KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Indeedy! (Y)
-
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.
Is this out ?
- Thread starter Sanz
- Start date
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I'm in the boat of the people who think that it should be given out, but if you were to be techincal, then it's not out. But I think that the law should be rectified - if you are in complete control of the ball, and it incidentally hits the ground after you have attained complete control, then it should be out.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
It is clearly not out. You have to be in complete control of the ball for a catch to be legitimate. If it touches the ground before that and is thus not out. That is why the Gibbs catch in the world cup was deemed not out. The ball touched the ground before we could be sure that the player was in complete control of the ball.
The precedence people are saying - for more than 100 years such dismissals were given out is irrelevent. For 100 years, such technology wasn't there to prove that the ball touched the ground. In the case of run outs, many close calls were given not out for more than 100 years as well till the third umpire showed that many of the close calls could be ascertained as out or not out.
The law is fine where I am concerned. If you do not catch the ball cleanly, it is fair that it is given not out. Some one mentioned that soon we will be zooming in to see blades of grass. That is extrapolating and exaggerating it to a degree which isn't needed imo. Did you ground it or did you not ground it, did you nick it or did you not nick it... there is a fine line between the two and the distinctinction is very clear. The technology is not perfect mind as the television is 2d and the action in real time happens in 3d. Where the technology cannot prove that the ball was grounded or not, you would have to rely on the human eye but where the technology can help make a distinction between a catch and a drop, it makes sense to use it.
Edit: I marked out by mistake in the poll just now. As my post above says, it is not out according to me.
The precedence people are saying - for more than 100 years such dismissals were given out is irrelevent. For 100 years, such technology wasn't there to prove that the ball touched the ground. In the case of run outs, many close calls were given not out for more than 100 years as well till the third umpire showed that many of the close calls could be ascertained as out or not out.
The law is fine where I am concerned. If you do not catch the ball cleanly, it is fair that it is given not out. Some one mentioned that soon we will be zooming in to see blades of grass. That is extrapolating and exaggerating it to a degree which isn't needed imo. Did you ground it or did you not ground it, did you nick it or did you not nick it... there is a fine line between the two and the distinctinction is very clear. The technology is not perfect mind as the television is 2d and the action in real time happens in 3d. Where the technology cannot prove that the ball was grounded or not, you would have to rely on the human eye but where the technology can help make a distinction between a catch and a drop, it makes sense to use it.
Edit: I marked out by mistake in the poll just now. As my post above says, it is not out according to me.
Last edited:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Completely not out. Very clear cut for mine.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
The law is fine IMO. Because otherwise you have to then get the umpire to decide which millisecond he had 'control' of the ball and which millisecond he didn't.
To me it's nice and simple - touch the ground and its not out.
I don't think he had complete control. I don't see how you could in the middle of a dive.
Last edited:
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Batsman. If there is doubt it shouldn't be given. Simple.
pasag
RTDAS
IMO, and this might be flawed reasoning, but an effort to promote spectacular areial catching, one of the most exciting things about the game, the benfit of the doubt should rest with the feildsman. I think it's because I come from an AFL background that I just don't see the problem here (Lol, if it was up to me all you'd need is three touches to claim a catch
). As long as all instances are treated equally and those are given out everytime I'd be quite happy. As I said before, I think the rules should be changed to reflect the realistic nature of this.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
But the rule change you propose would be unworkable. How could you possibly know when 'control' was established?IMO, and this might be flawed reasoning, but an effort to promote spectacular areial catching, one of the most exciting things about the game, the benfit of the doubt should rest with the feildsman. I think it's because I come from an AFL background that I just don't see the problem here (Lol, if it was up to me all you'd need is three touches to claim a catch
It's much simpler this way, and its fair. If you let the ball touch the ground, you weren't in control and didn't catch it properly.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Not out I reckon.
I think this one is different to the Ponting one in the Sydney test, where he's controlled it and then the ball has touched the ground.
Here I don't think you can say he had complete control when the ball hit the ground. The ball hitting the ground allowed him to have control.
Btw, Star Cricket coverage > Channel 9
Has Chappelli and Slats from Channel 9, and dumps the rest lol.
I think this one is different to the Ponting one in the Sydney test, where he's controlled it and then the ball has touched the ground.
Here I don't think you can say he had complete control when the ball hit the ground. The ball hitting the ground allowed him to have control.
Btw, Star Cricket coverage > Channel 9
Has Chappelli and Slats from Channel 9, and dumps the rest lol.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Just want to add that Symonds is an ass, but 99% of fielders would have claimed that catch, so I've no problem with him claiming it.
pasag
RTDAS
Has been more than workable for many years. Now that video footage is putting things under the microscope more I think the rules should be modified to reflect this.
But yeah, agree with Jono, this case is slightly different from the Ponting one because here it looks like he may not have even had control of it before touching the ground at all.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
It's not out, but I'd happily walk off to that.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Didn't know about the legitimacy of this one. Even when I saw the 1st replay onthe day I thought there was some doubt, but he may have had 1 or 2 fingers under it. Then again, even if he DID have one or two fingers under it, it may still have touched the ground.
But I think one thing needs to be said about this example (as opposed to say Clarke in the CH series when he dived forward) - this is hit so hard, and it takes place so simultaneously, that you can't say the fielder KNEW it hit the ground as he caught it, especially if he had fingers under part of the ball.
Unlike the Clarke example (which was dire imo) in this case Symonds goes sideways, and if you check out the replay, it's not like he's eyes only on the ball at the point where he takes it.
In all probability, don't think it was out, but I don't reckon in this case you can say he knew it wasn't.
Apologies for the long explanation.
Edit: how bad are some of the Youtube posts on it?
But I think one thing needs to be said about this example (as opposed to say Clarke in the CH series when he dived forward) - this is hit so hard, and it takes place so simultaneously, that you can't say the fielder KNEW it hit the ground as he caught it, especially if he had fingers under part of the ball.
Unlike the Clarke example (which was dire imo) in this case Symonds goes sideways, and if you check out the replay, it's not like he's eyes only on the ball at the point where he takes it.
In all probability, don't think it was out, but I don't reckon in this case you can say he knew it wasn't.
Apologies for the long explanation.
Edit: how bad are some of the Youtube posts on it?
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Yes, I don't blame Symonds (and trust me, I look for creative ways to blame that guy). It is possible that he did not realize he grassed it, or even if he did, its the type of catch that everyone appeals for these days, so you can't single him out at all. So it's not really Symond's fault in any way. But we have the technology, and catches like that should always be looked at by the third umpire.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Agree with this, and voted no. It's different to the Ponting one, as he controlled his, Symonds didn't. That said, I have no problem with it being given out. It highlights the need to use 3rd umpires on such catches though, and the need to have a less subjective ruling.
James90
Cricketer Of The Year
Even if you adopted the same viewpoint as the Ponting catch it's technically not out. You have to have control of your movement and the disposal of the ball before it can be deemed a fair catch. The ball had hit the ground by that stage.
Still think they should both be given though.