No he didn't do the same, and I think that's the problem. I think if he just confidently threw it straight up and celebrated running around high fiving team mates, I really doubt they would have raised an eyebrow. His tap dancing on the boundary and tossing it infield like he was keeping it in pretty much sealed his fate.
The rules might state otherwise, but like you say heaps of people just toss it straight up and celebrate as soon as it touches their hand and they get away with it.
I can just imagine if peitersen caught it, chucked it straight up and confidently cheered while running, even if he ran straight over the boundary afterwards, I think he would have got away with it.
He's too familiar with the rules for his own good, he made it very clear that it wasn't a proper catch with his actions.
It seems subjective to me to say whether or not he was in control, he had the ball firmly in his hand for about 8 steps, he should have tossed it straight up after the second step and confidently ran on to the fence to get love from fans.
The only reason it was obvious that he was't in control was because he was struggling to stay in field and he eventually desperately threw it infield. If he didn't do that, threw it straight up, did a fist pump and ran to the fence he would have looked in control.

For some obscure reason, I always felt that England were going to lose this one even when Bell & Pietersen were going well. The pitch appeared to have no demons for the batsmen and I fully expected Ponting et al to knock off even a 300+ total. They would have done too, with a bit of alteration in their approach, had England got that far.

Despite the Bell-Pietersen attack, I still agree with Ponting's decision to select Hodge and not Johnson. Bracken, Tait & Hogg bowled very well. McGrath got his wickets, but it was just that Bell found his range on that pitch. Even so, Stuart Clarke can be an effective replacement for McGrath of the former starts to slide as Donald did in the 2003 Cup. Given their batting strength, I think Symonds (who will get his bowling form back) and Michael Clarke are enough as the 5th bowling combo provided that they are cleverly used.

I think that this is it as far as England's World Cup 2007 is concerned. I know that they can still get through on paper and will probably beat the West Indies (which is by no means certain), but I don't think they will get past South Africa, who will be going all out to make amends for their loss to Bangladesh.

Well batted Kevin Pietersen he is a very good batsman, still should be opening the batting.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Well done Australia,gave England a lesson out there yesterday.

The Pietersen catch was funny when he danced round the boundary.Sign him up Brucie.

Henners

Why is it a failure not to make a half century in 50 over cricket ?
That is the type of stat chasing self centered attitude that I beleive a few players who put themselves and thier own personal carreer run statistics ahead of their team and country believe to self justify their innings.

simple formula

11 players have the opportunity to bat, 11 players score 45 runs each within the allotted 50 overs and your team gets 5 sundries that equals 9 for 500 thats a current world record and I'd be pretty happy if Australia got that.

Before Mahmood came on for that disastrous scattergun spell, Colly was going at 3.5/3.7 an over and Panesar 4 an over, building pressure on a wicket that was slowing. Vaughan made a mistake in not bowling Bopara, Pietersen or himself and Mahmood's effort was simply woeful. His only good variation is the slower ball, but in order not to bowl all over the place he bowls three slower balls an over, giving the batsman all the time in the world to get used to it, pick it and wait to smash it around. 9.2 overs at 6.5 per over is pathetic; in two overs he threw away all the pressure Colly and Panesar had built. I can see that Vaughan wanted a strike bowler with top pace to break the Ponting/Clarke partnership (instead it was Collingwood, again) but all he had was Mahmood - in that case he did make a mistake not going for another reduced-pace bowler. If Vaughan doesn't like Plunkett I want to see Broad play against Bangladesh, Mahmood is not good enough.

Flintoff did well, with the ball that is. Hogg made him look an utter fool with those two almost-identical wrong-uns. The rest of the batsmen do need to pull their finger out, Bell and Pietersen stood alone and Bopara played a good shot too well after looking like he was going to hit out late on.

Pietersen will NOT agree to coming in any higher than No:4; even that was a reluctant arrangement, since he apparently wants to come in between the 15th and 20th overs and given a choice, prefers the No:5 position. The commentators on Radio 5-live said so yesterday.

Colly it was not the bowling at fault - it was the batting, yes Flintoff did poor again, as did Colly for the second match running.

With respect Colly - Why bowl Bopara?, he could have done no better, if a change of pace was called for - then it should have been Vaughan or Bell.

To bring Broad in would be a disaster for Broad, Strauss was included after not playing for a while, how could he be blamed for getting out?.
You say Mahmood is not good enough - well that's you opinion fair enough, but Colly is supposed to be an all rounder, and his bowling stats show him as being far more expensive than Mahmood.

click here for the stats.

Pietersen and Collingwood 1 & 2 in the batting, then Nixon at 3, then Bopara, does that not tell you that it's the batting at fault - not the bowling.

__________________
Ern

Ern, I agree that the batting was the major factor in our defeat. To win that game defending 250 against that Aussie batting line up we'd have needed a bowling attack of Marshall, Ambrose, Garner, Akram and Murali.

The fact is Mahmood does go for runs, yes he can take wickets but if if doesnt happen then you are gifting the opposition 60 runs andI've never seen him be able to exert pressure by bowling tight

I personally think Vaughan missed a trick in not bowling Bopara at least for an over or two. Firstly he's something differant and secondly he does bowl wicket to wicket something which Anderson and Mahmood dont.

If we are to progress in the WC our openers need to make some (!) runs and we need to capitalise on these goods positions we get into but throw away due to poor batting. Our batting order needs a major rejig to try to get the best out of what we have, I even wonder if its worth swapping Vaughan and Flintoff around??

__________________
Mark.

Exactly - Sri Lanka was the best example, England should have won that match if half the batsem had fired.
England could open with Nixon and hope he could do a Loye, England won the CB Trophy due to Loye and Joyce getting decent opening partnerships.

England missed a trick leaving Loye out of the side, now they are lumbered with 3 out of form openers.

Flintoff may as well play high in the order - to keep him away from the spin bowling.

__________________
Ern