England’s Ian Bell (right) hits a shot off the bowling of Australia’s Steve Smith as Brad Haddin (left) looks on during play on day 3 in the Fifth Ashes Test between Australia and England at the Sydney Cricket Ground in Sydney on Wednesday, Jan. 5, 2011. (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
No wonder Ian Chappell dislikes Sir Ian Botham so much. The cricket knight is an irresponsible prat. Botham was wrong when he accused Phillip Hughes of ‘cheating’ for half-claiming a catch against Alastair Cook.
The ball, in fact, did not carry to Hughes who was fielding at silly mid-on. The Australian opener caught the ball which came to him in a blink of a second. He held it up as a catch, momentarily. Then he motioned to his captain and exultant team-mates that he wasn’t sure whether he had caught it on the full.
There was none of the leaping around that generally goes on when a catch is taken. Most of the emotion was shown by Michael Beer, the bowler.
But what was Botham’s comment on the Sky television broadcast? ‘Terrible. Cheating. How much do you want it to bounce into your hands. He knows he hasn’t caught it.‘
Well, no, Sir Ian. He was unsure and he made this clear. Cook told journalists after the day’s play that Hughes had said straight away, ‘I’m not sure.’
Now we come to the real cheating incident in a Test where England has totally out-played an Australian side the Daily Telegraph is suggesting is our ‘worst ever.’
Ian Bell is batting determinedly to ensure that he – finally – gets Test hundred against Australia. Then he nicks one to the wicket-keeper Brad Haddin. Umpire Aleem Dar gives him out. This is the correct decision. Bell looks to his partner. He gets a non-committal look back. Then Bell challenges the decision.
This sort of delayed decision was clearly a gamble on the snick being so fine that it is not picked up by Hot Spot. In fact, Hot Spot (according to Michael Slater) does register a very small white (indicating a snick) spot. I reckon I saw the spot Slater was referring to, in the replays showed on television.
But the third umpire for some reason gave Dar the advice that he was unable to confirm his decision. Dar then, incorrectly in my opinion, over-ruled his previous decision.
The gamble has worked. But let’s not mince words here. In my opinion, Bell cheated. He knew he had snicked the ball. Snicko, as well, indicated the snick. But Bell did not immediately challenge Dar’s decision as Cooke did when he pushed the ball into Hughes’ hands.
Bell waited a few seconds. And it is this wait that gives his game away, I believe. And why did he let Cook present his defence to the media rather than front up himself?
Several of the Australian players refused to clap his century. I don’t blame them. I don’t blame Bell, either. He took a chance. And it came off.
In a sense, this incident is a sort of metaphor for the Test series. England have invariably shown more gumption and nous throughout the five Tests than their naive opponents.
Yesterday this gumption and nous came through very clearly, once again.
The England tail-enders and Matt Prior (who incidentally has spent the series appealing for catches that did not go near the bat – cheating Sir Ian?) belted the inept Australian attack all over the SCG.
Then when Australia batted there was an abject collapse. Shane Watson became involved (his fault again) in his third run-out of the series. The England bowlers got reverse swing that tormented and then knocked over the Australian top order once again.
What was interesting and instructive was that the reverse swing came from a superbly organised team effort in creating a ball that would reverse swing. As the Channel Nine commentators explained, the rough side had to be kept totally dry. The shiny side had to be loaded with sweat and maintained by constant polishing.
Here comes the interesting part, though. The England player at mid-off or mid-off getting the ball back from the wicket-keeper dried his hands before catching the ball. The ball was polished hard and then passed on to the bowler.
This attention to detail, like the Bell incident, came from a meticulous preparation. England out-played Australia throughout the series, except for the Perth Test, because their coaching staff totally out-coached their Australian counterparts.
The players, in turn, were smart enough to absorb this great coaching and put it into operation.
As I watched Steve Smith and Peter Siddle bravely play out time and delay the inevitable defeat until the last day of play, I thought of the aptness for this series of the adage from the legendary Chinese warrior-philosopher Sun-tzu: ‘All battles are won before the battle is fought.’
Ken
Guest
ian botham should look at his own countrymen who have cheated before he shoots his big mouth off. And he got a bloody knighthood?
Simon
Guest
Failing to walk is not cheating. Calling for a review is not cheating. Appealing to the umpire for chances that were nowhere near, is not cheating. No more discussion on this topic, ever, please.
