Brad Haddin

[spell_check]

I called it at the time that the square leg umpire should have called a no-ball; if he was alert to that fact, Haddin would not be in the firing line at the moment over this matter.

[bayman]

What about all the batsman that don't walk when they know they are out. If they don't ask for a replay are they cheats? Arguably that's worse ... assuming Haddin wasn't 100% sure. And we can't be certain Haddin was certain in a split second. We also can't be certain if the ball wouldn't have hit the stumps anyway.

The done thing is to wait for the Umpire to call it. Why do we expect Haddin to act differently to the set (competitive) standard? Do the rules even allow it to be reviewed by the third umpire?

Finally, had it gone to a third umpire it wouldn't have been conclusive enough to over-rule the decision on the field.

As Steve Waugh said, there are far more important issues in cricket right now.

i have no problem with batsmen not walking because those things even out (sometimes your given out with the ball nicking the thigh pad & other times your not out & there is a very slight nick) & that call is for the umpires to make. as for whether the ball was or wasn't going to hit the stumps is irrelevant because haddin has dislodged the bails so therefore the batsman can not be given out bowled (as i understand the laws of cricket)
your 3rd point i disagree with because the bails are clearly off before the ball got there so it was conclusive.
i think if haddin had it happen again he'd ask the square leg by saying he's not sure & if the umpire wasn't sure i'd suggest they'd go upstairs just like they have like graeme smiths catch

[spell_check]

What about all the batsman that don't walk when they know they are out. If they don't ask for a replay are they cheats? Arguably that's worse ... assuming Haddin wasn't 100% sure. And we can't be certain Haddin was certain in a split second. We also can't be certain if the ball wouldn't have hit the stumps anyway.

The done thing is to wait for the Umpire to call it. Why do we expect Haddin to act differently to the set (competitive) standard? Do the rules even allow it to be reviewed by the third umpire?

Finally, had it gone to a third umpire it wouldn't have been conclusive enough to over-rule the decision on the field.

As Steve Waugh said, there are far more important issues in cricket right now.

i have no problem with batsmen not walking because those things even out (sometimes your given out with the ball nicking the thigh pad & other times your not out & there is a very slight nick) & that call is for the umpires to make. as for whether the ball was or wasn't going to hit the stumps is irrelevant because haddin has dislodged the bails so therefore the batsman can not be given out bowled (as i understand the laws of cricket)
your 3rd point i disagree with because the bails are clearly off before the ball got there so it was conclusive.
i think if haddin had it happen again he'd ask the square leg by saying he's not sure & if the umpire wasn't sure i'd suggest they'd go upstairs just like they have like graeme smiths catch

Yep, and because his gloves (or part of it) were in front of the stumps before the ball passed them, that's where the no-ball decision comes into play. It would not be a no-ball if it had brushed the bat or striker on the way through. (For those that don't know)

[Hondo]

It's split second stuff - barely conclusive in slow-mo and that's about it. The ball is coming in at 100km per hour I don't think you can hang him on that, regardless of how much of a tosser you think he might be in real life. In real time speed, everyone's reaction was it was bowled, including the commentators.

It's easy to pull out the slow-mo and rule book and get technical about it as though everyone watched it unfold live at that speed. I am a supporter of the 3rd umpire and here's another case where a challenge might have got up and there'd be nothing to talk about.

Bayman, you said it yourself. It's up to the umpires to get it right and make the right call, not the players (as Spelly and Topsy said if they'd called it no-ball then there's no issue). I don't think you can call for idealistic sportsmanship from a keeper (calling him back if unsure) when batsman don't walk and bowlers appeal for everything. It's cut throat competitive cricket out there.

Looking at the comments on YouTube (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iBv4gq72p4M) it seems that Haddin will join Dyer, Healy, G Chappell and Steve Waugh in Aussie cricket cheating infamy!

[brod]

Still going

Ponting's apology claim stuns New Zealand
Alex Brown

Replays suggested Haddin's gloves had broken the stumps, and Vettori made clear his displeasure after the game by stating the wicketkeeper "should have made some noise about it" before the umpire, Bruce Oxenford, ruled Broom bowled to Michael Clarke. Ponting attempted to downplay the incident on Wednesday by telling reporters in Melbourne that Haddin "got an apology via text message from Daniel", but the captain may have succeeded only in fanning the flames.

Vettori and his team-mates were stunned to learn of Ponting's comments, adamant that no apology had been offered. "We've agreed both sides have a different version of events," the New Zealand team manager Lindsay Crocker told NZPA. "We should put the matter behind us and it was nothing personal."

[topsywaldron]

Ponting attempted to downplay the incident on Wednesday by telling reporters in Melbourne that Haddin "got an apology via text message from Daniel", but the captain may have succeeded only in fanning the flames.

What's Vettori got to apologise for? Being able to construct a meaningful sentence?

[brod]

Ponting attempted to downplay the incident on Wednesday by telling reporters in Melbourne that Haddin "got an apology via text message from Daniel", but the captain may have succeeded only in fanning the flames.

What's Vettori got to apologise for? Being able to construct a meaningful sentence?

Facial hair

[Lightning McQueen]

What's Vettori got to apologise for? Being able to construct a meaningful sentence?

Facial hair

He went to the childrens zoo.

[Rik E Boy]

What a storm in a teacup. What I'm more disappointed with is the standard of cricket that Haddin has shown since being elevated. I've pumped up his tyres in the past as a good cricketer but his batting and keeping have not been that great apart from a good knock in Adelaide and one decent one day innings. I'd have to say he is the least impressive Australian Wicket keeper I have seen, although I don't remember too much about Greg Dwyer's abilities all these years later.

Haddin isn't in the same class as Zoherer, Wright and Nixon let alone Marsh, Healy or Gilchrist. It's a bit of a shame IMO as I believe that his best IS good enough...but does Haddin believe it himself? He seems to be fighting mental demons at the moment.

regards,

REB