised his finger instead of arguing with umpire , just like sydney 2008 [ http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/content/image/329397.html?object=291352;page=2 ]

  • on November 29, 2010, 11:10 GMT

    Aussies, especially Ricky, are notorious for claiming false catches/bump catches and more famous for their on-ur-face unsportsmanship. I m glad dat the 3rd umpire did not rule in their favour even if it meant that Cook got a 2nd life, bcoz the benefit of doubt shud go always to the batsman.

  • Something_Witty on November 29, 2010, 11:13 GMT

    That one at Lord's was an absolute shocker. But that was Rudi on that occasion, and he just had it in for Australia. He also seemed to have missed the part in the rulebook about LBW's and how they're supposed to work.

  • on November 29, 2010, 11:13 GMT

    Yet it's fine to challenge an umpire's decision no end. It's so hypocritical of Ponting to take this stance. He should either stand against all use of technology in decisions or keep his mouth shut. If he is really against it, he would refuse to utilise the Decision Review System, however, Test after Test we see him challenging umpire's decisions. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Ricky.

  • www.mail.yahoo.com on November 29, 2010, 11:15 GMT

    ha ha ha ha:) accepting your word mr. ponting????????? we all know yours and your pals honesty in these things:):) where were you when clarke, who was made to dance like a school boy by anderson and finn, was given not out by the same technology????????? accept the fact that your team is not competent enough to take 20 english wkts and better tell your curators to prepare a sporting pitch rather than a national highway. am pretty sure that if the same match has been played on indian soil then it would have been thoroughly criticized:)

  • ALLIPLWINNERS on November 29, 2010, 11:16 GMT

    the problem with that great wish of "gentlemanly behavior; Mr. Ponting was that you sealed a deal with the Kumble, a professional of the highest repute and then blatantly stabbed him in the back in the Sydney test. Your batsman claimed bump catches, your batsman didnt walk after edging to first slip and many more of those kinds... Leave aside the racism aspect as we would never know what happened... but I would trust Tendulkar against your word any day... but the level of absolute cheating is astounding that your team generally demonstrates... even when you had players with legendary statuses.... Quite shameful if you ask me...

  • Aussie_Nandu on November 29, 2010, 11:18 GMT

    For this statement to come from him that teams should accept the word of the fielder is a bit high. Ponting himself claimed a catch during the 2nd innings of now famous "Sydney Test" against India, when the replays showed otherwise, and then to top it off, he was "aggressive" against the media who pointed him to the obvious. Umpires are there for a reason. That's always been the catch phrase of Australian teams since Steve Waugh's days, so why change it now. It's the same Ponting who used to say that Gilchrist shouldn't be walking until Umpire says so, then why should Cook be walking until umpire says so. You can't have it both ways.