-
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.
2025–26 Australian Domestic Season
- Thread starter Starfighter
- Start date
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't know how anyone looks at that Webster catch and thinks "he might have lost control of the ball at some point if he didn't throw it away"
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
the same applies to HGibbs
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It doesn't though. They're total opposites, one was in control upon disposal and the other wasn't.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Imagine the class action for every batsman dismissed with a catch followed by a celebratory throw in the air? Better call Saul.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
My main issue with the take isn't that some think (wrongly) that Webster wasn't fully in control by the time he disposed of it. It's that if that were the case surely the fact that the ball made contact with the ground before he was fully in control would already disqualify it from being a clean catch
chris.hinton
International Captain
Its up for grabs now
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I am with you on this fully but I do think you have to consider there are catches where the fielders maybe rolling over or in some other act which can cause the ball to be grounded and if they throw the ball up in the air, it has to be treated like how those tag team boundary catches are taken these days. On the Webster catch itself, I agree with you fully and I am with on the Gibbs thing as well. But I do think there is some room for nuance and its not as binary as it may seem.
I guess its just not me that doesn't like the sub rule
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What happened to the "external injuries only" thing. Pretty clear gaming of the system there. In the past you'd have to keep playing and bowling through a bit of hamstring tightness, now you can sub out with no downside and get a fresh bowler for the 2nd innings. I may be cynical but wouldn't surprise me if this was part of a pre-game plan
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah the rule is absolute ****ing garbage, called it from the moment it was introduced
Didn't really want to say anything initially in case I was accused of sour grapes (Vics were well ahead anyway so I'm not claiming it has cost the game or anything like that) but yeah the rule needs to go. Cricket has functioned just fine for pushing 150 years without this crap, the whole concept of injury subs (aside from concussion which is a genuine player safety issue, I'm ok with that) can absolutely get in the bin
Didn't really want to say anything initially in case I was accused of sour grapes (Vics were well ahead anyway so I'm not claiming it has cost the game or anything like that) but yeah the rule needs to go. Cricket has functioned just fine for pushing 150 years without this crap, the whole concept of injury subs (aside from concussion which is a genuine player safety issue, I'm ok with that) can absolutely get in the bin
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Maybe, but I'm not seeing a problem with either the throwing or the grounding and the analogy with the tandem catches doesn't fit here as the rope isn't an issue. Clearly Webster didn't throw the ball in the air to avoid an impediment that would have voided the catch. It's entirely celebratory. So did he throw it in the air because he lost, or was losing control of it? Can't see that either. Freeze the clip and the ball appears to be safely inside his big mit.
Did the ball graze the ground? I can't see it on the clip either. Webster appeared to break his fall with the blade of his arm and hand. When he rolls over the ball is between his thumb and ring finger. You can see the little finger and it was the one closest to the ground. The bunker can't overturn the on field decision.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Cricket does have a problem with the sub rule and it seems to be a rare instance of a game that loses a bit of authenticity if an XI changes during the match. Really the admins should only act when absolutely forced as they have been with concussion, but this subbing in for dubious reasons is just mucking about with a venerable game and competition.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
"We have to choose between Elliott and Perry for the final XI" . . . "Why not both?"
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Victoria still well on top unfortunately, but this has been quite some innings from Carey
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
You missed the part where I said I completely agree about this catch. My point is, there can be catches potentially when the fielder thinks the ball may hit the ground as they roll around and they throw it up quickly to avoid that. I think that is what the IPL guys want to address as being in momentary control is different to being in complete control.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Nah I didn’t.
Point is you’re not throwing the ball in the air if you don’t have control over it, are you?