Holy carp. Did Jumbo really say that?

Clearly touched the turf and that too twice .. I can't figure out what is even remotely legal about that catch.

Henry wrote:The ball clearly touched the turf. Not out. Ponting got all worked up about it. He actually denied that the ball ever touched the turf, despite clear video evidence to the contrary.

The Harris one should have been not out as well. Perhaps the players don't know the rules.

And the umpires in the Saf match! The commentators were pretty adamant that it shouldn't have been given.

Henry wrote:The ball clearly touched the turf.

He had the ball in his hands, and totally under control, before and after the ball touched the turf. Out.

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:The ball clearly touched the turf.

He had the ball in his hands, and totally under control, before and after the ball touched the turf. Out.

Ofcourse .. when you press the ball against the ground it's totally under control.


Good point

The ball was inside his hands, Buck. Totally grasped within his fingers from the moment the ball hits his hand. OUT.

The only reason it wasn't given out is because the incompetent umpire didn't see Dhoni glove the ball.

lardbucket wrote:The only reason it wasn't given out is because the incompetent umpire didn't see Dhoni glove the ball.

But i'm pretty sure that the RULES say that it wasn't a catch.

The RULES on catching mainly talk about control of the ball. AFAIK a catch is not disqualified by grounding of one side of a ball still held within the fielder's hands, after that catch is completed. I believe that catch was taken fairly.

AFAIK a catch is not disqualified by grounding of one side of a ball still held within the fielder's hands, after that catch is completed

there was a discussion between Chappelli and Gavaskar about this on ESPN and the former did not object to the latters contention that when the fielder rolls over after a low catch, at no point should the ball be grounded until he regains balance.

And Chappell is not the type to be quiet if he sees any dissonance in interpretation of rules.

Well, those idiots commentating for channel nine didn't comment on it until an hour after the incident.

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.



>>>


Well, I'll be hornswoggled. That's the law.

Ok just watched the kumble press conference on foxsports.

After he said the spirit of the game thing he only made mention of one event, that was clarke not walking when he hit it to first slip.

But while clarke was a little silly he wasn't standing there saying the catch hadn't carried he was waiting for the ump to give him out for nicking it.

Stupid yes but it's within the spirit of the game to wait until you are given out so quite frankly kumble has come off looking rather foolish in all this.

Kumble cannot say anything against the umpiring, and I think there's a limit to what he can say about the opposition as well. What he referred to was the Ponting 'catch' and the Clarke 'catch', which were disgraceful. If you make an agreement that you will be honest as to the catches taken before the series, you don't just break it when the game hangs in a balance.

The clarke catch was completely clean.

Bottomline: If the Clarke catch was referred to the third umpire.

It would have been given 'not out'.

And that proves what exactly?

nearly all catches that are clean have a little bit of doubt when you watch endless replay's, however the players themselves know they are clean.

Of all the idiotic things that have been said during this match people questioning the clarke catch has to take the cake.

Although even with the replay it looked to go right into the hands.

Dunno. From one angle Clarke's catch looks perfectly fine, from another it looks quite clear that the ball bounces first. Certainly far more doubt about it than Clarke's own dismissal, which he saw fit to stand and query for some reason.

bliksem wrote:Dunno. From one angle Clarke's catch looks perfectly fine, from another it looks quite clear that the ball bounces first. Certainly far more doubt about it than Clarke's own dismissal, which he saw fit to stand and query for some reason.

Clarke never queried his dismissal . . . he waited til the umpire gave him out. Again, Hilary, fast and loose with the facts.

Clarke claimed a catch against NZ at Hobart about a month ago and replays showed the ball clearly bouncing in front of him. The guy has form.

He may have also been admiring the shot, it was better than the first dig anyway.

Which part of "thick edge to first slip and taken a metre off the ground" was confusing him? Are you honestly defending his decision to wait for someone to tell him officially he was out???

bliksem wrote:Which part of "thick edge to first slip and taken a metre off the ground" was confusing him? Are you honestly defending his decision to wait for someone to tell him officially he was out???

Why not? I wouldn't trust either of those umpires to make the right decision, so who dares wins as far I'm concerned.

I don't think anybody was defending clarke he was stupid doing what he did. but there is a clear difference between waiting for the ump to give you out and objecting to the validity of a catch you know is clean.

please don't yell wrote:The clarke catch was completely clean.

Bullshit. It bounced just before he took and he grounded it rolling over after the dive.