TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
wut?No the rule is fine because once player has control it is a catch whatever happens to ball.
didn't you just say the exact opposite?
wut?No the rule is fine because once player has control it is a catch whatever happens to ball.
Not talking about this specific instance, he was obviously still taking the catch in this case. More responding to the theoretical offered about celebrating and throwing the ball away afterwards. If a player was say jumping in the air to take a catch and after taking it fell over and the ball touched the ground while still in their hand it would certainly be given out. The rule says the ball can't touch the ground while the fielder is still effecting the catch. I think once it's come to a dead stop in the hand would be a common interpretation, but obviously it's somewhat subjective. Here the catch was still clearly being taken.The last part is not true at all though, can't grass it while it's in your hand and diving down, quite clearly. That's how the rule is always applied.
Hmmm, Dharmasena's softd decision would've been out so DRS might not have overturned it tbh. Was very very faint on hotspot as well. 3rd umpire would've decided (rather stupidly) that it isn't conclusiveWow, he walked. Fair play, would have been given on review anyway to be fair. Great bowling change, need a big score from Moeen here.
Well all bar Social will.The best thing about that dismissal is we can now stop taking about the catch
No, I didn't mention the control thing I kind of assumed people would be clear on that themselves.wut?
didn't you just say the exact opposite?
naah there was a big noise in live time.Hmmm, Dharmasena's softd decision would've been out so DRS might not have overturned it tbh. Was very very faint on hotspot as well. 3rd umpire would've decided (rather stupidly) that it isn't conclusive
edit: oh wait, snicko.