David H
Guest
That would be an interesting Tweet. "I apologise for not walking when I wasn't sure whether I did or didn't hit the ball, I further apologise for referring the incident to the third umpire who couldn't find any evidence that I hit it either. Finally I apologise that the on field umpire made the decision to overturn his original decision rather than give me out." Don't get me wrong, I believe in all likelihood that he did hit it. I also believe however that he wasn't really sure one way or the other and that when he had advice from his batting partner that he didn't think Bell had hit it that he then asked for a referral.
David H
Guest
Hi Ben, For some reason I don't see the link allowing me to reply directly,possibly we have hit the maximum amount of nesting of comments, but hopefully this is close enough that you will notice. I don't think anyone could seriously argue and I don't think I've heard anyone argue that there wasn't a noise. Snicko detected it, but wasn't available to the third umpire. Had it have been I think the benefit of the doubt may not have gone to Bell. I have heard some argument that velcro from a guard or a clicky handle on the bat are capable of causing the noise, but i think it's unlikely. Personally, I'm fairly certain that hit hit the ball and that was the cause of the noise. What I'm not certain about and don't really believe was that he knew for certain that he had hit the ball. I don't debate most of what you have said, but I think you have over simplified. I am not able to factor in to the exclusion of doubt, the thickness and therefore the deadening properties of the gloves he was wearing, the tightness of his grip on the bat etc. As well as this, if it was the edge that I suspect it was, then it was so fine as not to show up as a hotspot on the bat, and therefore the friction and impact would have to be classified as extremely light. I have heard argument that there was a faint mark on the bat, and whilst I'd concede that I don't have 20/20 vision, I have been unable to see it personally in any of the replays I have seen. I also believe that anyone who calls for a review knowing that they had hit it is opening themselves up to being called a cheat and with respect I think that is unlikely to happen in any normal situation. I think your summation is extremely harsh and I believe there is a much more logical argument and reasoning for his actions. I suspect (unlike many other posters I don't have the gift of mind reading to be sure) and would find it much more likely in terms of normal human behavior that Bell heard a noise, but that the contact was so slight that he didn't feel it. I believe confused by having one sensation register a positive but another a negative that he sought advice from his batting partner as to what he saw. This tallies with his statement that he wasn't sure. I believe it was Prior who was batting with him at the time, and I understand his advice was that he didn't think Bell had hit it. The logical action then in to ask for a referral. This is an entirely reasonable explanation, for his actions, although I'm sure it wouldn't be popular and certainly wouldn't sell many news papers. Your liar and cheat statements are at best uncharitable, especially when you have no solid evidence with which to back it up. Whilst I understand you are entitled to your opinion, I personally don't share it and hope you never have the misfortune to be judged in such a summary way without any real weight of evidence.
Briolex
Guest
Ian Chappell is certainly not universally loathed and stands as one of the greatest captains ever for Australia. I have just read the book written by his team mate Ashley Mallet and one thing that does stand out is his honesty and integrity. What Australia would give for another captain like him right now.
soapit
Guest
so until then we'll just have to trust you that its pontings behaviour/attitude not the runs he's scored against you over the years that makes him such a target right? not sure if we have built up enough trust at this point for that unfortunately. i hope this doesnt make things awkward but you shouldnt have put us in this position so early in our relationship. it would make it easier and simpler if you guys could just back up your statements now and tell us at least a couple of examples to help demonstrate that it isnt just his 2500 runs against england (not that many in the scheme of things).
johnyfairplay
Guest
this must be the first time I agree with Mr. Zavos - ever. the poms have taken gamesmanship to a new level and talk about being gracious in victory...
Ben from Sydney
Guest
So will Bell be tweeting that apology?????????????????????????
