Cricket: International Discussion Thread

England was in the field the whole day and had to come in a bat. It was never going to be easy.

I bet they are just praying for the day to end.
 
Going to take a monumental effort for England to get into this series. That first test was really the one they needed for momentum. It's an awful long way from 2-0 down.
 
Pegasus said:
Nope he slid it on the ground.

He should be fined for appealing for that and then banned for trying to scuff up the ball.
Click to expand...
Perfectly good catch. The fact that they'll be on the field for day 5 is frankly a stroke of luck for Bazball.

If not AO, they should be 7 down on the day. Imagine they hadn't had conditions with them for 3.5 days.
 
Maurice Kitching said:
Perfectly good catch. The fact that they'll be on the field for day 5 is frankly a stroke of luck for Bazball.

If not AO, they should be 7 down on the day. Imagine they hadn't had conditions with them for 3.5 days.
Click to expand...
The catch was great until the ball was dragged along the turf without his fingers underneath it.
 
Maurice Kitching said:
Perfectly good catch. The fact that they'll be on the field for day 5 is frankly a stroke of luck for Bazball.

If not AO, they should be 7 down on the day. Imagine they hadn't had conditions with them for 3.5 days.
Click to expand...

Fielder had control of the ball but not his own movement when the ball was grounded; therefore, the catch was not completed. Correct decision.
 
Pegasus said:
Nope he slid it on the ground.

He should be fined for appealing for that and then banned for trying to scuff up the ball.
Click to expand...
The fact is that he had complete control of the ball. It was unfortunate the he made contact with the ground and 'judged' dragging it. That is BS.
 
Pegasus said:
The catch was great until the ball was dragged along the turf without his fingers underneath it.
Click to expand...
By that account Steve Smith's first innings catch should not have been allowed either. As can be expected, Aus supporters have chimed in that the catch was taken, and vice versa for England's fans. What's more pertinent are pundits from both sides expressing concern about law interpretation.

This comes down to Marais Erasmus' interpretation at the time. It also brings into doubt numerous catches by great fielders in the past, especially in the days before review. Erasmus has for a while been one of the great umpires in the world, but there have been doubtful calls (or non-calls) in the current series. Crawley just before lunch on day 1 of the first test a case in point. The noise off the glove was heard in the street outside the grounds.

If Marais' interpretation is to be the standard, every catch taken by a fielder and tossed in the air before the fielder has come to a full stop and gained full control of his movement, is deemed not taken. This would include some of the catches by the greatest fielder of them all.

The manner in which the catch was referred was also not in the spirit of test cricket. This may be too nuanced for many to understand, but (as I've mentioned before) England have taken over from Australia in almost every aspect of the game, except for the ability to play good test cricket. For 30+ years we've loved to hate Australia, and they've now become the gentlemen of the game. Who'd have thought it?
 
Maurice Kitching said:
By that account Steve Smith's first innings catch should not have been allowed either. As can be expected, Aus supporters have chimed in that the catch was taken, and vice versa for England's fans. What's more pertinent are pundits from both sides expressing concern about law interpretation.

This comes down to Marais Erasmus' interpretation at the time. It also brings into doubt numerous catches by great fielders in the past, especially in the days before review. Erasmus has for a while been one of the great umpires in the world, but there have been doubtful calls (or non-calls) in the current series. Crawley just before lunch on day 1 of the first test a case in point. The noise off the glove was heard in the street outside the grounds.

If Marais' interpretation is to be the standard, every catch taken by a fielder and tossed in the air before the fielder has come to a full stop and gained full control of his movement, is deemed not taken. This would include some of the catches by the greatest fielder of them all.

The manner in which the catch was referred was also not in the spirit of test cricket. This may be too nuanced for many to understand, but (as I've mentioned before) England have taken over from Australia in almost every aspect of the game, except for the ability to play good test cricket. For 30+ years we've loved to hate Australia, and they've now become the gentlemen of the game. Who'd have thought it?
Click to expand...
He skidded the ball along the ground whilst catching it.

End of story, no need for endless waffle.

Next time he can throw the ball into the air then instead of skimming the ground with it.
 
Pegasus said:
He skidded the ball along the ground whilst catching it.

End of story, no need for endless waffle.

Next time he can throw the ball into the air then instead of skimming the ground with it.
Click to expand...
Funny how the skidding of the ball along the ground has not featured. Control has though. Expected, I suppose.

33.1 Out Caught
The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his/her bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch, as described in 33.2 and 33.3, before it touches the ground.
33.2 A fair catch
33.2.1 A catch will be fair only if, in every case
either the ball, at any time
or any fielder in contact with the ball,
is not grounded beyond the boundary before the catch is completed. Note Laws 19.4 (Ball grounded beyond the boundary) and 19.5 (Fielder grounded beyond the boundary).
33.2.2 Furthermore, a catch will be fair if any of the following conditions applies:
33.2.2.1 the ball is held in the hand or hands of a fielder, even if the hand holding the ball is touching the ground, or is hugged to the body, or lodges in the external protective equipment worn by a fielder, or lodges accidentally in a fielder’s clothing.
33.2.2.2 a fielder catches the ball after it has been lawfully struck more than once by the striker, but only if it has not been grounded since it was first struck. See Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).
33.2.2.3 a fielder catches the ball after it has touched the wicket, an umpire, another fielder, a runner or the other batter.
33.2.2.4 a fielder catches the ball after it has crossed the boundary in the air, provided that the conditions in 33.2.1 are met.
33.2.2.5 the ball is caught off an obstruction within the boundary that is not designated a boundary by the umpires.
33.3 Making a catch
The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.
33.4 No runs to be scored
If the striker is dismissed Caught, runs from that delivery completed by the batters before the completion of the catch shall not be scored but any runs for penalties awarded to either side shall stand. Law 18.11 (Batter returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply from the instant of the completion of the catch.
33.5 Caught to take precedence
If the criteria of 33.1 are met and the striker is not out Bowled, then he/she is out Caught, even though a decision against either batter for another method of dismissal would be justified.

T20 fanboys are successfully derailing a great game.
 
Last edited:
Dan C said:
There was no point where he lost control of the ball. End of story.
Click to expand...
They're conflating "grounding" with "control". Two very different things. We've all seen catches not given when the ball touches the ground out of the bowlers control. In this case, as with Smith's catch, this was clearly not the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X