sideshowtim
Banned
I thought that catch was perfectly fine too. Didn't get what the hubub was about.
-
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*** India in Australia
- Thread starter pasag
- Start date
duffer
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Because going by the book it's an invalid catch. I said at the time I couldn't believe Clarke could claim that with such conviction and now it seems he pulled a fast one on us all.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Unfortunately the "hubub" was about the laws of the game and the umpires interpreting it rightly there and wrongly here.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Meh, pressing the ball into the ground is fine IMO. Happens all the time after a dive.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't get why people are blaming Clarke for that catch though. I certainly didn't realise that the issue was the fact that he'd rolled and let the ball touch the ground while it was in his hand, and I'd say that he didn't either, especially considering most of the initial controversy was whether or not it had carried to him.
sideshowtim
Banned
Agreed. If we're going to get into technicalities, I hope to see every future diving slips catch referred to the third umpire.
sideshowtim
Banned
Same here. I reckon if that exact catch had happened in a match where the umpiring hadn't been so bad earlier, no one would've batted an eyelid at the catch.
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
herschelle gibbs 99 wc against steve waugh.
Did i hear someone unhappy about technicalities?
Last edited:
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
The hubbub is about Law 32.
Let's take matters one step at a time.
32.1 states:
The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not
being a No ball, touches his bat without having previously been
in contact with any member of the fielding side and is
subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the
ground.
32.3 deeals with the definition of what constitutes a 'fair catch'
3. A fair catch
A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of
play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded
beyond the boundary.
The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a
fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder
obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own
movement.(b) the ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally
lodges in his clothing or, in the case of the wicket-keeper, in
his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a
protective helmet worn by a fielder. See Law 23 (Dead ball).
(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand
holding it does so in effecting the catch.
Seems pretty clear to me that using the ground in order to gain control over the ball is a dangerous precedent.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
How the hell is that relevant? Huge stretch.herschelle gibbs 99 wc against steve waugh.
Did i hear somone unhappy about technicalities?
sideshowtim
Banned
The two catches are not even remotely alike. Horrible comparison.herschelle gibbs 99 wc against steve waugh.
Did i hear somone unhappy about technicalities?
sideshowtim
Banned
The two catches are not even remotely alike. Horrible comparison.herschelle gibbs 99 wc against steve waugh.
Did i hear someone unhappy about technicalities?
duffer
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Exactly, it's not about what people think is fine, by the rule book it's not out.
Andrew Pollock
School Boy/Girl Captain
Not suprised that you would say that
pup11
International Coach
Mark Benson is the man that needs to face the grunt even if the catch wasn't taken by Clarke, but for me Clarke had gathered the ball cleanly and while rolling over a part of the brushed the grass, but Clarke always had his fingers under the ball, and even if there was any doubt 3rd umpire could have been called, Clarke felt he had caught the ball cleanly that's why he claimed the catch, he's not foolish enough to claim a dubious catch which he knows he hasn't caught clearly, with all this technology around.
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
I apologise if you thought as much, it is just there have been more than enough people coming in here and saying that its all a conspiracy against India - and those people, I believe, are boofheads.
Last edited:
Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't see how any of it is Clarke or Pontings fault. They obviously felt it was a fair catch, and if Benson wants to make his decision based on the fielders word then so be it. If he wasn't sure the catch was made then he should've gone for the 3rd umpire.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd actually take things a stage further.
The idea of taking a fielder's word for it is complete nonsense and should be abandoned forthwith.
I'm not doubting that Clarke and Ponting were utterly convinced that the catches were fair, but it's not their job to make judgements - that's for the umpires.