IS this a catch?

[SteveNZ]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be a catch, but I don't really like this particular line of logic. It'd be like pointing out that a player couldn't catch the ball without it bouncing twice first because he was too far away from it originally and then awarding the catch on that basis, or saying that a player couldn't catch the ball without going over the rope etc etc.

If you can't complete a fair catch then that's tough ****; it's not a birthright.

This is a pretty weak comparison. It has nothing to do with being far away from it, or being near the rope. For your first example, he should have been in a different position in order to catch it. Second one, he's out of the boundaries of play. Simple.

A better comparison would be a batsman sliding his bat in and having to avoid a throw. Through self preservation, if he has made his crease, leaping or not having his bat grounded is okay. Same with the catch. Catch taken, held onto for a good period of time, self preservation to not end up with a nose splattered on turf. Catch. Out.

 

[Cruxdude]

This is a pretty weak comparison. It has nothing to do with being far away from it, or being near the rope. For your first example, he should have been in a different position in order to catch it. Second one, he's out of the boundaries of play. Simple.

A better comparison would be a batsman sliding his bat in and having to avoid a throw. Through self preservation, if he has made his crease, leaping or not having his bat grounded is okay. Same with the catch. Catch taken, held onto for a good period of time, self preservation to not end up with a nose splattered on turf. Catch. Out.

That wouldn't be an ideal comparison as the ball was thrown by someone else and the batsman has no control over it. What would be a better comparison, is a batsman diving in to complete a single but because of the angle at which he is holding the bat, it plonks up and is not grounded. He is out there. Same with the catch. Not out.

 

[Prince EWS]

For your first example, he should have been in a different position in order to catch it.

You could say the same for the bloke who isn't in a good enough position to catch the ball with landing head first or sliding the ball along the ground as well though. You could definitely make the argument that, as per the laws of the game, letting the ball bounce once before catching it and grounding it before you've got control over your own movements both invalidate a catch, and whether or not you could've done it any other way is equally irrelevant to both situations.

Look, as I said, I'm easy either way on those being ruled catches or not as long as it's consistent as there are arguments both ways, but I completely reject the "he couldn't have completed the catch without doing that" argument as there are lots of other reasons players can't compete catches, like the bail sailing over the ropes, the batsman hitting the ball straight into the ground or the batsman not hitting the ball at all. Completing a catch off every attempt is not a birthright.

Essentially your argument is if we don't allow those to be catches, he can't have taken a catch in that situation. I say tough ****; there are in fact many, many balls in each match where a catch is impossible.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

well shut ya trap on ya bike or have a look first kiwi ****

When someone responds saying they haven't seen an incident, usually the onus is usually on the other person to back themselves up and provide a video link. How am I meant to know exactly what you're referring to otherwise?

 

[uvelocity]

first result on robtube aws

Michael Clarke Catch- Jayawardene Stands Ground - YouTube

 

[wellAlbidarned]

In slo-mo it's clearly a catch, but watching it in real-time I can understand Jaya's initial doubt.

 

[uvelocity]

yeah but what I'm saying is he seems to do it a lot

 

[SteveNZ]

That wouldn't be an ideal comparison as the ball was thrown by someone else and the batsman has no control over it. What would be a better comparison, is a batsman diving in to complete a single but because of the angle at which he is holding the bat, it plonks up and is not grounded. He is out there. Same with the catch. Not out.

Actually with new laws, if in the course of the dive he had grounded the bat over the crease then it bounced up, he would be not out. Same if running a bat in, it gets jammed and drops it.

Not being able to complete a catch because you're going to break your nose/face as opposed to going over a rope or (and I'll indulge the ridiculous here) not having hit it/hitting into the ground is completely different. And anyone with a lick of sense could see that.

Cricket has provisions for injury - we saw that perfectly illustrated last night. Hussey did something to avoid getting hurt, and was given not out. Ponting/Abbott did the same. Out.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

No, but as PEWS said, if you're making excuses like "Oh he couldn't possibly complete the catch because of A, B, and C", then where the **** do you draw the line? It's no where near as simple as what you're making it out to be, laws should always try avoid including "umpire discretion" or "common sense" where possible as it leaves massive grey areas.

