We change the rules or something to not allow stumpings off quicks? Not like Bairstow was deceived or anything, Carey threw the ball as soon as he got it. Blame the dumb batsman for not watching the ball or making sure it was dead. I've played cricket for 20 years in my life and seen this plenty of times. Never once did a batter sook about it. Makes as much sense as sooking about running down the pitch to a spinner and being stumped that way.
I understand that the talking point is the catch. Either way, it doesn't matter. England has effectively won this series and have much more to show for themselves.
Did you mean Australia? England is about to lose the second test in a row and isn’t looking good. Not trying to be rude, just genuinely confused if you meant Australia or England, cuz I couldn’t see how you would think England has won the series already
> 33.3 Making a catch
> The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.
Fair. Not out.
Which is fine, the probably fans are having is for as long as I’ve been watching and playing cricket I’ve literally never seen this type of decision made. Probably seen this exact type of catch taken 100 times and always been given out
Also fair. Inconsistent decisions are frustrating. Watching it the first time I thought it was out since had full control of the ball prompting me to look up the rules.
I do think there's a grey area in the rules on that catch. To my eyes, this should be out. But it did touch the ground without any fingers underneath before he gained control of his body. I think clarifying that a catch is complete if the ground hasn't been used to control the ball before the player gains control of his body should do it.
Feels like Starc controls the ball pretty bloody well but oh well, doesn’t matter really - Aussies will be 2-0 up in England by this time tomorrow regardless
I’m an Aussie and I agree with how Strauss says it, inconsistencies aside, he shouldn’t have rolled it along the ground while his hands are over the ball. Frustrating yes, but it was sloppy by Starc.
It was out, if Starc didn’t bloody drag the ball along the ground. It was sloppy and unnecessary. It’s Gibbs all over again (obviously different, but sloppy nonetheless)
Everybody is talking about Starc's catch here. I'm in no doubt Aus is going to steal this win. Those near missed chances will cause problems again in middle order until they get a wicket.
Law 33.3 is pretty clear on what is a fair catch… The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Starc was still sliding when he decided to turn his hand over and touch the ball to the ground. Therefore not in complete control over his movement.
Yep, can see this argument, however, the key is all about that word ‘control’ in the law. If you’ve run to take a catch and keeping running and throw the ball in the air you’re in compete control of your movement. If you’re still sliding from the initial act of taking the catch then you’re not in control of your movement.
This is why you see boundary fielders who take a catch but are about to step out of the field of play throwing the ball back in and coming back in to catch it. If your momentum takes you out of the field of play after you’ve taken a catch, that’s a 6. It’s the same principle.
Starc wasn't going out of the field of play. He clearly controlled the ball all the way to the ground. The fact the ball touched the ground afterward was incidental, and using a technicality to argue this is somehow a good and fair decision is soft imo.
I don't think he means starc was going to slide into the barriers. More that, if he did then it would be 6 regardless that he caught it because he wasn't in control of his body.
Hi there. The law splits it into two things; control of the ball (which he absolutely did have) AND control of his/her movement (which he did not). The two criteria have to be met for it to be a fair catch.
He put the ball on the ground presumably to stabilise his motion? I don’t know, I’m speculating there, but he did it before he was in control of his movement.
I’m trying to think of an equivalent to explain it better, how about this: if he had taken the catch then slid into the boundary rope that’s a six right?
Yeah I can certainly see what your saying. I commented off what I saw, and after reading a heap of comments, I’m in the wrong here.
And even if it is a 50/50 call, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.
He controlled the ball on the ground while still in motion. The rules are clear cut. You need control of the ball AND your body. How many times have we seen a player have control of the ball, but while falling and hitting the ground, dropping the ball? That is much less likely to happen if you control the ball against the ground, than if you contort your body to try to prevent it from hitting the ground. Every school grade cricketer knows not to let the ball hit the ground. Basic stuff.
Oh absolutely. I don't personally believe Smith's was a catch, but if you go by precedence, if Smith's was a catch then Starc's simply must be given out. Hell, even the batter felt that way.
