• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** England in India

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Nah. It's just the helmet.
Yeah, I'm sure I've heard comms talk about a difference between PE that's visible and that which is worn beneath the clothes.

No sure if this is codified in the laws/playing conditions tho.

Regardless, horrible shot from Bluey just before lunch.
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
Yeah, I'm sure I've heard comms talk about a difference between PE that's visible and that which is worn beneath the clothes.

No sure if this is codified in the laws/playing conditions tho.

Regardless, horrible shot from Bluey just before lunch.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the rule. Although I'm not sure it applies to keepers.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the rule. Although I'm not sure it applies to keepers.
Yeah, Bumble just read it. Specifically mentions "other than protective helmet".

Looking at the replay from the side-on cam, surely the square leg umpire saw it practically lodge in the grill from his postion? Either blind or doesn't know the rules.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
For clarity, law 32.3 (e)

"However, it is not a fair catch if the ball has previously touched a protective helmet worn by a fielder."
 

Contra

Cricketer Of The Year
Out of interest, how many of us knew that rule before this commotion?
I certainly didn't. I think that is partly why there isn't such a big fuss about it. Other than perhaps the fact that England fans thought he'd get out soon after anyways.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Out of interest, how many of us knew that rule before this commotion?
Pretty sure it had been discussed on here a few days ago actually - I remember someone saying "The helmet is there to protect the fielder, not to help him take catches" or some such, which I thought was a good point.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Will be interesting to see the response from teams/umpires/media tonight.

I have to admit it is one of those things where I'd always thought that if I took a catch off my helmet (not unlikely given the pitches we play on and the fact that I stand up 90% of the time), then I would appeal and hope the umpires didn't know the rules.

According to Atherton, Dhoni was asked by umpires if he'd like to withdraw the appeal... Obviously not!! It's not remotely like the Bell case, where the umpires were right by the letter of the law - here, it's the umpires' fault, so they should reverse it. Poor all around, chaps.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Will be interesting to see the response from teams/umpires/media tonight.

I have to admit it is one of those things where I'd always thought that if I took a catch off my helmet (not unlikely given the pitches we play on and the fact that I stand up 90% of the time), then I would appeal and hope the umpires didn't know the rules.

According to Atherton, Dhoni was asked by umpires if he'd like to withdraw the appeal... Obviously not!! It's not remotely like the Bell case, where the umpires were right by the letter of the law - here, it's the umpires' fault, so they should reverse it. Poor all around, chaps.
Not been covering themselves in glory this series so far, have they?
 

Top