1.2 | Parnell to Shahzaib Hasan, OUT, What a stunner from Van der Merwe. South Africa roar as they get into a huddle. It was a short of length delivery, going away from Shahzaib who top-edges the pull over mid-on. Van der Merwe swung back, ran ahead and dived forward to take a sharp catch. |
| Shahzaib Hasan c van der Merwe b Parnell 0 (2b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0.00 |
Watch the front of his hands - they are facing the ground when he completes the catch. Which begs the question - how is that a legitimate catch?
8 comments:
Haven't seen it. Got a link, Homer?
Tony,
Here you go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SpfqrYKTCU
Video starts around the 1:35 mark.
Cheers,
Away specifically from this dismissal, I guess the rule has to be defined much clearer, say for example if any part of your hand (up to the wrist) touches the ground then it is not legal.
At least in school and playground cricket, we used to follow that and it was foolproof.
Scorpi,
We had to hold on to the ball for 3 seconds after the catch was taken - throw the ball after completing the catch and that was not out.
Cheers,
Looks to me like the left hand was facing up and under the ball, while the right hand didn't do much.
Anyway, as I've said before, I've never seen a catch like that given not out, even if the ball touches the ground while being held. The idea that even the hands can't touch the ground seems not quite cricket... I guess you really do hear something new every day.
JOnathan,
Palms facing downwards, ball touching the ground as he rises - the catch is complete when the fielder has complete control of the ball and his body - there is enough doubt in that catch to invalidate it.
Cheers,
Homer, as I said, in this particular case, I only see one palm facing downwards in this particular case, and no sign that the ball touched the ground (not to mention that rising came after complete control).
But even if it did, there is the issue that the definition of the catch being complete has never been interpreted in this manner - it is one thing to point out that the rules are not well written, it is another to expect them to be interpreted inconsistently with the past. If there is any doubt about this, perhaps the MCC should be consulted again?
We all had different extra rules in the schoolyard or backyard, and it is interesting and enlightening to hear about the different ideas. Some of them make a lot of sense as proposed changes, but they don't help us interpret the existing laws...
Jonathan... Yup it might be new to many but here I certainly grew up on this logic and also the 3 second one which Homer talked about sans throwing the ball back.
I love the merit behind it for the reason that it perfectly satisfies the rule of a legal catch clearly and also the technical intricacies and spirit of a catch. Therefore I call this being used by Kids here perfect cricket.
A catch is considered when it is taken before the ball hits the ground.
The intricacies and difficulties of taking a catch is in controlling it especially the momentum and velocity when the ball hits your hand.
Typically, when you take a catch in the air, the momentum of the ball coming down, pushes your hand down and the art is in controlling that momentum, in line with the change in position when the ball hits the hand.
Many dropped catches go, due to the impact which pushes your hand down and the change in position is not controlled by your fingers.
In the case of a catch where the back of your palms are completely resting on the ground, these intricacies are lessened considerably, because the support of the ground acts as a greater strength resistor and aids in equally dispersing the force to the ground.
That is perhaps why when you take a catch with your palms resting on the ground, the impact is hardly felt and the ball falls like a cushion.
The difficulties and the challenge in taking a catch are assisted big time. Besides, there will always be a doubt whether a part of the ball did touch the ground between the palms, which does not make it fair or cricket.
Whether this helps us interpret the existing laws of cricket is a good debate. Primarily, because the rule does not actually define "control" and that's where the problem lies.
To me no part of your palm or the back of your palm should ever hit the ground while taking a catch, only then the consistency behind the intricacies of taking a catch whether high above your head or below will have the same principles apply.
Cheers
Post a Comment