• 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

Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Yeah, it seemed such an obvious catch to me that initially when people started complaining about "the Ponting catch", I assumed it was either a typo and they were talking about Clarke, or there was another Ponting near-catch I missed while I was out of the room. The catch Ponting took when the ball flicked Dhoni's glove was perfect, and a brilliant catch at that. He had total control of the ball before he even came close to hitting the ground.

Looking at the written rule, I suppose he didn't have control of "his movement", but is that rule actually enforced? I've always just understood a catch to be taken when the fielder has total control over the ball before it touches the ground. I'm sure that catch would have been given if the umpire had realised Dhoni hit the ball. May in fact not have been out to the letter of the law, but I'd have to watch it again as it's not really an aspect of catching I've ever taken notice of before.
Click to expand...
I think control of movement is being interpreted wrongly. I have seen those catches given out all the time. I think the control of movement part is with regards to catches where the catcher is stumbling and looks not to have the ball or their body secure. When someone catches the ball and rolls as to make the catch one where he won't injure his body or let the momentum cause a fall, that IS control of movement IMO.
 
Last edited:
duffer

duffer

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
KaZoH0lic said:
I think control of movement is being interpreted wrongly. I have seen those catches given out all the time. I think the control of movement part is with regards to catches where the catcher is stumbling and looks not to have the ball or their body secure. When someone catches the ball and rolls as to make the catch one where he won't injure his body or let the momentum cause a fall, that IS control of movement.
Click to expand...
In that case why are "completed" catches considered invalid when say a player is rolling to protect himself but has the ball pop out after jarring his elbow?
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
Cevno said:
If the ball pops out while it he touches the ground when his elbow hits the ground ,will it be a catch?
If no then using the ground to help you not to land your wrist and elbow on the ground is also not a ncatch.
Click to expand...
Wtf? So all the diving catches that have been taken so far in the histort of the game are invalid then??????????????:wacko: :blink: :huh:
 
Last edited:
pup11

pup11

International Coach
Anyways, i heard on telly that Sutherland will hold a PC today about this whole controversy so is there any news on that??
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
duffer said:
In that case why are "completed" catches considered invalid when say a player is rolling to protect himself but has the ball pop out after jarring his elbow?
Click to expand...
By default really, a person who is in control of his movement isn't going to pop it up or jarr his elbow.

duffer said:
I think he's talking about when a ball is used to break the fall.
Click to expand...
I think interpreting it that way is ridiculous. The natural reaction to falling is putting your arms/hands out to break your fall and you really aren't in a position to lift your arm up in the air as you catch the ball with one hand.
 
duffer

duffer

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
KaZoH0lic said:
By default really, a person who is in control of his movement isn't going to pop it up or jarr his elbow.



I think interpreting it that way is ridiculous. The natural reaction to falling is putting your arms/hands out to break your fall and you really aren't in a position to lift your arm up in the air as you catch the ball with one hand.
Click to expand...
That's the whole issue, the way it's worded it can be interpreted that way. The laws need some tightening up or some form of clarification from the ICC.
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
There is a very a serious chance now that this tour would be called off, the Indian team were expected to leave Sydney today but they haven't and according to Indian media reports, Indian players are no longer interested in contuning this tour.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
duffer said:
In that case why are "completed" catches considered invalid when say a player is rolling to protect himself but has the ball pop out after jarring his elbow?
Click to expand...
My interpretation would have been that if the ball jars out, depending on when it occurs, it would either be because the player didn't have total control of the ball, or irrelevant.

Obviously if a player dives forward, takes a low catch and immediately hits the ground and loses the ball, it's not a catch. Same if the catch is taken low to the ground and not totally controlled and the ground is used to secure the ball in the hands, that wouldn't be a catch either. But if a catch is cleanly taken and it's visibly controlled above the ground and the ball then touches the grass, I don't think it's of any relevance. There are many, many catches I've seen where a player may allow the ball to touch the grass after he clearly has control of it, and it's simply not an issue, any more than throwing the ball in the air or into the ground after taking a catch. The issue, IMO, is whether the player has control over the ball before it touches the ground or not, rather than whether or not the ball touches the ground at all.

I do think the "control of movement" aspect is being taken too literally, or at the very least it has traditionally been enforced with a less literal interpretation than what is in the written law. Control of movement would be designed to indicate that a player does not just have to grab the ball for a split second, but to actually hold on to it. Like if you have the ball in your fingertips but lose control of it while you're still diving, it's obviously not a catch. There are other sports where such a catch would be legitimate, because you simply have to stop the ball moving in your hand to have controlled it, and cricket doesn't work that way. I don't think the rule was designed to stop catches like Ponting's.

That's all just IMO though, I do think it's an issue of subjective interpretation to a certain degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top