Pietersen's Catch

[vic_orthdox]

Was having a conversation with a few mates a month or so ago, discussing pretty much what happened last night with Pietersen's catch - in fact, it might have been when Cameron White threw that ball back into play vs NZ. Now, AFAIK, the rule concerning a catch is that all you need to do is complete the catch. Pietersen had control of how he disposed of the ball, had control of the ball in his hand. IMO, it should be adjudged a catch.

Do the rules specifically state otherwise? Your opinions?

 

[LA ICE-E]

I think it should be out when you have controll of the ball and you can land both your feet in than throw it away. I actually didn't see what happen so can anyone explain what happend?

 

[Isolator]

I didn't see this. What happened, exactly?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

The commentators were having a discussion about how the exact rule states that you need to have control of the body as well as the ball or something. By throwing the ball away while still moving (and not moving as part of a celebration) he wasnt in control i guess.

I have to say if someone had a catch like that accepted against England id be pretty annoyed! so no complaints here.

 

[Perm]

The law states pretty clearly that you must be in control of the ball as well as your own movements, in which case Pietersen was not in control of his movements, meaning that the catch wasn't given.

 

[marc71178]

Should've made more of an effort to throw it to a team-mate IMO...

 

[Perm]

Should've made more of an effort to throw it to a team-mate IMO...

Looked like the closest of his team-mates was still a fair distance away.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Thinking about it, it would be cool if when he was off balance, threw the ball super high up in the air in field, and then ran to go and catch it. Pretty impossible, but would be awesome to watch.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Looked like the closest of his team-mates was still a fair distance away.

I'm guessing Marc's making a gag about how in some people's eyes, Pietersen can never do enough, or is seen as selfish.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Thinking about it, it would be cool if when he was off balance, threw the ball super high up in the air in field, and then ran to go and catch it. Pretty impossible, but would be awesome to watch.

I remember someone in a domestic one dayer in Aus threw it to a team-mate a while ago.

 

[Perm]

I'm guessing Marc's making a gag about how in some people's eyes, Pietersen can never do enough, or is seen as selfish.

I was aware of that

 

[Dark Hunter]

I remember someone in a domestic one dayer in Aus threw it to a team-mate a while ago.

It was Shane Watson when he was still playing for Tasmania i'm pretty sure. The guy he threw it to was only a couple of meters away from him, but still a good effort

 

[Pratters]

Wasn't a catch according to the rules and I think the rules in this instant are fair too, if you want people's opinions on the rules. Pieterson did the best he could in the given situation.

 

[marc71178]

I'm guessing Marc's making a gag about how in some people's eyes, Pietersen can never do enough, or is seen as selfish.

I was joking, but not along those levels - I'm not that deep or intelligent tbh.

 

[pup11]

I think it was fair enough call from the umpires because though Pietersen was in control of the ball for a while but his momentum was carrying him over the ropes, so one can't say he was in total control of the catch.

 

[simmy]

I think the law is wrong as far as this is concerned.

If KP had the piece of mind to throw the ball back in then he had control of it and therefore it is a catch.

One thing I will say, is that it was a phenomenal bit of work. He had quite a game!

 

[open365]

It wasn't a catch by the laws of the game and imo the law makes sense.

Does anyone remember an incident like this a few years ago in the 2020?

A Leicester outfielder(Maddy or Robinson i think) caught it running back about 4 yards from the boundary then turned around and ran over the the fans who'd been givin him a bit of stick, the batsmen contested the decision saying it was an excuse for not having control of himself but the catch still stood.

 

[steds]

The law states pretty clearly that you must be in control of the ball as well as your own movements, in which case Pietersen was not in control of his movements, meaning that the catch wasn't given.

That's rubbish. Of course he had control of his movements. It's not as if he was there thinking "****! Why are my legs moving?! How do I make them stop?" That there was no possible way he could stay in the field because he was unbalanced doesn't mean he couldn't control his movements. If that's the wording of the law it's ****e.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

It wasn't a catch by the laws of the game and imo the law makes sense.

Does anyone remember an incident like this a few years ago in the 2020?

A Leicester outfielder(Maddy or Robinson i think) caught it running back about 4 yards from the boundary then turned around and ran over the the fans who'd been givin him a bit of stick, the batsmen contested the decision saying it was an excuse for not having control of himself but the catch still stood.

I think that might have been Brad Hodge actually, in a Twenty20 game.

 

[steds]

I think that might have been Brad Hodge actually, in a Twenty20 game.

Indeed it was. LE never forgave him.