Ben from Sydney
Guest
Sorry Jason, I can't follow this one. Have you been drinking in celebration?? Like your original post against me you continue to grab extracts from my posts and misrepresent them. And I can't really follow your point. Just so we are clear. I did not deny calling Bell a cheat. He is a cheat!! I denied that my premise and conclusion was the same - I denied claiming that Bell is a cheat because he cheats. I'm not sure if you know the meaning of the jargon you are throwing around but that's what a “Begging the question fallacy” is. Remember, that's what you were criticising me for. Unfortunately, Jason you've accused someone of committing a logical fallacy who actually has a Bachelors Degree in Philosophy having studied Logic and I'd prefer it if you are going to throw around jargon that you know what it means and apply it correctly. Now Jason I have clearly listed the reasons for my belief that Bell is a cheat and you have failed to offer a single argument against any of my reasons. You're entire defence of Bell is that because I cannot read his mind it is therefore impossible that I can deduce whether he knew that he had hit the ball or not. By that reasoning it would only be possible to convict people of crimes if they confessed or someone developed 'Jedi Mind Tricks'. How come the prisons are full Jason ... is everyone confessing?? There are now many posts on this page where I have clearly spelled out why I believe Bell must have known whether he hit the ball or not (without having read his mind) and that his pause before referring it to the third umpire - unlike every other player who has been given out when they didn't hit it - is indicative of his guilt. If you disagree with my arguments then perhaps try and argue against them. Stop pontificating about how much more intelligent you are than me and stop suggesting that an inability to read minds is necessary for making a reasoned judgment about someone's motivation and behaviour. Finally Jason I cannot resist the following quote ... "1) The ball went past Mr Bell’s inside edge and there was a noise.’ You could hear the noise from where you were? Must have been loud." Jason, my pen name is Ben FROM SYDNEY. It was the SYDNEY TEST. The noise was loud enough to carry to the fence ...
jak
Guest
Well Benny boy, you do not have an intelligent argument, far from it. YOU are having a deadset whinge mate. the guy didnt walk, he was given the benefit of the doubt. I dont care that botham stirred a few emotions and hooked a few fish, IT HAPPENS. As for your charge that i am trying to belittle you, well, you shine at doing that all by yourself. All teams are guilty of these incidents from time to time they are human and want to win. its a game always has been. Sort your life out get some perspective going. We all hope you feel better soon Ben, i hope one day you can look back, read and laugh at the ready rants you composed and so incorrectly thought as intelligent and think to yourself...... Yep i should have watched the tennis. P.S Get some help to remove the hook from the corner of your mouth and for gods sake wipe those sour grapes from your lips.
Ben from Sydney
Guest
Hey David, Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate your wordplay - how would I know if I had ever nicked a ball and not felt it. Given your correct Phenomenological argument I will shift my focus to Physics. My argument must therefore be that it is not possible for a batsmen to nick a ball and not feel it. And I'm happy to standby that argument. For my argument to make sense I hope you will concede there was a noise as the ball passed Mr Bell's bat - I'm happy if you argue about the cause of that noise but my argument depends on the fact that there was a noise. A cricket bat is made of wood (a good conductor of vibration and noise) and Ian Bell held it in his hands (which, apart from the human retina, would have more sensory nerve fibers than most areas of the human body (maybe apart from the rude bits)). Given that solids conduct better than gases I would argue Ian Bell's hands are a more sensitive conductor of vibration through his cricket bat than the umpire's tympanic membrane that was 22 yards away ... as well as the 40,000-plus (remember we all have 2) tympanic membranes sitting beyond the fence (+/- those belonging to English supporters who are prepared to lie about what they heard). I would also argue that if the umpire, and everyone at the SCG except English supporters, heard the noise then Mr Bell would have heard it also. If there was an audible (to the umpire and everyone without a British passport) noise around the same time as the ball passed Ian Bell's bat I would argue that two things: 1) If the audible noise was caused by ball striking bat then it should have created sufficient vibration to be felt in Mr Bell's hands. He clearly didn't hit his pads or the ground and, therefore, if his bat hit something to create that noise he couldn't have been been confused about what he hit. Please note that if anyone can supply me with evidence that Ian Bell suffers from Diabetes, B12 deficiency or any other cause for peripheral neuropathy then I will grant that he could have nicked the ball and not felt it. 2) If Mr Bell heard a noise but did not feel an associated vibration in his hands he would have (perhaps incorrectly given your argument) jumped to the conclusion that the noise was NOT caused by his bat hitting the ball (whatever else created the noise) and immediately asked for a third umpire referral - as every other batsmen who has referred an incorrect caught behind decision has done. However, he didn't immediately refer. He first asked his partner whether he should gamble or not. My first argument is therefore that Ian Bell knows - via the vibration in his cricket bat - whether the vibration I heard in my tympanic membrane was due to something hitting his cricket bat or not. Reportedly he has made the following report to the BBC ... "Um, I dunno??" ... I claim this is a lie. My second argument is that if Ian Bell heard the noise that everyone else did and did not feel any vibration through his cricket bat then he would have immediately appealed the decision - not waited until he'd finished a mid-pitch ethics conference. I therefore aim a second claim that he is not only a lier but a cheat.
