Two CONTROVERSIAL CATCHES in the Lords Ashes Tests

I think Smith's catch is NOT OUT just like Green's catch in India vs Aus
is NOT OUT.

Smith's fingers were on the SIDE of the ball when the ball touched the
ground INITIALLY. Later he slid his fingers UNDERNEATH the ball.

Green to Duckett, no run

short, clips the periscope... and well held at fine leg! Duckett looks a
little bemused, and it's hard to be sure how the ball ended up down
there. A pause to check the no-ball, but Australia then celebrate again.
But hang on, what's this, because Duckett is being told to wait. They
are checking the catch, and this is going to be given not out, because
Starc placed the ball on the turf as he went to ground, before he was in
control of his body! Starc isn't happy, but the third umpire, Marais
Erasmus, has decided it was not a clean catch

Did Mitchell Starc REALLY 'drop' Duckett ball?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IeWNVr43CI

Starc to Root, OUT

short, swatted in the air... does Smith get to the catch?! It was a
fantastic effort at backward square, the ball popped loose but he then
got some body under it as he slid along the grass, ended up cupping it
in the crook of his elbow. Root isn't going anywhere yet, though. This
is going up to Marais Erasmus, who takes a couple of looks, and then
gives it out! The main question was actually whether Smith grounded it
as he attempted to get fingers under the ball. Very similar, in fact, to
the Cameron Green catch in the WTC final, and Root has to depart!
Australia have bounced out three in this crazy passage of play
Joe Root c Smith b Starc 10 (19b 0x4 0x6 39m) SR: 52.63

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0rG3EV18Y

Yeah, it's starting to get out of hand. Pun intended.

I think the MCC needs to speak up, and give more guidance.

I think the current Law 33 is pretty good.
It seems to strike the right balance between black/white (objectiveness) and fairness.

A few little issues;
1. some articles I've read on this, including one on Wisden, mentions "does ground mean grass?". IMO it has to. But it could be made clearer.
2. I don't like how a tall blade of grass (eg 5cm tall outlier) can stop a catch. If it hits that tall, lone bit of grass on the way to being caught it's technically not out.

ISTM the biggest issue at international level is the interpretation around when the fielder has control of their body and the catch is completed.
If you're diving, you DON'T have complete control of movement until your body stops moving.
If any part of the ball touches the ground before this it should be not out.
I think 3rd umps are getting this part wrong - see Root's dismissal.
Starc's catch was correctly ruled Not Out.

The other type of catch is a fielder standing still and catching a low ball eg in slips.
I'd say if you're on both feet and get your hand/fingers under the ball, then you've pretty much instantly completed the catch.
Your movement has ended. Catch complete.
If the ball touches grass through your fingers, milliseconds later, it shouldn't matter. Out.

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:22:16 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> Yeah, it's starting to get out of hand. Pun intended.
>
> I think the MCC needs to speak up, and give more guidance.
>
> I think the current Law 33 is pretty good.
> It seems to strike the right balance between black/white (objectiveness) and fairness.
>
> A few little issues;
> 1. some articles I've read on this, including one on Wisden, mentions "does ground mean grass?". IMO it has to. But it could be made clearer.
> 2. I don't like how a tall blade of grass (eg 5cm tall outlier) can stop a catch. If it hits that tall, lone bit of grass on the way to being caught it's technically not out.
>
> ISTM the biggest issue at international level is the interpretation around when the fielder has control of their body and the catch is completed.
> If you're diving, you DON'T have complete control of movement until your body stops moving.
> If any part of the ball touches the ground before this it should be not out.
> I think 3rd umps are getting this part wrong - see Root's dismissal.
> Starc's catch was correctly ruled Not Out.
>
> The other type of catch is a fielder standing still and catching a low ball eg in slips.
> I'd say if you're on both feet and get your hand/fingers under the ball, then you've pretty much instantly completed the catch.
> Your movement has ended. Catch complete.
> If the ball touches grass through your fingers, milliseconds later, it shouldn't matter. Out.

if the ball is caught and is held tight and doesnt look like coming out I would consider it a catch

If that was Steve Smith that was caught like that and given not out we would see screaming and kicking from the English fans and commentators

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:14:21 AM UTC+10, wlsut...@gmail.com wrote:
> If that was Steve Smith that was caught like that and given not out we would see screaming and kicking from the English fans and commentators

Rubbish.
We've had a few go against us like this, this series, and there hasn't been a whisper of complaining.

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:27:50 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:14:21 AM UTC+10, wlsut...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If that was Steve Smith that was caught like that and given not out we would see screaming and kicking from the English fans and commentators
> Rubbish.
> We've had a few go against us like this, this series, and there hasn't been a whisper of complaining.