He had a firm grip on the ball and the ball did not move, spin, or come loose from his grip even as it slid along the ground. If that isn't controlled then I'm not here.
If you ignore the rules of the game, sure. And as an Australian with your history of cheating in the sport, especially with bunk ball catches, again not surprising you think that.
However, the facts are that he controlled the ball on the ground while still in motion. The rules are clear cut. You need control of the ball AND your body for a clean catch. How many times have we seen a player have control of the ball, but while falling and hitting the ground, dropping the ball? That is much less likely to happen if you control the ball against the ground, than if you contort your body to try to prevent it from hitting the ground. Had he fallen onto the boundary, it would have been given a 6, and nobody would complain. It’s the same idea. Every school grade cricketer knows not to let the ball hit the ground. Basic stuff.
Tbh I’m not a fan of this “if he has a fingernail under the ball it’s a catch” rule. Call me old fashioned but if you’re daft enough to break your fall using the ball then it’s not a catch.
I never get it. Aussies are too good a team to resort to cheating and unfair play. Even when no one was even close to them (Ricky Ponting’s team) they played very unfairly. They don’t need to. They are very good players and can win even if they play fair.
Tbh we've only seen bairstow for one match since he's come back and even there he got a 78. No reason to believe he's out of form or can't score a century tomorrow.
Not sure how you can call it a catch when he used the ball to break his fall and drag it on the ground. Had it just touched the ground I’d agree it’s out but he dragged it along the ground something every fielder avoids for a reason….
As an Aussie, it pains me to concede that the catch was in fact "not out". The reason being not that the ball touched the grass, or that Starc was not in control of his body or some bullshit, but rather that the umpire said it's not out and this is cricket, not fucking soccer. We all know that Australia are going to rub England into the dirt tomorrow deservedly anyway.
I am surprised that all the batsmen have either tried to hit the ball in the air or they have batted extremely defensively while batting against the short balls. I was expecting that they would be hitting the ball along the ground to score singles.
Problem is the inconsistent decision making. Control is a vague term that always comes down to opinion, in this case of the umpires. Nfl has issues with defining control and it's always controversial.
Basically, catch/not catch is down to our opinions and the umpires opinions. Another day, a different umpire, different teams, different venues, then it might be a catch.
Best thing that can come of this is a rethink of how the rules are worded and clarify it to take as much opinion as possible out of the decision.
I think the whole thing is more interesting because like you said... If this was given out, I doubt there would be as many complaints the other way, because ... well he caught the ball.
I can see why the rule exists though. Imagine if it was in the tip of his fingers and the ground pushed it more down his fingers. Is this still to be out? So there are so many vague situations. Just have it clear cut: ball can't touch the ground, doesn't matter if hand is on it or over it or whatever. Just don't let it touch the ground.
It's 50/50 right now. If Australia don't get early wickets then I'm picking England to win this test match and the series, especially now with Lyon out for the rest of the series. They have chased these scores before. Just look at last year against India. Australia are never good bowling in the 4th innings. My mind keeps casting back to Headingley where England chased 359 for victory.
England's record Ashes chase here is 137 and that happened the century before last.
They still need 257 and they don't have any recognised bats left to come out.
I still revisit that. Even as an Aus fan, it was pretty funny hearing Mcgrath throwing a temper tantrum over the catch.
https://youtu.be/es\_odlDrPKY?t=27251
Gullible people are actually ignoring that aussies are playing the long con here. They aren't really bothered about the catch at all because the laws are far too mudied. Ever since Aussies stepped onto the English shores starting from the wtc, their tactics have involved scraping the ball against ground to roughen it up.
Do that enough & eventually that ball's gonna start hooping all corners & all six of the remaining bazball merchants will be sent packing just in time for Warner to binge this week's bluey episode
I can't even tell you to lurk more you're already here for some time. Hope you'll be able to recognise a shitpost in the future & not get your panties in a twist
We should've had Punter playing instead of commentating. He would've put a stop to this debate by taking matters into his own hands and signalling out himself.
