I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of the
glove. May be some one here can shed some light.

But I know for a FACT that the BALL TRACKING TECHNOLOGY is IMPERFECT,
which Steve Smith complained today.

I said it back in 2011 multiple times and I still STAND BY IT.

====================================================================

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc-world-cup-2023-steven-smith-marcus-stoinis-calls-put-spotlight-on-tv-umpire-in-australia-south-africa-clash-1402760

Smith, Stoinis calls put spotlight on TV umpire in Australia-South
Africa World Cup game

While Smith was ruled out lbw, Stoinis was adjudged caught behind with
Richard Kettleborough having the third umpire duties

Marcus Stoinis was given out caught behind in Australia's run chase
against South Africa in Lucknow, despite his bottom hand appearing to be
off the bat when the ball made contact with his glove.

Stoinis fended at a delivery from Kagiso Rabada in the 18th over of
Australia's innings, with Quinton de Kock taking a tumbling catch down
the leg side. It was given not out by Joel Wilson on field but South
Africa opted to review and UltraEdge confirmed that the ball had brushed
Stoinis' bottom hand on its way through.

However, although Stoinis appeared to have let go of the bat handle,
third umpire Richard Kettleborough indicated that he felt the right
glove was making contact with the left, which in turn was still holding
on to the bat. "His bottom hand is connected to his top hand,"
Kettleborough said. "Therefore, in contact with the bat and we've got a
clear spike."

After checking that the catch had carried cleanly through to de Kock,
Stoinis was given out for 5 on the DRS - despite seemingly protesting to
the standing umpires that his hand was off the bat.

Well this one's sure to cause a bit of debate...#CWC23
pic.twitter.com/466E6VvnR1
— cricket.com.au (@cricketcomau) October 12, 2023

It was the second dismissal to cause dismay among the Australian
contingent, after Steven Smith was also given out on review. Smith was
struck on the pads after moving across his stumps in Rabada's first
over, with ball-tracking technology predicting the delivery would have
gone on to hit the top of left stump.

Smith, however, was not convinced and walked off with a look of
bemusement while studying the replays on the big screen. The dismissal
left Australia 50 for 3 in their chase of 312 to win; when Stoinis
departed, they had slid to 70 for 6.

On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
>
> I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of the
> glove. May be some one here can shed some light.

"
5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4

5.6.2.1 the bat itself

5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat

5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding the bat

5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4

shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being
struck by the bat.
"

https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat

Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and certainly
not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's other hand holding
the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been instructed that either of
those last two constitutes holding the bat.

> But I know for a FACT that the BALL TRACKING TECHNOLOGY is IMPERFECT,
> which Steve Smith complained today.

Of course it is. What technology is perfect? If it can be improved,
great. Meanwhile, if it's the best option we have, then use it, accept
it and get on with the game.

--
David North

On 13 Oct 2023, David North wrote

> On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out
>> of the glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
>
> "
> 5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
>
> 5.6.2.1 the bat itself
>
> 5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
>
> 5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding
> the bat
>
> 5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
>
> shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or
> being struck by the bat.
> "
>
> https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
>
> Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and
> certainly not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's
> other hand holding the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been
> instructed that either of those last two constitutes holding the
> bat.
>
>> But I know for a FACT that the BALL TRACKING TECHNOLOGY is
>> IMPERFECT, which Steve Smith complained today.
>
> Of course it is. What technology is perfect? If it can be
> improved, great. Meanwhile, if it's the best option we have, then
> use it, accept it and get on with the game.

I agree entirely -- wasn't the acknowledged margin of error in ball-
tracking precisely the reason that "umpire's call" was introduced?

All in all, the implementation of DRS has been a real success
(especially when compared with the mess that football has got itself
into with their implementation of VAR).

--
Cheers, Harvey

On 10/12/2023 10:29 PM, David North wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of
>> the glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
>
> "
> 5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
>
> 5.6.2.1 the bat itself
>
> 5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
>
> 5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding the bat
>
> 5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
>
> shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being
> struck by the bat.
> "
>
> https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
>
> Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and certainly
> not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's other hand holding
> the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been instructed that either of
> those last two constitutes holding the bat.

Okay, that clarified the law in which case Stoinis is out.

>
>> But I know for a FACT that the BALL TRACKING TECHNOLOGY is IMPERFECT,
>> which Steve Smith complained today.
>
> Of course it is. What technology is perfect? If it can be improved,
> great. Meanwhile, if it's the best option we have, then use it, accept
> it and get on with the game.
>

I agree BUT they HAVEN'T made ANY efforts to IMPROVE the imperfect ball
tracking technology since at least 2011, is MY POINT.

On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:29:52 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of the
> > glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
>
> "
> 5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
>
> 5.6.2.1 the bat itself
>
> 5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
>
> 5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding the bat
>
> 5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
>
> shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being
> struck by the bat.
> "
>
> https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
>
> Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and certainly
> not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's other hand holding
> the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been instructed that either of
> those last two constitutes holding the bat.

