WHY DIDN'T the third umpire WATCH the catch FRAME BY FRAME after the
ball landed in Green's hand?

It is clear that he DIDN'T have control over the ball.

The ball CLEARLY TOUCHED the ground right after he took the catch AND
his fingers WERE NOT underneath the ball.

Is there a RULE that the third umpire CANNOT REQUEST a "FRAME BY FRAME
replay" AFTER the ball landed in Green's hand?

I don't give a fuck about what the cricinfo commentator said in the
following description.

I know for a FACT that the ball TOUCHED the ground and Green DIDNT have
his fingers underneath the ball.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-world-test-championship-2021-2023-1268315/australia-vs-india-final-1358412/live-cricket-score

Boland to Gill, OUT

Green takes another screamer! Left hand this time! Gill stands his
ground. The umpires send it upstairs. The third umpire is checking for a
fair catch. This was a good length and it bounced a touch extra, Gill
jabbed at it with hard hands. The edge flew low to Green's left, he
flings his huge left hand out and plucks it clean, but then his hand
brushes the ground as he falls to the ground. The question for the third
umpire is did he have full control over the ball. It looked fine. He had
his fingers under it between the ball and turf. Out is the decision.

The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
The ball can't be supported by the ground.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 07:33:23 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
>The ball can't be supported by the ground.

Which law is it that you are claiming?
I can't remember law 33 very well these days but I'm sure if the ball
touches the ground even if it is in the fielder's hand at is not a
fair catch.

max.it

On 6/10/2023 7:33 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
> The ball can't be supported by the ground.

But the ball was clearly supported by the ground.

Green DIDN'T have his fingers underneath the ball.

My question still remain.

Is there a RULE that the third umpire CANNOT REQUEST a FRAME BY FRAME
REPLAY after the ball landed in green's hand?

Frame by frame replay would have made third umpire's job VERY EASY to
adjudicate and eliminated ANY controversy in such an important WTC Finals.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:09:09 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 07:33:23 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
> >The ball can't be supported by the ground.
> Which law is it that you are claiming?
> I can't remember law 33 very well these days but I'm sure if the ball
> touches the ground even if it is in the fielder's hand at is not a
> fair catch.

Just the way it's always ruled these days (for ages, actually). Fingers under == control, which means the catch is complete.
If the ball is supported by the grass/ground, then the catcher doesn't have control, and the catch isn't complete (therefore touching the ground means it's not a catch).

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 11:18:25 AM UTC-4, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:09:09 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 07:33:23 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
> > <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
> > >The ball can't be supported by the ground.
> > Which law is it that you are claiming?
> > I can't remember law 33 very well these days but I'm sure if the ball
> > touches the ground even if it is in the fielder's hand at is not a
> > fair catch.
> Just the way it's always ruled these days (for ages, actually). Fingers under == control, which means the catch is complete.
> If the ball is supported by the grass/ground, then the catcher doesn't have control, and the catch isn't complete (therefore touching the ground means it's not a catch).

Not even Smith claiming a fair catch?

On 6/10/2023 8:18 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:09:09 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 07:33:23 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
>> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
>>> The ball can't be supported by the ground.
>> Which law is it that you are claiming?
>> I can't remember law 33 very well these days but I'm sure if the ball
>> touches the ground even if it is in the fielder's hand at is not a
>> fair catch.
>
> Just the way it's always ruled these days (for ages, actually). Fingers under == control, which means the catch is complete.
> If the ball is supported by the grass/ground, then the catcher doesn't have control, and the catch isn't complete (therefore touching the ground means it's not a catch).

Which is exactly the point I made that the ball touched the ground,
green is NOT in complete control, his fingers were NOT underneath the
ball and HENCE the OUT decision should have been REVERSED.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:09:09?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 07:33:23 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
>> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
>> >The ball can't be supported by the ground.
>> Which law is it that you are claiming?
>> I can't remember law 33 very well these days but I'm sure if the ball
>> touches the ground even if it is in the fielder's hand at is not a
>> fair catch.
>
>Just the way it's always ruled these days (for ages, actually). Fingers under == control, which means the catch is complete.
>If the ball is supported by the grass/ground, then the catcher doesn't have control, and the catch isn't complete (therefore touching the ground means it's not a catch).

