IS this a catch?

[wellAlbidarned]

In slo-mo it's clearly a catch, but watching it in real-time I can understand Jaya's initial doubt.

[uvelocity]

yeah but what I'm saying is he seems to do it a lot

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by Cruxdude

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.

Actually with new laws, if in the course of the dive he had grounded the bat over the crease then it bounced up, he would be not out. Same if running a bat in, it gets jammed and drops it.

Not being able to complete a catch because you're going to break your nose/face as opposed to going over a rope or (and I'll indulge the ridiculous here) not having hit it/hitting into the ground is completely different. And anyone with a lick of sense could see that.

Cricket has provisions for injury - we saw that perfectly illustrated last night. Hussey did something to avoid getting hurt, and was given not out. Ponting/Abbott did the same. Out.

[wellAlbidarned]

No, but as PEWS said, if you're making excuses like "Oh he couldn't possibly complete the catch because of A, B, and C", then where the **** do you draw the line? It's no where near as simple as what you're making it out to be, laws should always try avoid including "umpire discretion" or "common sense" where possible as it leaves massive grey areas.

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

No, but as PEWS said, if you're making excuses like "Oh he couldn't possibly complete the catch because of A, B, and C", then where the **** do you draw the line? It's no where near as simple as what you're making it out to be, laws should always try avoid including "umpire discretion" or "common sense" where possible as it leaves massive grey areas.

I'm not really saying A, B or C. I'm saying A, which is injury prevention. Just as rule makers use A as not being able to be run out when you're avoiding injury. Under PEWS' argument, it isn't their birthright to stand in that spot - they should find a way to not be there. Another sporting rule I can think of is in golf, where you can get relief away from a dangerous spot - ie a bee's nest, crocodile etc (if not in a hazard). It's not your birthright to play from those spots but it's common sense.

It's sport involving humans, it isn't calculus. All you can do is have guidelines that govern the game to the best of their ability and the rest has to be done on feel. Again, last night was a perfect example of that.

And last night is another example that something that seems to have law provisions can still polarise opinion greatly. These catches are exactly the same.

[Cruxdude]

OK. I can see your point even though I do not agree with it. I suppose you would agree that this should not be a valid catch Ponting in that Sydney test - YouTube

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

I'm not really saying A, B or C. I'm saying A, which is injury prevention. Just as rule makers use A as not being able to be run out when you're avoiding injury.

Except the 2 are completely different scenarios.

If a catch cannot be taken cleanly without injury then it shouldn't be a catch.

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Except the 2 are completely different scenarios.

If a catch cannot be taken cleanly without injury then it shouldn't be a catch.

awta, with the runout rule you first need to make your ground. You can't pull up short and claim avoidance of injury.

If you are still in the air, you haven't completed the catch, or do draw the comparison - made your ground.

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by Cruxdude

OK. I can see your point even though I do not agree with it. I suppose you would agree that this should not be a valid catch Ponting in that Sydney test - YouTube

I would agree, yep. A) I don't believe he has absolute control over it when it hits the ground and B) He could have landed safely without grounding it.

The run out comparison does fly. If you have control over the catch, just as if you have passed the crease, you're sweet. If you haven't controlled it, and if you haven't made your ground, you aren't.

The basis for my argument is the ground should not be used as an aid to complete the catch. For Ponting's one at mid wicket and Abbott, it wasn't. They had taken the catches clean and securely. For the short cover one, he hadn't - to my mind.

[Cruxdude]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

I would agree, yep. A) I don't believe he has absolute control over it when it hits the ground and B) He could have landed safely without grounding it.

The run out comparison does fly. If you have control over the catch, just as if you have passed the crease, you're sweet. If you haven't controlled it, and if you haven't made your ground, you aren't.

The basis for my argument is the ground should not be used as an aid to complete the catch. For Ponting's one at mid wicket and Abbott, it wasn't. They had taken the catches clean and securely. For the short cover one, he hadn't - to my mind.

How about the cases where a fielder has caught the ball clean but when he lands the force knocks the ball out? I for one feel that a fielder needs to come to rest with the ball not touching the ground for him to be able to say he was in control. Otherwise it just adds too many variables and subjectivity to what should be a simple decision.

[uvelocity]

If you are in the air you are not in control of your body, which is crucial.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by SteveNZ

The run out comparison does fly. If you have control over the catch, just as if you have passed the crease, you're sweet. If you haven't controlled it, and if you haven't made your ground, you aren't.

Nope, 2 completely different scenarios - avoiding injury doesn't mean anything in terms of passing the crease or not.

[SteveNZ]

Originally Posted by Cruxdude

How about the cases where a fielder has caught the ball clean but when he lands the force knocks the ball out? I for one feel that a fielder needs to come to rest with the ball not touching the ground for him to be able to say he was in control. Otherwise it just adds too many variables and subjectivity to what should be a simple decision.

Then it's not out. At that stage it's not at all in his hands, so it's not out.

And of course they're different scenarios. One is a catch, one is a run out. And yes, avoiding injury can mean something in terms of making your crease. You might do what David Hussey did (and should be out).