IS this a catch?

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

You've got to draw the line somewhere. If you take a catch it mid-air then you're not considered to have control of the catch until you're on the ground with the ball safely held off the turf.

Agreed the line must be drawn somewhere. But I cannot see how either Abbott or Ponting could complete those catches without there being some sort of contact with ball and grass. And if we're not accepting those catches, we're taking away from the game. Both were caught clean and controlled in the moments before hitting the ground.

This one is pretty hard to tell without the right camera angles, but another case study: ICC World Cup: NZ v Sri Lanka - McCullum v Jayawardene - Best denied catch ever - YouTube

The fact that Doull says it's out makes me think not.

[wellAlbidarned]

Nah, it's perfectly possible to take a brilliant jumping catch and land in a way that you don't turf the ball. Yes, they had it controlled moments before hitting the ground, but if that was the criteria for a clean catch then we'd have to allow fielders to take catches landing on or outside the boundary rope for the same reason. Fact is, how you land the catch is, and always has been, utterly essential.

That McCullum catch was turfed imo, but only just. By no fault of his own though, he could barely get three fingertips on it with a full length dive.

[SteveNZ]

So you think Ponting and Abbott could have landed with the ball away from the turf? I don't. Not without causing injury.

[Hurricane]

Defintely Abbott could have - havn't seen the Ponting catch. He just had to turn his hand side on.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

So you think Ponting and Abbott could have landed with the ball away from the turf? I don't. Not without causing injury.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be a catch, but I don't really like this particular line of logic. It'd be like pointing out that a player couldn't catch the ball without it bouncing twice first because he was too far away from it originally and then awarding the catch on that basis, or saying that a player couldn't catch the ball without going over the rope etc etc.

If you can't complete a fair catch then that's tough ****; it's not a birthright.

[uvelocity]

fmd mahela just loves to stand there doesn't he.

[wellAlbidarned]

Fair enough in that instance tbh.

[uvelocity]

perhaps but seen him stand there vs clarke and vs dhuss? off clean slips catches too

on ya bike!

[wellAlbidarned]

Yes, because Clarke has a flawless record of clean catch judgement

Though I'll admit I don't think I've seen the ones you're referring to.

[uvelocity]

well shut ya trap on ya bike or have a look first kiwi ****

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I'm not saying it shouldn't be a catch, but I don't really like this particular line of logic. It'd be like pointing out that a player couldn't catch the ball without it bouncing twice first because he was too far away from it originally and then awarding the catch on that basis, or saying that a player couldn't catch the ball without going over the rope etc etc.

If you can't complete a fair catch then that's tough ****; it's not a birthright.

This is a pretty weak comparison. It has nothing to do with being far away from it, or being near the rope. For your first example, he should have been in a different position in order to catch it. Second one, he's out of the boundaries of play. Simple.

A better comparison would be a batsman sliding his bat in and having to avoid a throw. Through self preservation, if he has made his crease, leaping or not having his bat grounded is okay. Same with the catch. Catch taken, held onto for a good period of time, self preservation to not end up with a nose splattered on turf. Catch. Out.

[Cruxdude]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

This is a pretty weak comparison. It has nothing to do with being far away from it, or being near the rope. For your first example, he should have been in a different position in order to catch it. Second one, he's out of the boundaries of play. Simple.

A better comparison would be a batsman sliding his bat in and having to avoid a throw. Through self preservation, if he has made his crease, leaping or not having his bat grounded is okay. Same with the catch. Catch taken, held onto for a good period of time, self preservation to not end up with a nose splattered on turf. Catch. Out.

That wouldn't be an ideal comparison as the ball was thrown by someone else and the batsman has no control over it. What would be a better comparison, is a batsman diving in to complete a single but because of the angle at which he is holding the bat, it plonks up and is not grounded. He is out there. Same with the catch. Not out.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

For your first example, he should have been in a different position in order to catch it.

You could say the same for the bloke who isn't in a good enough position to catch the ball with landing head first or sliding the ball along the ground as well though. You could definitely make the argument that, as per the laws of the game, letting the ball bounce once before catching it and grounding it before you've got control over your own movements both invalidate a catch, and whether or not you could've done it any other way is equally irrelevant to both situations.

Look, as I said, I'm easy either way on those being ruled catches or not as long as it's consistent as there are arguments both ways, but I completely reject the "he couldn't have completed the catch without doing that" argument as there are lots of other reasons players can't compete catches, like the bail sailing over the ropes, the batsman hitting the ball straight into the ground or the batsman not hitting the ball at all. Completing a catch off every attempt is not a birthright.

Essentially your argument is if we don't allow those to be catches, he can't have taken a catch in that situation. I say tough ****; there are in fact many, many balls in each match where a catch is impossible.

[wellAlbidarned]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

well shut ya trap on ya bike or have a look first kiwi ****

When someone responds saying they haven't seen an incident, usually the onus is usually on the other person to back themselves up and provide a video link. How am I meant to know exactly what you're referring to otherwise?

[uvelocity]

first result on robtube aws

Michael Clarke Catch- Jayawardene Stands Ground - YouTube