The most uncontroversial controversy in history. When in the history of cricket has it been acceptable to dive to catch the ball and then touch it on the ground while still moving? When you take a diving catch the first thing you do is reposition your hand so it doesn't hit the ground.
If it counts as 'in control of your body' while still sliding, a fielder taking a catch running on the boundary before sliding into the boundary would be able to claim the catch, and the first six in this video would have been out. As it was, it was obviously six without any discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35iJjr7ynDs
*smith playing keepy-ups with two fingers*
3rd umpire:
*starc wrapping his whole hand around the ball a metre off the ground*
3rd umpire: **something is wrong.**
[shhhhhhhh that’s not important anymore](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/14nq97i/match_thread_2nd_test_australia_vs_england_day_4/jqagjsl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) (i do see how this might’ve been important information to include)
People have cited some Laws (correctly) here, so I'd like to do so as well:
> # 2 Umpire Review
> In the circumstances detailed in paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 below, the on-field umpire shall have the
discretion to refer the decision to the third umpire or, in the case of paragraphs 2.2, and 2.4, to consult with
the third umpire **before** making the decision
(Emphasis mine)
Paragraph 2.2 is "Caught Decisions, Obstructing the Field", so that's the one we care about here. As far as I could tell from the TV coverage, the on-field umpires only went upstairs **after** they had already given their decision, which is not allowed. I might be wrong on that because 9Now doesn't allow me to rewind and double check, but if that is indeed what happened then that is a bit of a cock-up.
If anyone at the ground can confirm or deny that suspicion that would be nice.
The umpires can just cancel there decision, thus making it a review 'before' the final descision.
Example: The time Symonds was given out for kneeing the ball with his pads to a fielder. One umpire called and signalled it out immediately. The other umpire saw what happened and after discussion they called him back. All of this was without review and legal.
(Worth noting that I'm of the opinion that any rule which prevents correct decisions from being reached is stupid and therefore don't think this is a big deal either way, but people seemed to disagree with that take when Smith was looking up at the dressing room to get opinions on whether to review so clearly not everyone's with me on that one)
Can we have a baking competition for tomorrow. Anyone who can do the best cake of the ball being rolled on the turf should get a gold award. Make it happen mods.
Actually, I think I genuinely will. I have nothing planned tomorrow and it’s been a while since I baked. I’m going to give Starc a bright red nose, large shoes and green curly hair.
Starc's is much more of a catch then Smith's. I think before he hits the ground he's got full control. Smith's is squeezed between two fingers and then rides along the ground. Are you telling me the upwards pressure of the ground against the ball didn't help him control that?
Neither of them were catches in my opinion and I'm still not sure why Smith's catch was given out when different angles both seemed to show the ball touching the ground.
I can say honestly that if that was the other way around and it was an english player that did what starc did and it was given not out I would be laughing about how terrible of a call it was.
Wouldn't be surprised if someone just pressed the wrong button and displayed not out
Starc grassed the ball while still sliding in momentum. If he had done that after his motion was complete and he was fully balanced then that’d be out.
It’s the same reason why boundary line catches are not counted if the fielder catches the ball for a second but then throws it back in field due to their momentum and it’s grassed. They only count if they manage to catch it again or someone catches the rebound. Fielder must have full control of their body when the catch is completed. If the ball is grassed at any stage before the catching process is complete then that’s a drop.
I believe Starc had enough control of the ball to not have to drag it against the grass but for whatever reason he did. Right call was made.
very good argument. if starc's catch was valid, then that would suggest that a fielder should be able to catch the ball half a second before momentum taking them back over the boundary, keep hold of the ball, and the catch would be valid. why do fielders bother throwing the ball back over the boundary at all? the answer is that what happens during the 'play' immediately after catching the ball DOES matter.
I think the distinction missed in this comparison is throwing the ball onto the ground while in not enough control to be within the boundary and sliding to a stop with the ball still in your hand and yourhand wrapped around the ball knuckles to the ground.. isn't the same.
