Miller: six or out?

[ragsubra]

Miller getting out caught brilliantly in the last over by Surya may have been a six for a reason no one seems to consider.
After Surya tossed the ball in the air, he stepped out of the boundary. To then complete a fair catch, he had to step back inside before taking the catch. To me it appeared that he may have stepped into the field just after he took the catch. At the very least, it was worth examining from multiple angles by the 3rd umpire, which did not happen. And no one seems to be talking about this either. Am I mistaken?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Miller getting out caught brilliantly in the last over by Surya may have been a six for a reason no one seems to consider.
After Surya tossed the ball in the air, he stepped out of the boundary. To then complete a fair catch, he had to step back inside before taking the catch. To me it appeared that he may have stepped into the field just after he took the catch. At the very least, it was worth examining from multiple angles by the 3rd umpire, which did not happen. And no one seems to be talking about this either. Am I mistaken?

I believe you're mistaken as I am pretty confident that out was very clean.

 

[Spark]

Miller getting out caught brilliantly in the last over by Surya may have been a six for a reason no one seems to consider.
After Surya tossed the ball in the air, he stepped out of the boundary. To then complete a fair catch, he had to step back inside before taking the catch. To me it appeared that he may have stepped into the field just after he took the catch. At the very least, it was worth examining from multiple angles by the 3rd umpire, which did not happen. And no one seems to be talking about this either. Am I mistaken?

Under the current rule this would still be out even if his last contact was indeed outside the boundary. So long as he wasn't touching the ground when he caught the ball again it's out.

 

[Dendarii]

I don't know what the current law is, but even as a South African fan who really wishes he hadn't taken it, I don't have a problem with it being ruled a fair catch.

 

[Window]

Caught Law | MCC

Official Caught Law. Read the statement of the Caught Law. Understand the rules of Caught Law with e-learning & animations.

www.lords.org

Boundaries Law | MCC

Official Boundaries Law. Read the statement of the Boundaries Law. Understand the rules of Boundaries Law with e-learning & animations.

www.lords.org

https://images.icc-cricket.com/image/upload/prd/vtlex7fs28mukkavtgev.pdf

Difficult to see anything in there that invalidates the catch.

 

[ragsubra]

Clause 19.5.2 A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary.
Perhaps this suggests that Surya was grounded beyond the boundary.
Note: On second thought, I don't agree with myself. This does not apply to the situation we are talking about. And I'm not a lawyer:-)

 

[capt_Luffy]

Clause 19.5.2 A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary.
Perhaps this suggests that Surya was grounded beyond the boundary.

SKY's first contact was inside the boundary

 

[ankitj]

After... Before... After

 

[Arachnodouche]

Feels like the TV ump hurried thru the replay tbh...probably had Jay Shah's forepaws resting gently on his shoulder

 

[honestbharani]

Out

 

[Brook's side]

there's a clip on facebook reels, which shows that his left boot JUST touched the boundary sponge whilst the ball was still in his hand.

 

[ashley bach]

SA now the new moral victors

 

[centurymaker]

there's a clip on facebook reels, which shows that his left boot JUST touched the boundary sponge whilst the ball was still in his hand.

SA now the new moral victors

Top angle camera shot from behind the boundary confirms that his foot is well inside and not touching any cushion/rope.

The other camera shot that is being circulated is very unreliable because it is "compressing" many metres and centimetres of space. It is not giving you the "depth" around the boundary space. So you get the illusion that his foot is very close to touching the cushion of the rope. But it wasn't. And any minor movement is probably just grass/soil.

Because top angle shot (which gives you accurate vision around the boundary space) clearly shows his feet were well inside the rope. Clear gap at all times when he is contact with the ball.

 

[centurymaker]

And people who saw it live from the press/com box which was right above where he caught the ball had no doubt about his feet. Atherton also confirmed it as he saw it from the balcony right above it.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What is this thread bro? lol

We all saw it with our eyes. Clean catch.

 

[Prince EWS]

Should have been four.

 

[Burgey]

And any minor movement is probably just grass/soil.

lol this is up there with Bob Simpson's explanation for Kline not being given out bowled on the last day of the 60/61 series and the awarded byes giving Aus the win with the bails laying on the ground - "oh well, there were a lot of big cracks on the pitch in those days. One of them must have moved and caused the bails to dislodge."

Cloud ****oo stuff. Was obviously six. SA the moral victors and nothing the notoriously corrupt BCCI, it's equally corrupt team and notoriously illegal betting afflicted & corrupt fans and apologists can say will alter that.

 

[Burgey]

Should also say I haven't actually seen the incident and dgaf either way tbh.

 

[Anil]

Should also say I haven't actually seen the incident and dgaf either way tbh.

You should watch it purely as a cricket fan, it was a spectacular catch.

 

[Line and Length]

You should watch it purely as a cricket fan, it was a spectacular catch.

I watched it and it was .... a spectacular catch.