If the glove don't fit
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/8aVbb8QkO2w" height="344" width="425" wmode="opaque" /]
I’m probably one of the few people who believe OJ was not guilty. Years ago I saw a Swedish documentary which theorised that it was the Juice’s son who had committed the murder of his stepmum and the ill-starred busboy. I was totally convinced, and after too many rieslings I often try to convince people. The theory goes – Nicole was meant to eat at OJ junior’s restaurant that night but didn’t turn up, that the son had a well known temper, that he carried chef’s knives, that that explains DNA at the scene, that the glove DID fit, that OJ’s strange behaviour was to protect his son…I’ll stop there until you refill my glass. Riesling thanks.
I don’t like being controversial for controversy’s sake, really. I’d much rather bathe in the warm waters of majority opinion. But here goes another unpopular theory involving a glove – Brad Haddin is not a cheat.
Here’s how I experienced Neil Broom’s dismissal. I was working late, and listening to it on my glorified crystal set. A Sky subscription is one of our sacrifices to the gods of the recession, so I’m back to audio – and it takes me back 24 years to the stale air of my bedroom listening to Ken Rutherford’s debut series, willing him to survive every ball.
And I was willing the Black Caps to run down the meagre Aussie total. Clarke bowled to Broom, and I heard a familiar noise (okay, yes I usually hear it from behind me…) of a bail falling and playing a happy syncopation as it bounces off the stumps. The commentators were in raptures, then slowly as the replays revealed what had happened, you could hear the doubt welling in the Australian voices.
It is evident now that Broom was not out. Brad Haddin had his gloves in front of the stumps, and it should have been a no ball. I walked around believing Brad Haddin had joined Greg Chappell, Greg Dyer, Trevor Chappell, Andrew Symonds, and Greg Matthews in the group “Australians we don’t like very much”. When I finally saw the incident on television it seemed conclusive – gloves in front, he brings them back and voila, his left glove appears to dislodge the bail.
Brad’s defiant bellow about Daniel Vettori questioning his integrity I regarded as ”offence being the best form of defence”. But then I began to wonder. Haddin knows that there were cameras dotted around the WACA like snipers at an inauguration. Haddin would have had to see the replay, and know that anyone could sit down and watch the footage in the privacy of their own computer room.
So I decided to get all grassy knoll about it and look at YouTube over and over. Again and again I ran through the crucial moment from each of the available angles. And it struck me – the ball did hit the stumps. Sure, so did his gloves, and this entire debate is somewhat nugatory as the ball was not legitimate, but I am convinced the ball deviates sharply up into Haddin’s gloves (at 0.56 and 1.22 of the above) and I believe that is a result of the ball hitting the carpentry. Sure Brad’s gloves also seem to touch the stumps, but they are open, as keepers' gloves are meant to be to receive the ball.
What does that mean practically? Quite simply that Brad Haddin is not a cheat. He genuinely believes the ball hit the bail, then went into his gloves. There is nothing that should damage his integrity. The only thing that raises a slight doubt is the momentary pause after he has taken the ball. It seems counter-intuitive, and positively un-Australian when you think how triumphant their celebrations have been in recent times.
In spite of those flickers, I do not believe Brad is a cheat. He plays hard and in the moment that mitten, ball and bail came together shouldn’t haunt him. What should is that watching the footage again and again does suggest he IS, in fact, a very ordinary gloveman.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
What you shuld realise is that you cannot look at a pixelated video on YouTube and decide. However, even in that YT video it is clear the ball is above the stumps and he takes it in front of the bails. The only way the bails can then be removed is with his gloves.
No one ever called Haddin a cheat until the Aussies started using that word. I don't think he purposely put his gloes in front, but he would have felt his gloves touch the stumps - and he should have at least asked the umpires to take a look.
I have been through a similar process and agree with you - there is a definite deviation upward as if it has hit the very top of the stump.
I did love the sign "now even we're better than you are" on display at the MCG. Oooh it must rankle. Poor old Tony Greig was almost in tears at the end of the game.
Do you think we will see a day when Australia actually get beaten by a better NZ side on the day or will it always be that the 'little things' have gone against them, that NZ are a spirited bunch of average cricketers, doing the basics well and, oops, the mighty Australia have underperformed? Perhaps a little more respect for the series and Australia might finally post a challenging score... or maybe they ARE doing their best - its just that their best is not that good.
"Back and to the left."
To my eyes there is daylight between the ball and the woodwork. I can see the deviation, but the ball clearly does not hit the stumps. I think it is far more likely that we are seeing the ball rolling up the glove.
But even if he isn't a cheat, he has got to be the worst 'keeper in the world. Knowing so little about keeping to not be aware that you must keep your hands behind the stumps.
hey mate this topic is getting reallllllllyyy old already. How about talking about the game last night?
if the gloves hit, you can't acquit.
looks to me like the ball deflects off the right middle finger tip.
Haddin is not a cheat. The look that he gave was the same look as a batsman gives when he knows hes egded it to the keeper and is looking to see if the unpire will give it. Haddin was just looking around to see if he had been caught with his hands INFRONT of the stumps not weather he had been seen KNOCKING the stumps off. Umpired are there to rule the game. If a batsman edges the ball or the bolwer over step itz up to the umpire to give it out, not the players. Yes, every one should play with 'spirt of the game' but when you gets to teams playing to win you get the. It happens in rugby dozens every game.
Look more closely Hamish. You can quite clearly see the ball impacts with the tips of his fingers on his left glove, just before it goes on to tip the top of off stump. I'm convinced Haddin would've felt that, or at least been very uncertain, and so should've done the right thing and called the batsman back.
He cheated - his glove is in front of the stumps. No ball, not out, regardless of whether the rise in the ball is from the webbing of his glove, or from the stump. If it hit the stump, he would know for sure he had his glove in front.
He should be man enough to fess up that a no-ball should be called, but instead chose to be a tosser.
That deviation you see is the ball rolling off HAddins fingers into his gloves. I believe, and most of cricketing NZ agrees with me, that Haddin is a dirty cheat, his momentary pause was a small amount of guilt creeping into his head, as you can see in the footage. Also the bails didn't so much as move until Haddin moved his gloves!
But I agree with you on the OJ Simpson thing
Parents don't want son's killer in town
Million-dollar view, shame about the house
'Naughty' toilet traps terrified toddler
Trap for burglars catches policeman
Brothel scares and stresses neighbourhood
Degrassi star died five years ago
Daily trivia quiz: February 18
Banking on return of blue magic
Bid to scrap race relations office
'Naughty' toilet traps terrified toddler
Wellington earthquake fear: No way in or out
High cost of living mars return to NZ
Cathedral repair bill intimidating
Which theme is worse: Bones or NCIS?
Hamish, I tend to agree. In the pantheon of cricketing controversies this basically doesn't rate. Clearly Haddin believes that he acted appropriately, and that his only misdemeanour was his failing to alert Ponting to his possible concern over the dismissal. I say possible because even that point is obviously debatable.
It's a funny thing, the modern-day ethics of cricket. Whereas I would suggest that Ponting edging behind in one of the recent one-dayers with South Africa and not walking when it was manifest to all - including the batsman, and the commentators - that he'd nicked it is outright cheating, that is in fact considered acceptable behaviour: something to enjoy a bit of a giggle about, and pay homage to your 'good luck'. Ponting's actions were deliberate, Haddin's clearly not. Weird.
Any thoughts anyone?