It gets a bit more complicated when you look at the Appendices

"A.2.5 The bat – the following are to be considered as part of the bat:

the whole of the bat itself.
the whole of a glove (or gloves) worn on the hand (or hands) holding the bat.
the hand (or hands) holding the bat, if the batter is not wearing a glove on that hand or on those hands.

A.2.6 Held in batter’s hand - contact between a batter’s hand, or glove worn on his/her hand, and any part of the bat shall constitute the bat being held in that hand."

So A.2.6 means that a hand or glove touching the bat at all counts as holding the bat
But I'm not sure whether 2.6 is referring to the bat as in the piece of wood etc or the bat as defined in 2.5

If the second then a glove touching the other glove touching the bat would count as part of the bat.

But in this case it doesn't really matter, the split screen shots in this video show pretty clearly that he wasn't touching the other glove when it his his bottom hand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSZfbb4-ft8

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 00:22:32 UTC+8, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:29:52 PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
> > On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of the
> > > glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
> >
> > "
> > 5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
> >
> > 5.6.2.1 the bat itself
> >
> > 5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
> >
> > 5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding the bat
> >
> > 5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
> >
> > shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being
> > struck by the bat.
> > "
> >
> > https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
> >
> > Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and certainly
> > not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's other hand holding
> > the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been instructed that either of
> > those last two constitutes holding the bat.
> It gets a bit more complicated when you look at the Appendices
>
> "A.2.5 The bat – the following are to be considered as part of the bat:
>
> the whole of the bat itself.
> the whole of a glove (or gloves) worn on the hand (or hands) holding the bat.
> the hand (or hands) holding the bat, if the batter is not wearing a glove on that hand or on those hands.
>
> A.2.6 Held in batter’s hand - contact between a batter’s hand, or glove worn on his/her hand, and any part of the bat shall constitute the bat being held in that hand."
>
> So A.2.6 means that a hand or glove touching the bat at all counts as holding the bat
> But I'm not sure whether 2.6 is referring to the bat as in the piece of wood etc or the bat as defined in 2.5
>
> If the second then a glove touching the other glove touching the bat would count as part of the bat.
>
> But in this case it doesn't really matter, the split screen shots in this video show pretty clearly that he wasn't touching the other glove when it his his bottom hand
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSZfbb4-ft8
Surely if a glove touching a glove holding the bat counts as the first mentioned glove holding the bat then any part of a body (be it arm, torso or leg) that directly or indirectly touches the glove holding the bat could be deemed to be holding the bat? In other words any contact of a ball with any part of the batter that is subsequently caught by the keeper (or any other fielder for that matter) should be given out!

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 18:59:34 -0700 (PDT), Gerrit <gthart@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 00:22:32 UTC+8, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 3:29:52?PM UTC+10, David North wrote:
>> > On 12/10/2023 17:02, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I am NOT sure about the law of Marcus Stoinis' caught behind out of the
>> > > glove. May be some one here can shed some light.
>> >
>> > "
>> > 5.6.2 contact between the ball and any of 5.6.2.1 to 5.6.2.4
>> >
>> > 5.6.2.1 the bat itself
>> >
>> > 5.6.2.2 the batter’s hand holding the bat
>> >
>> > 5.6.2.3 any part of a glove worn on the batter’s hand holding the bat
>> >
>> > 5.6.2.4 any additional materials permitted under 5.4
>> >
>> > shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat or being
>> > struck by the bat.
>> > "
>> >
>> > https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/the-bat
>> >
>> > Note: "holding" the bat, not "in contact with the bat", and certainly
>> > not "in contact with the glove worn on the batter's other hand holding
>> > the bat". It sounds like the umpires have been instructed that either of
>> > those last two constitutes holding the bat.
>> It gets a bit more complicated when you look at the Appendices
>>
>> "A.2.5 The bat – the following are to be considered as part of the bat:
>>
>> the whole of the bat itself.
>> the whole of a glove (or gloves) worn on the hand (or hands) holding the bat.
>> the hand (or hands) holding the bat, if the batter is not wearing a glove on that hand or on those hands.
>>
>> A.2.6 Held in batter’s hand - contact between a batter’s hand, or glove worn on his/her hand, and any part of the bat shall constitute the bat being held in that hand."
>>
>> So A.2.6 means that a hand or glove touching the bat at all counts as holding the bat
>> But I'm not sure whether 2.6 is referring to the bat as in the piece of wood etc or the bat as defined in 2.5
>>
>> If the second then a glove touching the other glove touching the bat would count as part of the bat.
>>
>> But in this case it doesn't really matter, the split screen shots in this video show pretty clearly that he wasn't touching the other glove when it his his bottom hand
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSZfbb4-ft8
>Surely if a glove touching a glove holding the bat counts as the first mentioned glove holding the bat then any part of a body (be it arm, torso or leg) that directly or indirectly touches the glove holding the bat could be deemed to be holding the bat? In other words any contact of a ball with any part of the batter that is subsequently caught by the keeper (or any other fielder for that matter) should be given out!
>

I remember this from umpire training. Unless something has changed
it's only hands in gloves up to the end of the ribbing on the glove.

max.it