Under what law is this "ruling" ("The ball is allowed to touch the
ground (grass).") being made?
When did it begin?

max.it

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:36:55 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Which is exactly the point I made that the ball touched the ground,
> green is NOT in complete control, his fingers were NOT underneath the
> ball and HENCE the OUT decision should have been REVERSED.

Wisden: While there is no further definition of the ground, it is generally accepted that a catch can still stand even if the ball touches the grass – it’s the ground underneath the grass that is out of bounds.

https://wisden.com/series-stories/world-test-championship/explained-cam-green-shubman-gill-catch-fingers-under-ball-full-control-soft-signals-laws-low-catches-playing-conditions-aus-ind-wtc-final

Not sure if this is technically correct.
I thought if the ball hit a tall blade of grass before being caught it was technically Not Out, as grass == ground.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:22:07 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> When did it begin?

I've seen 3rd umpires make this similar decision for over a decade now. Not sure what instructions they've been given.

example from 5 years ago;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfyha3xXEZQ&ab_channel=TenBuzz

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:22:07?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> When did it begin?
>
>I've seen 3rd umpires make this similar decision for over a decade now. Not sure what instructions they've been given.

Under which law?
Which umpires?
How the fuck can grass support a cricket ball?

Are you just making stuff up?

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:27:53 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> How the fuck can grass support a cricket ball?

Are grass and the ground the same thing? If Yes, then grass can support a cricket ball.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 09:30:27 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:27:53?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> How the fuck can grass support a cricket ball?
>
>Are grass and the ground the same thing? If Yes, then grass can support a cricket ball.

Under which law are you claiming the ball can touch the ground?
If it says in the laws that the grass and the ground were the same
thing then you wouldn't have to ask .
Where in the laws does it say the ball has to be supported by the
ground to be not out?

If the hand is on the ground palm up and the ball is in it but
touching some blades of grass what would your decision be?
If what you say is true surely the ball would be supported by the
grass and wouldn't be in the hand at all.

max.it

On 6/10/2023 9:22 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:36:55 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Which is exactly the point I made that the ball touched the ground,
>> green is NOT in complete control, his fingers were NOT underneath the
>> ball and HENCE the OUT decision should have been REVERSED.
>
> Wisden: While there is no further definition of the ground, it is generally accepted that a catch can still stand even if the ball touches the grass – it’s the ground underneath the grass that is out of bounds.
>
> https://wisden.com/series-stories/world-test-championship/explained-cam-green-shubman-gill-catch-fingers-under-ball-full-control-soft-signals-laws-low-catches-playing-conditions-aus-ind-wtc-final
>
> Not sure if this is technically correct.
> I thought if the ball hit a tall blade of grass before being caught it was technically Not Out, as grass == ground.

The ball touched the ground and green's fingers were NOT underneath the
ball.

That's all the third umpire needs to declare him NOT OUT.

Since WTC 2023 finals doesn't have SOFT DECISION, the third umpire have
FULL LEEWAY and hence should have REVERSED and DECLARED Gill NOT OUT.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:42:45 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Under which law are you claiming the ball can touch the ground?

Read my other posts. I'm not saying it's in the laws. I'm saying that's how ICC 3rd umpires rule on it, and have done so for a long time.

A 2009 catch;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-7n2n4zdRA&ab_channel=cricket.com.au

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 08:36:53 -0700, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:

>On 6/10/2023 8:18 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:09:09?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 07:33:23 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
>>> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
>>>> The ball can't be supported by the ground.
>>> Which law is it that you are claiming?
>>> I can't remember law 33 very well these days but I'm sure if the ball
>>> touches the ground even if it is in the fielder's hand at is not a
>>> fair catch.
>>
>> Just the way it's always ruled these days (for ages, actually). Fingers under == control, which means the catch is complete.
>> If the ball is supported by the grass/ground, then the catcher doesn't have control, and the catch isn't complete (therefore touching the ground means it's not a catch).
>
>
>
>
>Which is exactly the point I made that the ball touched the ground,
>green is NOT in complete control, his fingers were NOT underneath the
>ball and HENCE the OUT decision should have been REVERSED.

