2.5 Lee to Ahmed Shehzad, OUT, banged in short on middle, went for the pull, mistimed it wide of midwicket, hit the high end of the bat and Laughlin dived full length to his left to pluck falling to his left. Shehzad stayed his ground to wait and check if he grassed it while making contact with the ground, but replays suggest the catch was clean
If the ball making contact with the ground when the fielder completes the catch is clean, then yes, the catch was clean.
Pity the rule book does not agree
Law 32 (Caught)
1. Out Caught
The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any member of the fielding side and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground.
2. Caught to take precedence
If the criteria of 1 above are met and the striker is not out Bowled, then he is out Caught, even though a decision against either batsman for another method of dismissal would be justified. Runs completed by the batsmen before the completion of the catch will not be scored. Note also Laws 21.6 (Winning hit or extras) and 42.17(b) (Penalty runs).
3. A fair catch
A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.
The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.
(b) the ball is hugged to the body of the catcher or accidentally lodges in his clothing or, in the case of the wicket-keeper, in his pads. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder. See Law 23 (Dead ball).
(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.
(d) a fielder catches the ball after it has been lawfully struck more than once by the striker, but only if the ball has not touched the ground since first being struck.
(e) a fielder catches the ball after it has touched an umpire, another fielder or the other batsman. However, it is not a fair catch if the ball has touched a protective helmet worn by a fielder, although the ball remains in play.
(f) a fielder catches the ball in the air after it has crossed the boundary provided that
(i) he has no part of his person touching, or grounded beyond, the boundary at any time when he is in contact with the ball.
(ii) the ball has not been grounded beyond the boundary.
See Law 19.3 (Scoring a boundary).
(g) the ball is caught off an obstruction within the boundary, provided it has not previously been decided to regard the obstruction as a boundary.
4. Fielder within the field of play
(a) A fielder is not within the field of play if he touches the boundary or has any part of his person grounded beyond the boundary. See Law 19.3 (Scoring a boundary).
(b) 6 runs shall be scored if a fielder
(i) has any part of his person touching, or grounded beyond, the boundary when he catches the ball.
(ii) catches the ball and subsequently touches the boundary or grounds some part of his person over the boundary while carrying the ball but before completing the catch.
See Laws 19.3 (Scoring a boundary) and 19.4 (Runs allowed for boundaries).
5. No runs to be scored
If the striker is dismissed Caught, runs from that delivery completed by the batsmen before the completion of the catch shall not be scored, but any penalties awarded to either side when the ball is dead, if applicable, will stand. Law 18.12(a) (Batsman returning to wicket he has left) shall apply from the instant of the catch.
Video begins at 1:30
17 comments:
No wonder Homer you thrive on anything anti Aussie and Mumbai...I say it cynicism...
So now you know Sam.. Wonderful..
Cheers,
Not sure what the problem here is mate ! As per the Cricinfo commentary - the catch was clean.
Unless you've seen the catch live and it was a bump ball, not sure what your point here is ???
Plus, didn't Parthiv Patel claim a catch which was shown to be a bump ball, in the IPL ? So flip the question back - do the Indian's know what a legit catch is ?
TG,
Saw the game, saw the catch, saw the palm facing the ground when he landed, saw the ball touch the turf.
Did Parthiv claim a bump ball catch? In that case, the Indians need to be schooled in what constitutes a fair catch too.
Cheers,
Homer
My bad then - here in UK no telecast of the Pak- Aus series. Hence relying on Cricinfo.
Seems this is a case of a M Clarke catch against NZ a couple of years ago and the classic comment by Michael Slater - the catch looks a bit iffy :) Was same case as you described it then.
As to Parthiv - well it wasn't a clear case as what you say of Laughlin, but there was enough doubt for him to admit ' I don't know' but instead he claimed it, which on replays showed was a bump ball.
Not quite Australianesque :)
TG,
I will try to get a hold of the video and put it on the blog. That should help.
Cheers,
Also, has anyone got a good video of the Raina blinder in the IPL. Watching the replay yesterday made me wonder if after taking the catch he also had his palm facing the ground... reminded me of the Ponting appeal for his catch of Dhoni at Silly Point in... Sydney. Back then we heard a lot of BS about when he had complete control over the catch... apparently a nano second before he grassed it.
There you go Achettup.
Cheers:),
Thanks Homer... what do you think? Legit?
Achettup,
The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.
He lands with his palms facing down with the ball in his hand..
Then when he completes his slide, he clearly has the ball touching the ground.
Billy Bowden thinks its legit. And he is an ICC Elite umpire.. So who am I to argue.
Viva la ICC!!
Cheers,
Wait... is that Harwood, Raina or Ponting?
Homer, I think you've got a point. The rules do actually suggest that this sort of catch is not out, unless you use the sort of arguments you'd usually find in a court of law. But I have never seen one of these that wasn't given out, and I doubt the law-makers intended them to be not given out.
My usual instinct says go with the rules as written, but in this case I'm conflicted, as the common-sense factor is quite strongly against them in this case.
Achettup,
Ben Laughlin.
Cheers,
Jonathan,
The Gibbs "You dropped the World cup" catch comes to mind where the fielder caught the catch and dropped it as he was about to celebrate.
It was not given and rightly so.
Unlike Laughlin.
Cheers,
"My usual instinct says go with the rules as written, but in this case I'm conflicted, as the common-sense factor is quite strongly against them in this case."
Every time I said, your usual instinct to stick to rules will fail you when an Aussie is involved, you denied it, didnt you? :-)
(Ok, I am not trying to rub this in - I do feel subconsciously certain dynamics are at work here even if you dont recognise them. Just differentiate the passion for rules in earlier discussions on why rules need not be ultimate, and if common sense dictates, rules need to be changed, you were strictly on the side of rules. Now?)
Dont get me wrong, I dont think you are consciously discriminative - I have read your blog and enjoyed your posts and the amount of effort to think on an issue and present perspectives. But sub-consciously, I think there is something going on there...
Homer - that was not a case of the ball touching the ground while in the hand. I have never seen one of those given not out.
Raj, I'm trained as a mathematician, with some science thrown in. The mathematician in me starts with rules, whereas for a scientist, the "rules" are observed. I think agreed rules are necessary in sport, but there are some cases where the consistently observed meaning of the rules is not the same as how a pedant such as Homer or myself might read them. As I said, this is the sort of argument that courts of law are familar with.
The consistency is important - I haven't seen anything to suggest this should not be out in international cricket, park cricket or umpires training. And we're not just talking about Australians here. My basic question is, if I were umpiring some friends or local teams, would I give it out. Do you honestly think that in a similar situation, with no international issues involved, you would come to a different conclusion?
Having said that, I would not blame an umpire who gave it not out, for the reasons discussed. That is why I do think the rules should be better worded in this case. I have stressed the need for "ultimate" rules on other occasions, but I certainly don't want to imply that the rules can't be improved!
Post a Comment