Bayman
Guest
Guys, As usual, a fascinating argument which seems to be going on party lines. I didn't see "live" either the Hughes incident or that involving Bell. I have, however, seen the replays albeit once only in each case. Regarding Hughes/Cook I have two comments. Cook would have been reasonably positive the ball bounced. Hughes, if he had been watching the ball closely - and presumably he was because he "caught" it - would also have realised it bounced. It may have been a close enough thing that he went up half excited / half disappointed but he would probably have known the truth. When the rest of the Aussies got excited he may well have decided to go with the flow and see what happens. Unfortunately, players who claim catches when it bounces are somehow seen to be dishonest. As opposed to keepers/slippers/bowlers (Sir Ian?) who appeal in unison when they know the batsman has missed it completely. I see no real difference. As an aside, when Harris was lbw first ball in Adelaide (first innings) there were claims he heard an English player join the celebrations with the words, "He smashed it!" Did the English player cheat by not informing the umpire? Did Strauss cheat by not calling him back? The "hot spot" replay suggested nothing but another angle showed the edge. Too late for Harris, he was gone. As for Bell, I have no real issue. Players are walkers or they are not. It is, after all, why we have umpires. The only thing I have trouble with is the argument that somehow Bell may have snicked the ball without knowing. It's not a matter of whether Bell "heard" the snick. In the crowd noise he may not have heard it. But, he almost certainly would have felt it through his hands. Perhaps these modern bats are so well designed that a batsman doesn't know he has even hit the ball. Perhaps - but I doubt it. Let's not mince words here - every time a player acts contrary to the facts of the matter he is cheating. In cricket, as in all sports, there is good honest cheating and the more nasty, sinister cheating. Gilchrist walked but then appealed when he knew a batsman did not hit it so there's clearly cheating and then there's cheating. Was he saint or sinner? How did he reconcile the one action with the other? It was also clear that everyone thought Bell had nicked it. Subsequent replays suggested he nicked it and, as I said, he would have known it. The fact that he gambled on an appeal and won suggests he gained unfair advantage. In other words, he cheated. In another era he'd have been out. The interesting thing in this incident is the reasons why the umpire gave him out in the first place. Surely those things had not changed. Was it the noise, the deviation or both. I do not know but it's always interesting when an umpire is made to rescind his decision. Usually, it's because there's proof that he was wrong but, in this case, he was originally right. The real fascination, however, is the use of the referral system itself. Players are more than happy to orchestrate appeals when they know a batsman did not hit it but they demand the use of technology to clarify decisions. It doesn't make sense wrongfully appealing when you know the replay will probably exonerate the batsman. I guess they are just playing the percentages. Occasionally, a batsman will be fired on one of these appeals and the fielding team will gain an edge. If you don't ask, you don't find out. Gamemanship is just the polite way of saying cheat. Perhaps we should leave the last word to the former Australian wicketkeeper Ian Healy. He was once quoted as saying that, "I only appealed when I knew the batsman was definitely out - or when I thought there was a chance the umpire might give it!" Botham was wrong to single out Hughes and ignore Bell but then Botham is an Englishman. Just as our press righteously announced that Bell's hundred was "tainted". If that were so then the same accusation could be labelled at any of scores of previous Test centuries. Usually, when these claims and counter-claims are being thrown about you can be sure of one thing - one of the teams involved is getting belted. These claims then become de facto excuses. For me the quote of the summer was made today by an Englishman at lunch who was channelling Bill Woodfull, "There are two teams out there but only one of them is playing cricket". Ouch!