The slomo on BBC website shows it well.
I don't think it's a fair catch from what can be seen and if you can't
be sure 100% it's not out.
It looks more like the fielder was in the process of dropping the ball
before steadying it up on the ground.
That 3rd umpire will have to explain his decision to the umpire
manager.

max.it

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:42:45?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Under which law are you claiming the ball can touch the ground?
>
>Read my other posts. I'm not saying it's in the laws. I'm saying that's how ICC 3rd umpires rule on it, and have done so for a long time.
>
>A 2009 catch;
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-7n2n4zdRA&ab_channel=cricket.com.au
>

Not a fair catch. The shadow of the ball shows that the ball had
touched the ground. Showing umpire errors doesn't confirm anything
that you have claimed.

I see you really are just making stuff up.
"The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
The ball can't be supported by the ground. "

Under what ICC playing regulation is the ball allowed to touch the
ground and still be out caught?

max.it

On 6/10/2023 10:03 AM, max.it wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 08:36:53 -0700, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2023 8:18 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:09:09?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 07:33:23 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
>>>> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
>>>>> The ball can't be supported by the ground.
>>>> Which law is it that you are claiming?
>>>> I can't remember law 33 very well these days but I'm sure if the ball
>>>> touches the ground even if it is in the fielder's hand at is not a
>>>> fair catch.
>>>
>>> Just the way it's always ruled these days (for ages, actually). Fingers under == control, which means the catch is complete.
>>> If the ball is supported by the grass/ground, then the catcher doesn't have control, and the catch isn't complete (therefore touching the ground means it's not a catch).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Which is exactly the point I made that the ball touched the ground,
>> green is NOT in complete control, his fingers were NOT underneath the
>> ball and HENCE the OUT decision should have been REVERSED.
>
> The slomo on BBC website shows it well.
> I don't think it's a fair catch from what can be seen and if you can't
> be sure 100% it's not out.
> It looks more like the fielder was in the process of dropping the ball
> before steadying it up on the ground.
> That 3rd umpire will have to explain his decision to the umpire
> manager.
>
> max.it

You are right.

Here is the close up of Green's catch.

The ball CLEARLY TOUCHED the GROUND and GREEN's fingers were NOT
underneath the ball.

Moreover, since WTC Finals did away with SOFT SIGNAL, the third umpire
has FULL AUTHORITY to REVERSE the DECISION, which Kettleborough should
have done.

https://twitter.com/thecricketgully/status/1667539112646041600

On 6/10/2023 9:22 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 1:36:55 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Which is exactly the point I made that the ball touched the ground,
>> green is NOT in complete control, his fingers were NOT underneath the
>> ball and HENCE the OUT decision should have been REVERSED.
>
> Wisden: While there is no further definition of the ground, it is generally accepted that a catch can still stand even if the ball touches the grass – it’s the ground underneath the grass that is out of bounds.
>
> https://wisden.com/series-stories/world-test-championship/explained-cam-green-shubman-gill-catch-fingers-under-ball-full-control-soft-signals-laws-low-catches-playing-conditions-aus-ind-wtc-final
>
> Not sure if this is technically correct.
> I thought if the ball hit a tall blade of grass before being caught it was technically Not Out, as grass == ground.

You make everything unnecessarily complicated, Jack.

This is quite straight forward.

Green is NOT in control of the ball.

https://twitter.com/ESPNcricinfo/status/1667535770083803138

Third umpire Kettleborough should have RULED it NOT OUT.

On 6/10/2023 7:33 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
> The ball can't be supported by the ground.

https://twitter.com/thecricketgully/status/1667539112646041600

https://twitter.com/ESPNcricinfo/status/1667535770083803138

On 6/10/2023 9:23 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:22:07 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> When did it begin?
>
> I've seen 3rd umpires make this similar decision for over a decade now. Not sure what instructions they've been given.
>

Another angle.

Clear not out.

https://twitter.com/thecricketgully/status/1667539112646041600

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:10:32 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:42:45?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> >> Under which law are you claiming the ball can touch the ground?
> >
> >Read my other posts. I'm not saying it's in the laws. I'm saying that's how ICC 3rd umpires rule on it, and have done so for a long time.
> >
> >A 2009 catch;
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-7n2n4zdRA&ab_channel=cricket.com.au
> >
> Not a fair catch. The shadow of the ball shows that the ball had
> touched the ground. Showing umpire errors doesn't confirm anything
> that you have claimed.
>
> I see you really are just making stuff up.
> "The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
> The ball can't be supported by the ground. "
> Under what ICC playing regulation is the ball allowed to touch the
> ground and still be out caught?
>
> max.it

from what kettle was saying at the time, becos green had his fingers
under the ball, he was in control and it was out. i dunno if it says that in the
laws but apparently that was enough for him to give it out.

