Monday, January 14, 2008

The Captains Agreement and Dangling Pronoun Pointers

CricInfo says some interesting things. Must be an interesting read for those who think they know everything about the agreement.

Ricky Ponting and Anil Kumble, it is learnt, have decided the on-field umpires' word will be final and they can make a choice to refer the decision to the third umpire. Before the series they decided they would take the word of the fielder in relation to low takes.

If on-field umps can now refer to the third umpire after the agreement was scrapped - does that mean they could not refer to the third umpire before?

It also says this;

However, the Indian team's media manager MV Sridhar said the final decision would be made by match referee Mike Procter after consulting the captains. "Even though the two captains had previously committed themselves on this understanding, the decision was taken at the consent and guidance of the match referee," he told PTI. "Now it is up to the match referee to ask the two captains their views on this issue and then a decision would be arrived after the three parties, the two captains and the match referee, reach a decision."

Ooh! The match referee is now involved. When the match referee is involved in the pact, reading between the lines makes me suspect that the umpire is instructed to take the fielder's word before the third umps word. Hours of web search still does not reveal exactly what the pact is.

However, when one does not know what the agreement is. One asks question like this -

"What was the pact about - What was violated? Was there a pact? These are more interesting questions in this entire monkey business."

One never makes a very arrogant head-in-my-ass assertion like this;

"Even worse than those jingoists ignorant about the Kumble-Ponting agreement are those who actually seem to know about it, but don’t know about it well enough. The agreement between Kumble and Ponting was between Kumble and Ponting. i.e, a batsman will take the word of the fielder... However, it does not govern umpires...The player agreement is NOT relevant to umpires. It does not apply to umps. It applied only to players."

FYI, the ponting-kumble agreement does not extend to umpires),

Even if it turns out that MV Sridhar is a monkey and does not know what he is talking about. Even if the agreement does not explicitly govern the match referee or umpires I suspected that it could've been an informal understanding between the players and the umpires.

Athi Bayankharamulu!

"It's been scrapped," Ponting told a news conference on Tuesday.

"That wasn't the way I wanted to play, I wanted to continue the way it was,
but the feeling through the Indian team, and probably just not necessarily
Anil's thoughts on it, were that they would like it to go back and be in the
hands of the umpire

There is a line which Gaundan says to Rajini in Mannan; "irunthaalam unakku dhairiyam jaasthi pa. Udanja kannidiya pottitu ivalavu peru munnadi vekkame illama nikkare". This Gaurav monkey does not know anything about the agreement, image analysis and logic and he thinks he is at a level where he can link and criticize.


Arun Sundar said...

OMG. Are we not done with this cricket thing already?!

sundar said...

"At this point, a few days before the big Test at Perth, I can tell you that that behaviour will play a big role in my decision on the continuation of the agreement," Kumble wrote in his Hindustan Times column. "We had decided that in the case of a disputed catch, we would take the word of the fielder concerned, if he was certain.

"But that agreement was based on the premise that come what may, whatever the situation, the fielder concerned would be completely straight on what happened. Now, there will obviously be a big question mark moving forward on that."

The Test was filled with on- and off-field incidents over umpiring, race, sportsmanship, catching and walking. "I'd like to point out that someone [Michael Clarke] edged the ball to slips in the second innings of the Sydney Test, and stood there even when there was not an iota of doubt over the dismissal," Kumble wrote. "He then claimed a catch that showed more than reasonable doubt and said he was 100% certain it was clean."

This could answer *some* of your interesting questions. and I feel that your suspicion on whether on-field umpires have been informed about the pact is entirely justified. There is an even more interesting development that India has dropped charges against Brad Hogg, who after hearing it has said ""It's a kind gesture, lovely gesture by the Indian team". Mike Procter has called it a "magnificent gesture". we'll have to wait n see what happens to bhajji situation now.

Hawkeye said...


:-) no! I have just caught a rabbit and I am counting its legs.


ya, I am pretty sure Benson, though incompetent, was aware of the Dar/Taufel incident and would have at some point gotten himself involved in the agreement.

Anonymous said...

Kastham, as a long time lurker of this blog, this "whole others are idiots coz I have discovered a counter arguement" is getting a bit annoying.

Every one is entitled to their point of view, you can attack those points, do you have to call other's idiots just coz they have differing opinions? i.e all through the posts, you are deriding other's understanding of Ramayana or these cricket posts.
Do you have to take that tone, to get across your pov?

3-4 posts on this and calling every other indian names puts you in the same league as those who cannot control their emotions(Jingoistic Indians!).

You can always say that nobody is forcing me to read your blog. But as somebody who has enjoyed reading several of your humourous posts, I thought I should say a few things. Hope that they are taken in jest.

maxdavinci said...

saar sydney-test-thesis panrengala?

its nicve to read your point of view and compare it to the others out there, very interesting!

Hawkeye said...


/* Do you have to take that tone, to get across your pov? */

very good question. 'tone' depends on subject-matter and situation. "neighbors envy owners pride" - a good parallel to this case - was said in a nasty tone but at the same time extremely effective. I think it was voted the best advt of that year.


well it is all entertainment.

Manikandan said...

(i am a long time reader)

I thought you hated writing about cricket. In the 4 years you have blogged this is the first time I am seeing so many cricket posts.

I completely agree with you on many issues. I think most indian viewers are sick and tired of these journalists and TV news channels fuelling the jingoistic angle. We are sane people and we want to hear some crticism against India too. Surely some fault lies with us.

Good job! Don't listen to people who criticise you unreasonably. You are the only blogger who has not made overly dramatic statements falling flat on the floor blindly supporting the indian team. Keep it up.

sundar said...

Ponting is quoted saying "It's been scrapped, as of yesterday and that wasn't the way I wanted to play. But the feeling through the Indian team, and probably not just Anil's thoughts on it, was that they would like it to go back and be in the hands of the on-field umpires. I've just had a chat with the umpires out on the ground now about the whole thing and they'll be endeavouring to make the call between themselves on the field rather than referring everything. That's the way it's going to be, I think, for the rest of the series."

From what he says, we can ascertain that the umpires were involved in this agreement. Why else would Ponting say "would like it to go back and be in the hands of .."? umpires should have been consulted before taking something from their hands. ;)