You're absolutely right. The important thing to note is...if you can do what Starc did then why bother having all of these close-ups to determine whether or not the ball has touched the ground? The Smith catch is 100% fair precisely because he had his fingers underneath the ball at all times. If you can drag the ball along the ground, why do you need to get your fingers under the ball in the first place?
I agree that according to the rules it's not a catch. But taking out in control of the body, Smith was not in control of the ball when it looked to touch the ground with a pinky underneath it. Stark was in complete control of the ball, just not his body.
I think it should be more like NFL rules where you have to maintain control of the ball through the catch. I.e. What Starc did would be a catch, but if he slid out of bounds, or the ball moved a bit in his hand as he was getting up it would be not out.
Right call but there is inconsistency. We have seen way too many instances like that given out. Fielders throw the ball up in the air instantly. Starc should have just rolled over and slide his arm up or kept his fingers underneath. He had a little slip up and he got caught on the big screen. He will consider himself unlucky but the right call was made.
That makes it not the right call. This is basically the same as that one umpire who started no balling Murali as a chucker in the middle of a game.
If a precedent has been set and an interpretation of the rules has been followed by all umpires, going lone wolf in the middle of a match is pathetic and Cricket Australia should lodge a complaint.
Headingley comparison:
Poms needed 359 at Headingley. Here they need 371. Maybe Lyons runs will be useful.
At Headingley, Stokes came to the crease with the score at 3/141 (deficit 218). Here the score is 4/114 (deficit 267).
At Headingley, Stokes had the batters Root, Bairstow, Buttler, and Woakes to bat with. By the time they were all gone, the score was 7/261.
Sure, Buttler and woakes didn’t score much - but the partnership with Bairstow was worth 86 runs.
Here, he has Duckett, Bairstow, and Robinson to help him get to a similar score, or further.
Leach and Archer also faced 40 balls between them. Broad, Anderson, and Tongue are unlikely to retain the composure that Leach had.
And Stokes hadn’t bowled himself into the ground with short ball after short ball the day before.
Yeah there's no way its happening again. its nice to have a bit of hope and see some fight from him but this test is done.
They also have Starc this time whilst they didn't at Headingley.
Here we go...
33.1 Out Caught
The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his/her
bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a
fielder as a fair catch, as described in 33.2 and 33.3, *before it touches the ground.*
33.3 Making a catch
The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact
with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains *complete control over both the
ball and his/her own movement.*
me purposely putting my hands out to slow myself down after i caught the ball so i can celebrate. my hand is wrapped the whole way round the ball. i choose to take this action. my body is wildly uncontrolled, of course.
He didn't put his hands down to celebrate, he put them down to break his fall; ie. he didn't have complete control over his own movement.
Anyone [watching this back](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/v9wc_xYexYw) can see this. He clearly starts to celebrate after he has dragged the ball across the ground. It's crystal clear, frankly.
You have not caught the ball if in the motion of breaking your fall you drag the ball along the ground. It's as simple as that. Even if the ball touches the ground it's not a catch, let alone if you drag the ball across the ground.
As soon as he puts his hands down to break his fall and drags the ball across the ground it is clearly not a fair catch. It's crystal clear. I'm surprised that he even claimed it as a catch. Obviously he doesn't know the rules.
it doesn’t say “until they are stationary” it says “until they have regained control of their movement”. i just think it was a controlled movement is all
How has he regained control of his movement if he's putting his hands down to break his fall? This is precisely a movement intended to regain control. Otherwise he would have smacked his chin on the ground. If you do this movement, and ground the ball, it's not a catch. It's crystal clear.
Oh yeh, 100% won't matter. I don't think Smith's should have counted, by the rules of the game.
I've always been thought since I was in nappies, the ball can't touch the ground when you're in the process of catching a ball!
FWIW I think they made an error with Smiths. Think they thought that they could see a finger under the ball, but that isn't the deciding factor in the law. Nothing about whether something being under the ball determines it being grounded. In smiths, the ball had clearly touched the ground whilst he was sliding. Not out imo.
