A Tale of Three Catches: The Case Against Ricky Ponting & Mike Procter

Here is the crux of the integrity argument against Ricky Ponting and his team. The "spirit of the game" which Ricky Ponting claims was upheld by both teams through out the Test Match, but for one incident (in his view the Harbhajan-Symonds incident).



This is the video of the Dhoni Catch. The argument is a matter of three catches really. In the first innings, Ricky Ponting made a difficult attempt in the slips and came up with the ball and immediately declared it a bump ball. Then on the 5th day, first he went with Michael Clarke's claim of a catch, which everyone including Gilchrist suggested was good. Finally, the third catch which Ponting claimed was this one against Dhoni.

As the speakers in that discussion in the video point out, it was obviously an incomplete watch, because the ball touched the ground even though it was in Ponting's hands. Law 32(3) states the following:

3. A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.

The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.
(b) the ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in his clothing or, in the case of the wicket-keeper, in his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder. See Law 23 (Dead ball).
(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.

Given the law above, it is obvious that Ponting's claimed catch off Dhoni was incomplete. In the process of obtaining control over his own movement, the ball touched the ground, even though it was in his hand (32 - 3(c)). Ponting appealed for the catch.

Similarly for Michael Clarke's catch, even though replays can be said to be inconclusive, the replay's were conclusive enough to show that it is inconceivable that the ball did not make any contact at all with a single blade of grass. Therefore, that catch would have to have been rightly judged in favor of the batsman.

None of this constitutes cheating in itself. But consider the pre-series agreement with Anil Kumble and Ricky Ponting where it was agreed that in the case of disputed catches, the fielding captain's word will be honored. The Umpires it appears were aware of this agreement, for Umpire Benson asked Ricky Ponting for his opinion in the matter.

Given this agreement, any appeal for a catch by Ponting himself has to be necessarily viewed in its light. It follows that Ponting should be extra careful, having taken on the extra responsibility himself for being the final judge of disputed catches, where Umpires cannot tell by themselves and would usually go for the TV Replay.

The most charitable explanation for this is that Ricky Ponting doesn't know the law. This stretches the bounds of credibility given the fact that he has been a tireless campaigner for taking the fielders word in the matter of disputed catches. No captain other than Kumble has agreed with him. Kumble, as he said in that press conference, approached it from the point of view of honesty - he expected everybody to be honest.

There was no way a honest captain with full knowledge of the laws could have claimed either of those catches on the 5th Day. Ricky Ponting did. Hence the question about the two faces of Ricky Ponting. It was a valid question borne out of a careful viewing of both appeals and of Law 32. Given that Ricky Ponting questioned the competence of the said journalist, id say he owes him an apology. It was not an assault on the Australian captain's integrity per se, but on his judgement. He himself made it out to be an assault on his integrity and sought the moral high ground.

Which brings us to Mr. Procter. Four years ago he issued a ban against Pakistan captain Rashid Latif for claiming a disputed catch. Given his arguments on that occasion, how can he possibly not bring Ricky Ponting to book for having claimed the Dhoni catch? How can the Umpires not report him especially in the light of the pre-series Agreement? If anything, Ponting's offence looks worse than Latif's, because not only is he a captain, but is also party to the said agreement with Anil Kumble.

The same question can be asked of the Umpires in the matter of Andrew Symonds's embarrassing claim about having edge the ball on Day 1. He was still not out when he made the admission, thus putting Umpire Bucknor in a terrible position. There is a strong case for a hearing for a Level 1.7 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct.

Then there is the question of the overrates. As i have shown before, the Australian over rate on Day 3 was exceptionally lower than the overrate by either team on any of the the other days. Why has this not been investigated?

Is it simply too much work for Mr. Procter and the two Umpires to run the Test match according to the rules? They completely lost control of the situation and let Ponting run riot.

They say that if every rule was applied every time it could be applied, no player would survive a year without a hearing. But when you have Harbhajan Singh being found guilty allegedly on the basis of pure hearsay (no witnesses other than Australian players, who cannot by definition be impartial witnesses in this case were called by Symonds, and there are reports that there was no audio or video evidence available) after a 6 hour hearing by the same referee in the same game - just imagine how much justice he could have meted out in those 6 hours in these other matters! Is it any surprise that India have found it necessary to suspend the tour?

Anil Kumble's invocation of Bill Woodfull's famous Bodyline line was apt. Ponting in the meanwhile, appears more and more as a modern day Jardine. He seems similarly oblivious to anything other than his view of what right and what is legal. There are three things for which this Sydney Test will be remembered - the Cricket, the Umpiring and Ricky Ponting. Not necessarily in that order.

It has now been nearly 2 days since the Sydney Test ended. Are you trying to tell me that Ricky Ponting cannot read the Laws of Cricket, specifically Law 32 especially in view of the furore which has been caused? If he did read it, how can he possess any decency at all and not make a public reference to it, instead of merely parroting the usual line that "there was only one incident in the game, and it didn't involve the Australians"?

Peter Roebuck has called for him to be sacked!