JL who sounds like a child, thought it a brilliant decision but this ashes is gonna
be very irritating to listen to if hes commentating all series.

mike

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:10:32?PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
>> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:42:45?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> >> Under which law are you claiming the ball can touch the ground?
>> >
>> >Read my other posts. I'm not saying it's in the laws. I'm saying that's how ICC 3rd umpires rule on it, and have done so for a long time.
>> >
>> >A 2009 catch;
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-7n2n4zdRA&ab_channel=cricket.com.au
>> >
>> Not a fair catch. The shadow of the ball shows that the ball had
>> touched the ground. Showing umpire errors doesn't confirm anything
>> that you have claimed.
>>
>> I see you really are just making stuff up.
>> "The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
>> The ball can't be supported by the ground. "
>> Under what ICC playing regulation is the ball allowed to touch the
>> ground and still be out caught?
>>
>> max.it
>
>from what kettle was saying at the time, becos green had his fingers
>under the ball, he was in control and it was out. i dunno if it says that in the
>laws but apparently that was enough for him to give it out.

The fielder has to be in control of his body and in control of the
ball as well.
I'm fed up watching the catch, I've watched it @25% speed and if I was
to give that out I would be guessing and umpires who guess get found
out and get their asses kicked by the training officer.

The decision will stand but the error will be addressed in private by
the umpire manager and training officer.
>
>JL who sounds like a child, thought it a brilliant decision but this ashes is gonna
>be very irritating to listen to if hes commentating all series.
>
>mike

The Australian fans on another forum were calling the Indian fans cry
babies. Some wag pointed out that Aussie cricketers only cry whenever
they get caught cheating.

max.it

On 6/10/2023 12:31 PM, mike wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:10:32 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 09:58:04 -0700 (PDT), jack fredricks
>> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:42:45?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>>> Under which law are you claiming the ball can touch the ground?
>>>
>>> Read my other posts. I'm not saying it's in the laws. I'm saying that's how ICC 3rd umpires rule on it, and have done so for a long time.
>>>
>>> A 2009 catch;
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-7n2n4zdRA&ab_channel=cricket.com.au
>>>
>> Not a fair catch. The shadow of the ball shows that the ball had
>> touched the ground. Showing umpire errors doesn't confirm anything
>> that you have claimed.
>>
>> I see you really are just making stuff up.
>> "The ball is allowed to touch the ground (grass).
>> The ball can't be supported by the ground. "
>> Under what ICC playing regulation is the ball allowed to touch the
>> ground and still be out caught?
>>
>> max.it
>
> from what kettle was saying at the time, becos green had his fingers
> under the ball, he was in control and it was out. i dunno if it says that in the
> laws but apparently that was enough for him to give it out.
>

Kettleborough DIDN'T ask for the FRAME by FRAME REPLAY "OR" a close up
shot of the ball when Green caught the ball, and made the DECISION in a
HURRY without having EVIDENCE that Gill is OUT.

He obviously JUSTIFIES his decision by saying that Green had his fingers
underneath the ball, when in REALITY, they WEREN'T.

Green's forefinger and middle finger both were on the SIDE of the ball,
NOT underneath the ball.

https://twitter.com/thecricketgully/status/1667539112646041600

https://twitter.com/ESPNcricinfo/status/1667535770083803138

Watch those pictures and video and MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION.

DON'T blindly ACCEPT what Kettleborough said.

Secondly, Kettleborough made the decision TOO FAST WITHOUT even asking
for a CLOSE UP frame, that too in such a VERY IMPORTANT WTC Finals match.

If the situation is REVERSE and an australian batsman was given out in
such manner favoring Indian team, I still would have said that the
UMPIRE IS WRONG in his judgement.

> JL who sounds like a child, thought it a brilliant decision but this ashes is gonna
> be very irritating to listen to if hes commentating all series.
>
> mike

Most of the australian commentators and players like Ponting, Langer,
Carey SPUN this issue when they also know that Kettelborough made the
WRONG decision in giving Gill Out.