Cricket: International Discussion Thread

Maurice Kitching said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did he skid the ball on the ground or not? And was he in control of his movement?

The answer would be that he was still moving when he skidded the ball on the ground. Read 33.3 a few more times till you get it.
 
Pegasus said:
Did he skid the ball on the ground or not? And was he in control of his movement?

The answer would be that he was still moving when he skidded the ball on the ground. Read 33.3 a few more times till you get it.
Click to expand...
Yep. Full control. There is no point at which the ball is in danger of leaving his hand, except when it can be rolled out due to contact with the ground. He overcomes the biggest danger of losing the ball, and you want to maintain he does not have control. The only way I would've given the NO a thought would have been if the elbow jar had come into play. Clearly not the case.
 
Maurice Kitching said:
Yep. Full control. There is no point at which the ball is in danger of leaving his hand, except when it can be rolled out due to contact with the ground. He overcomes the biggest danger of losing the ball, and you want to maintain he does not have control. The only way I would've given the NO a thought would have been if the elbow jar had come into play. Clearly not the case.
Click to expand...
That's all good and well, but you're also completely ignoring the actual law.
 
Pegasus said:
Did he skid the ball on the ground or not? And was he in control of his movement?

The answer would be that he was still moving when he skidded the ball on the ground. Read 33.3 a few more times till you get it.
Click to expand...
No and no again. The umpire clearing is in favour of England (being the best amongst the all). Don't get me wrong, I hate both sides , but what needs to be fair needs to be fair. How many 'wides' ' no-balls' did England bowl and did not get penalised ? Where as when Aus did the same it was counted as extra after extra.
 
I've lost count how many decisions umps have got wrong. Another one now, Stokes given LBW when he got a big inside edge...
 
sand_man said:
I've lost count how many decisions umps have got wrong. Another one now, Stokes given LBW when he got a big inside edge...
Click to expand...
To be fair, I thought that was out on first view too. He hit a big chunk of it, but for some reason it didn't look that way in real time.
 
Dan C said:
For how long ? His body was under control when he caught the ball,
Click to expand...
This is the problem. The decision becomes entirely subjective. I'll be sure to ask Erasmus about it.

In the meantime a lovely little contest between Starc and Stokes. Both giving and taking. The kind of cricket you want to see.
 
Maurice Kitching said:
Yep. Full control. There is no point at which the ball is in danger of leaving his hand, except when it can be rolled out due to contact with the ground. He overcomes the biggest danger of losing the ball, and you want to maintain he does not have control. The only way I would've given the NO a thought would have been if the elbow jar had come into play. Clearly not the case.
Click to expand...
You're of the (incorrect) impression that one need only have control over the ball for a catch to be completed, but this is insufficient. Both control over ball and control over movement must be attained for the catch to be complete.

Starc clearly had control over the ball, but had to put in a dive to get to the ball in the first place. He was still sliding from making that dive at the moment he grounded the ball (one might argue that he did this in order to stop his forward momentum), and was clearly out of control of his own movement at that point. He only regained control of his own movement after his slide stopped. The act of making a catch only ends when control over both the ball and the fielder's movement is obtained: one of the criteria on their own is not sufficient. As Starc was not yet in control of his movement when he grounded the ball, the catch was not made, and therefore the batsman was not out caught.
 
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...
A side that contains two convincted cheats will never be "gentlemen"....
 
Dan C said:
No and no again. The umpire clearing is in favour of England (being the best amongst the all). Don't get me wrong, I hate both sides , but what needs to be fair needs to be fair. How many 'wides' ' no-balls' did England bowl and did not get penalised ? Where as when Aus did the same it was counted as extra after extra.
Click to expand...
You are saying that the ball did not touch the ground? There is an actual video of this.
 
Kelerei said:
You're of the (incorrect) impression that one need only have control over the ball for a catch to be completed, but this is insufficient. Both control over ball and control over movement must be attained for the catch to be complete.

Starc clearly had control over the ball, but had to put in a dive to get to the ball in the first place. He was still sliding from making that dive at the moment he grounded the ball (one might argue that he did this in order to stop his forward momentum), and was clearly out of control of his own movement at that point. He only regained control of his own movement after his slide stopped. The act of making a catch only ends when control over both the ball and the fielder's movement is obtained: one of the criteria on their own is not sufficient. As Starc was not yet in control of his movement when he grounded the ball, the catch was not made, and therefore the batsman was not out caught.
Click to expand...
Still interpretation. As Dan said, when do you judge the ball and fielder to be in control? Is every catch where a fielder throws the ball in the air before completing his slide an illegal catch?
 
Maurice Kitching said:
Still interpretation. As Dan said, when do you judge the ball and fielder to be in control? Is every catch where a fielder throws the ball in the air before completing his slide an illegal catch?
Click to expand...
Yes. You'll be surprised how rarely this happens though. It is incredibly hard to throw the ball in the air whilst not having control of your body movement.
 
Speedster said:
Yes. You'll be surprised how rarely this happens though. It is incredibly hard to throw the ball in the air whilst not having control of your body movement.
Click to expand...
So if you say yes, why are those catches awarded?. Circular arguments. Either there is consistency or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X