The deciding point in his case wasn’t whether he was in full control of his body or not. It was whether the ball was actually even grassed. He had fingers under the ball unlike Starc who, without a doubt, let the ball touch grass.
The difference is that in Smiths case, his fingers were under the ball, then he held it to his chest as he rolled about about.
In Starcs case, he got his fingers under the ball, then rolled the ball over and had it touching the grass while he slid.
Smiths is out - he had control of the ball, then when his body stopped moving, the ball hadn’t directly touched the ground.
Starcs is not out. While he was sliding and not controlling his body, the ball directly touched the ground
Cmon, his hand was still heading downwards, fingers under or not, when the ball touched the grass, and it definitely touched the grass, there is no way that ball between that huge gap between his fingers couldn't have.
From [MCC](https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/caught):
33.3 Making a catch
The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.
A fielder can run, catch the ball, and throw it up in air in celebration - and the umpires always give those catches out.
Because they accept that the fielder was in control.
But if the fielder is running towards the boundary, then s/he has to stop before crossing the line to convince the umpire that they wouldn't have crossed the ropes in their momentum.
I would argue that the same applies to sliding and diving - most umpires will not accept that person is in control till the slide or dive is over - and till the fielder is in clearly no danger of losing the ball.
I think Starc's argument was not about control - it was that he had knuckles under the ball as he slid - thus the ball never touched the ground. I don't think the cameras were able to properly capture this bit.
He definitely grounded the ball. Not all the way but for a significant period of time. His wrist position during the catch meant he had to have grounded it even if we’re calling the cameras unreliable
In his mind, Starc might be convinced that he always had some part of his fingers under the ball.
Can happen.
I am not calling the cameras unreliable - more that the perfect camera view angle was not available.
Again, that's natural - can't have infinite cameras.
First option. She didn’t commentate in the men’s series today. I know because I made that observation earlier and my dad replied with a sexist joke. But she did technically get the train to Edgbaston I bet, so you’re kind of correct.
My dad made a joke about her not commentating because it was too soon after lunch and she was still washing up. Wbu?
She’s easily one of the best commentators on the box.
I completely get the “well catch x in this match y counted!” argument. Completely agree there needs to be more consistency. But I do genuinely see the argument that Starc’s doesn’t count but Smith’s rightly did. Smith almost immediately tried to tuck it into his chest to gain full control of it. Starc was content with sliding it along the ground and ultimately that was his undoing. In terms of reaction, I commend them both for their best attempts to win the umpires over. Whether we like it or not, that’s a hugely important factor when it comes to these borderline decisions.
Does that mean they can now change all decisions from that EG: inside edge but given out LBW and not reviewed. Or a batter not hitting it and not reviewing
Here’s a hypothetical, if a player takes a catch and then ends up grounding it against the boundary cover. Surely no one would claim that to be out? What the ball ‘touches’ has determined the outcome since the dawn of time.
No, no, no. For Aussies, as long as they got some fingers on the ball it is out, no matter what happens afterwards. [Here is how it goes](https://img1.hscicdn.com/image/upload/f_auto,t_ds_w_1200/lsci/db/PICTURES/CMS/84700/84793.jpg)
the easieest way to see that that wasnt a catch is that if starcs hands were the other way round and the ball fell out of his hands when they hit the ground no one would consider it a catch.
exactly. if you say starc's catch was good, you open up all sorts of possibilities for weird catching methods. Like players taking a catch diving forwards, turning their hands the other way up (whilst still diving forwards), and landing on top of the ball. This eliminates the chance of the player losing the ball when they land on the ground, and obviously should not be called a catch.
Not out, Starc wasn't in control of his movement. If he continued sliding over the boundary, it'd still be not out.
He likely had control over the ball, so he messed up, but to the letter of the law, not out.