Ben from Sydney
Guest
Rich_daddy, Very reasoned and sensible answer. I agree with you on many points. Firstly, England were far superior. They won and deserved to win. Sincere congratulations goes to England and their supporters. I don't think anyone here is questioning these facts. I also agree with you about the 'walking when given not out' issue. There will be times batsmen are given out when they didn't hit it and times that they nick it and the umpire refuses the appeal. In these situations it is up to the individual to decide whether they walk or not - those who do can bathe in moral superiority while those who don't can reason that the good and bad decisions will even out. In my opinion both positions are fine. In these modern times I guess you could even argue that the batsman's referrals (when given out but didn't nick it) will be evened out by the fielding team's referrals (when the batsman nicks it but is given not out). If both teams appeal against decisions they think are incorrect then the usual rules apply - some decisions go for you, some against. Hopefully it evens out. However the above argument doesn't hold in the case of Ian Bell. He nicked it and he knows he nicked it and yet he referred the correct decision to the third umpire in the hope that the faint touch would not be detected by the substandard technology. You suggest that his decision is justifiable in the same vein as the decision to walk or appeal for a dubious LBW but I don't think this is true. How in this scenario will some decisions go for him and some against? If technology makes a good decision then the truth is upheld - and he loses nothing other than one appeal as the tail approaches the crease. If technology makes a mistake then he gets away with cheating. There is simply not the theoretical 'evening out' that justifies the other 'unsportsmanlike' examples. Bell's decision is not something that can be written off as the ebb and flow of umpiring decisions. It was a deliberate attempt to cheat a correct decision. What I've found more concerning is that not one English supporter on this site is concerned by Bell's precedent. Not one has admitted that Bell's action, while understandable given his desperation to get to his maiden century against Australia, was not something they wanted to see introduced into cricket. Are English supporters honestly happy to see two referrals each innings from batsmen who know they are out but figure Hotspot my not see it?? Obviously not all of the convicts were sent here 200 years ago!!
Ben S
Roar Guru
That's excellent forum comedy.
Rhys
Guest
Fisher, I wouldn't trouble yourself on that count. There'll be plenty of others will document Ponting's childish antics in the fullness of time, just don't expect any of them to be recounted accurately in a ghost-written 'autobiography'.
Martin
Guest
Ben from Sydney. Game over England 3 Australia 1. We are celebrating you are ..................god forbid you're whinging. Yes Ben I'm going elsewhere.
Fred Doh
Guest
almost - big difference there Jason, when you use the word 'universally'. Indeed, the difference between 'almost universally' and 'universally' is neglible, like 'almost infinity' and 'infinity'. Join the army - sure, if you qualify. But if you can, get off your computer right now and go meet some real Australians, under adversity and see how they handle it. You will learn a lot - and thus I suggest flood victims. I heard an interview with a couple of pommes (I know not your nationality) just a couple of days ago who were stranded at Mackay in the floods - and they were disgusted, at the state of our roads unable to handle rain, not as good as the UK, would never happen there, third world etc. Sadly, they had no idea of Australia, no desire to learn, and (though I hope I know better) did little to enhance their countrymen's reputation. As I say - go help some flood victims.
Jason
Roar Guru
Ben from Sydney writes: 'Firstly the link in your post is incorrect.' Yes I'm aware of that, but by the time I noticed the limit had passed for editing. 'Secondly you’ve done nothing to refute my argument.' I'm sure you'd love to believe that. 'Your entire contribution to this forum has been to throw around Logic terms such as “Occam’s Razor” and “Begging the question fallacy” in an attempt to make yourself seem more intelligent than you are.' Yes, that would be it. BTW, Occam's Razor is a principle that states one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. I've even gone to the trouble of explaining to you why you've committed the fallacy. Of course, you could demonstrate why I was wrong... Yeah, thought not. 'It would be better if you applied some logical techniques rather than just throwing around jargon hoping nobody else knows what it means.' Sigh.
David H
Guest
"so you are supporting the idea he didn’t know if he hit anything or nothing. I have never experienced this during my (very substandard) cricket career and I think the chances of it being true is extremely unlikely. Batsmen know whether they have nicked the ball or not – they should certainly know whether there bat has touch anything or nothing!!" This is an interesting one, in that if it was actually true, i.e you hit the ball without knowing it, then you wouldn't have experienced it as you wouldn't have known it had happened. With all of your arguments about logic, you might have thought this one out a bit better. Are you really saying that you are not aware of experiencing a situation where you didn't know something had happened?
Jason
Roar Guru
'your words Jason ' That's correct. Can you spot the difference? 'Sadly, your off-the-cuff comments denigrate Roar blog standards.' I'm suitably chastised. Rest assured I'll try to emulate the level of insight and analysis you've given this thread. 'Go help a few flood victims and learn a bit about life in Australia.' I'll also "get a hair cut" and "join the army" shall I? Good grief.