 

[SteveNZ]

No, but as PEWS said, if you're making excuses like "Oh he couldn't possibly complete the catch because of A, B, and C", then where the **** do you draw the line? It's no where near as simple as what you're making it out to be, laws should always try avoid including "umpire discretion" or "common sense" where possible as it leaves massive grey areas.

I'm not really saying A, B or C. I'm saying A, which is injury prevention. Just as rule makers use A as not being able to be run out when you're avoiding injury. Under PEWS' argument, it isn't their birthright to stand in that spot - they should find a way to not be there. Another sporting rule I can think of is in golf, where you can get relief away from a dangerous spot - ie a bee's nest, crocodile etc (if not in a hazard). It's not your birthright to play from those spots but it's common sense.

It's sport involving humans, it isn't calculus. All you can do is have guidelines that govern the game to the best of their ability and the rest has to be done on feel. Again, last night was a perfect example of that.

And last night is another example that something that seems to have law provisions can still polarise opinion greatly. These catches are exactly the same.

 

[Cruxdude]

OK. I can see your point even though I do not agree with it. I suppose you would agree that this should not be a valid catch Ponting in that Sydney test - YouTube

 

[marc71178]

I'm not really saying A, B or C. I'm saying A, which is injury prevention. Just as rule makers use A as not being able to be run out when you're avoiding injury.

Except the 2 are completely different scenarios.

If a catch cannot be taken cleanly without injury then it shouldn't be a catch.

 

[uvelocity]

Except the 2 are completely different scenarios.

If a catch cannot be taken cleanly without injury then it shouldn't be a catch.

awta, with the runout rule you first need to make your ground. You can't pull up short and claim avoidance of injury.

If you are still in the air, you haven't completed the catch, or do draw the comparison - made your ground.

 

[SteveNZ]

OK. I can see your point even though I do not agree with it. I suppose you would agree that this should not be a valid catch Ponting in that Sydney test - YouTube

I would agree, yep. A) I don't believe he has absolute control over it when it hits the ground and B) He could have landed safely without grounding it.

The run out comparison does fly. If you have control over the catch, just as if you have passed the crease, you're sweet. If you haven't controlled it, and if you haven't made your ground, you aren't.

The basis for my argument is the ground should not be used as an aid to complete the catch. For Ponting's one at mid wicket and Abbott, it wasn't. They had taken the catches clean and securely. For the short cover one, he hadn't - to my mind.

 

[Cruxdude]

I would agree, yep. A) I don't believe he has absolute control over it when it hits the ground and B) He could have landed safely without grounding it.

The run out comparison does fly. If you have control over the catch, just as if you have passed the crease, you're sweet. If you haven't controlled it, and if you haven't made your ground, you aren't.

The basis for my argument is the ground should not be used as an aid to complete the catch. For Ponting's one at mid wicket and Abbott, it wasn't. They had taken the catches clean and securely. For the short cover one, he hadn't - to my mind.

How about the cases where a fielder has caught the ball clean but when he lands the force knocks the ball out? I for one feel that a fielder needs to come to rest with the ball not touching the ground for him to be able to say he was in control. Otherwise it just adds too many variables and subjectivity to what should be a simple decision.

 

[uvelocity]

If you are in the air you are not in control of your body, which is crucial.

 

[marc71178]

The run out comparison does fly. If you have control over the catch, just as if you have passed the crease, you're sweet. If you haven't controlled it, and if you haven't made your ground, you aren't.

Nope, 2 completely different scenarios - avoiding injury doesn't mean anything in terms of passing the crease or not.

 

[SteveNZ]

How about the cases where a fielder has caught the ball clean but when he lands the force knocks the ball out? I for one feel that a fielder needs to come to rest with the ball not touching the ground for him to be able to say he was in control. Otherwise it just adds too many variables and subjectivity to what should be a simple decision.

Then it's not out. At that stage it's not at all in his hands, so it's not out.

And of course they're different scenarios. One is a catch, one is a run out. And yes, avoiding injury can mean something in terms of making your crease. You might do what David Hussey did (and should be out).