Cricket Thread

[jimharri]

That was a catch. He caught it, had a cup of tea and then rubbed it along the ground. However, pissing off cheating Aussies is something I can always agree with.

No, it wasn't. Check the law re having control of both the ball and your body.

 

[waspish]

It's curious that ex-players from both sides thought it was okay initially.

The ruling seems sound though - it's akin to a fielder on the run taking the catch and then running over the boundary rope a step or two later.

Umpire just explained it very well and my feeling to those two decisions the smith and stark ones! Guess what I was right

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

It's piss poor from Starc. He's made the catch and is in control of it but instead of just keeping the ball up he's been a bit lazy I think. It's not the first one like that this series either.

You're right - he's taken the catch very cleanly but instead of taking the usual step of making damned sure it doesn't go anywhere near the turf merely decides to place it down.

Mis-placed confidence (somehow)?

 

[willipp]

No, it wasn't. Check the law re having control of both the ball and your body.

I understand it now as initially I thought it was a good catch. However, I’ve never seen that law applied before on so many far worse catches (smiths a prime example where he’s diving forward and pretty much drags the ball along the ground) and it seems a bizarre time to suddenly start applying it.

 

[Edghill OG]

A lot of cricket experts on here. I'm certainly not one and don't profess to be. Personally only really watch English test matches and some of the limited over games in World Cups. I'm pretty sure almost everybody thought that was out at the time and if it hadn't been disallowed nobody would even be talking about it now.

 

[Gabriel]

A lot of cricket experts on here. I'm certainly not one and don't profess to be. Personally only really watch English test matches and some of the limited over games in World Cups. I'm pretty sure almost everybody thought that was out at the time and if it hadn't been disallowed nobody would even be talking about it now.

The difference today is that the stakes are high between two fairly evenly matched sides, so any catch/decision where there is the slightest doubt will see it contested. The intervention of the third umpire also means that any decision can go upstairs and from there the ‘letter of the law’ trumps the ‘spirit of the game’.

 

[jimharri]

I understand it now as initially I thought it was a good catch. However, I’ve never seen that law applied before on so many far worse catches (smiths a prime example where he’s diving forward and pretty much drags the ball along the ground) and it seems a bizarre time to suddenly start applying it.

Have to be honest; irrespective of the actual law, to me that was a good catch. But by the wording of the law, he didn't have control of his body when he was sliding on the ground. Maybe a scenario where common sense should come into play? As it happens, it may well not matter in the bigger picture.

 

[waspish]

A lot of cricket experts on here. I'm certainly not one and don't profess to be. Personally only really watch English test matches and some of the limited over games in World Cups. I'm pretty sure almost everybody thought that was out at the time and if it hadn't been disallowed nobody would even be talking about it now.

Nope I thought it was not out from the moment he slid and the ball ran across the floor like I new the Smith catch was out when some were saying it shouldn’t of been!

Umpire explained it very well this morning!

 

[willipp]

Have to be honest; irrespective of the actual law, to me that was a good catch. But by the wording of the law, he didn't have control of his body when he was sliding on the ground. Maybe a scenario where common sense should come into play? As it happens, it may well not matter in the bigger picture.

Yeah at no point actually watching it yesterday did I think anything other than good catch but reading the law written then it’s hard to argue with it.

Like you say though, it keeps it interesting but I doubt will have any lasting impact on the result.

 

[jimharri]

The difference today is that the stakes are high between two fairly evenly matched sides, so any catch/decision where there is the slightest doubt will see it contested. The intervention of the third umpire also means that any decision can go upstairs and from there the ‘letter of the law’ trumps the ‘spirit of the game’.

You think they're evenly matched?