In this scenario it would be deafening .... nothing like a whinging pom avalanche

On 7/1/2023 3:22 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> Yeah, it's starting to get out of hand. Pun intended.
>
> I think the MCC needs to speak up, and give more guidance.
>
> I think the current Law 33 is pretty good.
> It seems to strike the right balance between black/white (objectiveness) and fairness.
>
> A few little issues;
> 1. some articles I've read on this, including one on Wisden, mentions "does ground mean grass?". IMO it has to. But it could be made clearer.
> 2. I don't like how a tall blade of grass (eg 5cm tall outlier) can stop a catch. If it hits that tall, lone bit of grass on the way to being caught it's technically not out.
>
> ISTM the biggest issue at international level is the interpretation around when the fielder has control of their body and the catch is completed.
> If you're diving, you DON'T have complete control of movement until your body stops moving.
> If any part of the ball touches the ground before this it should be not out.
> I think 3rd umps are getting this part wrong - see Root's dismissal.
> Starc's catch was correctly ruled Not Out.
>
> The other type of catch is a fielder standing still and catching a low ball eg in slips.
> I'd say if you're on both feet and get your hand/fingers under the ball, then you've pretty much instantly completed the catch.
> Your movement has ended. Catch complete.
> If the ball touches grass through your fingers, milliseconds later, it shouldn't matter. Out.
>
>
>
>

If I am the Umpire/Third Umpire, I would have RULED both Cameron Green's
catch of Gill AND Smith's catch of Root, NOT OUT because the ball
touched the ground and their fingers were on the SIDE of the ball, NOT
underneath the ball.

From cricinfo:

10.50am Here is TV umpire Marais Erasmus explaining further on Sky Sports.

Erasmus: "The law is specific in it says that the field has to have
control of his body and movement. And that particular case, he was still
moving and he put the ball on the ground. Now if you take that example
and say you were sliding towards the boundary, if you slid into the
boundary, we would've deemed it either four or six, depending if the
ball touched the ground before. So there's no difference in our
interpretation for the catch."

Caleb hits on a decent point here: "With the catch, there is no doubt
Starc had control. However, the rules are clear and it was lazy - you
see players deliberately hold the ball up for that very reason. The
puzzling thing for me though is with Smith's catch of Root, where the
ball clearly touched the ground and then after that Smith was still
juggling it, he clearly didn't have control. Starc's catch was a lot
cleaner than Smith's, so the officiating is the issue here. "

Kenny: "By the laws that wasn't a catch. But by most peoples definition
of a catch that was a catch. Do the laws need updating?" Certainly a
more definitive definition of what is a catch and what isn't would
create a bit less controversy Kenny. At the moment it is a matter of
interpretation as Caleb hit on with the comparison to the Smith catch.
You could also argue the interpretation was different too for Cameron
Green's catch of Shubman Gill in the WTC final. If they were all given
not out, or out, there would be a lot less discussion.

On 7/1/2023 6:14 PM, wlsut...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:22:16 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
>> Yeah, it's starting to get out of hand. Pun intended.
>>
>> I think the MCC needs to speak up, and give more guidance.
>>
>> I think the current Law 33 is pretty good.
>> It seems to strike the right balance between black/white (objectiveness) and fairness.
>>
>> A few little issues;
>> 1. some articles I've read on this, including one on Wisden, mentions "does ground mean grass?". IMO it has to. But it could be made clearer.
>> 2. I don't like how a tall blade of grass (eg 5cm tall outlier) can stop a catch. If it hits that tall, lone bit of grass on the way to being caught it's technically not out.
>>
>> ISTM the biggest issue at international level is the interpretation around when the fielder has control of their body and the catch is completed.
>> If you're diving, you DON'T have complete control of movement until your body stops moving.
>> If any part of the ball touches the ground before this it should be not out.
>> I think 3rd umps are getting this part wrong - see Root's dismissal.
>> Starc's catch was correctly ruled Not Out.
>>
>> The other type of catch is a fielder standing still and catching a low ball eg in slips.
>> I'd say if you're on both feet and get your hand/fingers under the ball, then you've pretty much instantly completed the catch.
>> Your movement has ended. Catch complete.
>> If the ball touches grass through your fingers, milliseconds later, it shouldn't matter. Out.
>
> if the ball is caught and is held tight and doesnt look like coming out I would consider it a catch
>
> If that was Steve Smith that was caught like that and given not out we would see screaming and kicking from the English fans and commentators

Smith's catch of Root SHOULD HAVE been ruled NOT OUT, because the ball
touched the ground and Smith's fingers were on the SIDE of the ball, NOT
underneath.