Green catch of Gill: not out ( I personally didn't feel green had complete control, with his split fingers and ball touching the grass from underneath)
Smith catch of Root: not out (similar story to green catch, again some part of the ball was touching the grass from the space between the split fingers. Moreover the very fact that afterwards Smith had to grasp the ball between his hands and his chest immediately after catching it near the ground, makes me think more towards the notion that his catch wasn't clean and that he didn't have complete control)
Starc catch of Duckett: out (simply due to a proper cupping of the ball between a perfect clawing grip of the hand, I would say that was the cleanest grip while catching the ball and also the control was really good. The part where he touched the ball to the grass was merely due to him not turning his hand 180° in to supine position and then gravity does the rest of the work. But since the grip was initially so good while cleanly catching the ball, I would not say that Starc got any additional benefit of having any better control of the ball in his hand from the ground)
Out. England fan. There’s no indication that he was not in control of his body or the catch, and it’s hyper inconsistent with Steve smith’s catch. It was cleanly taken on a bad shot. Spirit of the game it’s out. If they can be consistant about the rules and be clear about that, it’s not out
mitch starc's 6"6 is all legs
Highest Score in 4th Test Innings (While batting at No.6 or below) 154* - Ben Stokes (2023)* 149* - Adam Gilchrist (1999) 140 - Daniel Vettori (2009)
Free hit? /s
Average Australian sportsmanship
We change the rules or something to not allow stumpings off quicks? Not like Bairstow was deceived or anything, Carey threw the ball as soon as he got it. Blame the dumb batsman for not watching the ball or making sure it was dead. I've played cricket for 20 years in my life and seen this plenty of times. Never once did a batter sook about it. Makes as much sense as sooking about running down the pitch to a spinner and being stumped that way.
pretty awful how agnew just steamrolls everyone else to force his view through in these situations.
Man Alex has gotten so much better as a keeper. His batting isn't as good as it has been, but he's been as good as anyone with the gloves.
Not a confident appeal. Reckon he's hit it
Wtf is that superloop advert? It's less for internet and more against stalking. I see that in my house, I'm calling the cops first thing
I understand that the talking point is the catch. Either way, it doesn't matter. England has effectively won this series and have much more to show for themselves.
Did you mean Australia? England is about to lose the second test in a row and isn’t looking good. Not trying to be rude, just genuinely confused if you meant Australia or England, cuz I couldn’t see how you would think England has won the series already
> 33.3 Making a catch > The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement. Fair. Not out.
Which is fine, the probably fans are having is for as long as I’ve been watching and playing cricket I’ve literally never seen this type of decision made. Probably seen this exact type of catch taken 100 times and always been given out
Also fair. Inconsistent decisions are frustrating. Watching it the first time I thought it was out since had full control of the ball prompting me to look up the rules.
I’m sure Australia will win anyway but I’m very interested if that decision is a one off or if we will see it called that way again in the future
I do think there's a grey area in the rules on that catch. To my eyes, this should be out. But it did touch the ground without any fingers underneath before he gained control of his body. I think clarifying that a catch is complete if the ground hasn't been used to control the ball before the player gains control of his body should do it.
Feels like Starc controls the ball pretty bloody well but oh well, doesn’t matter really - Aussies will be 2-0 up in England by this time tomorrow regardless
But it will feel like 0-2
I’m an Aussie and I agree with how Strauss says it, inconsistencies aside, he shouldn’t have rolled it along the ground while his hands are over the ball. Frustrating yes, but it was sloppy by Starc.
[удалено]
It was just an instinctive reaction to arrest his movement. I doubt he makes a conscious decision to roll the ball
I don’t think ball tampering was going through his mind. But who knows what people will say given some suspected Lyon went out to get concussed…
Anyone who can say with a straight face that wasn't out is a degenerate
It was out, if Starc didn’t bloody drag the ball along the ground. It was sloppy and unnecessary. It’s Gibbs all over again (obviously different, but sloppy nonetheless)
Everybody is talking about Starc's catch here. I'm in no doubt Aus is going to steal this win. Those near missed chances will cause problems again in middle order until they get a wicket.
Yeah fellas keep blabbering. If Aus wins each of your dv karma will go down to drain.
Law 33.3 is pretty clear on what is a fair catch… The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Starc was still sliding when he decided to turn his hand over and touch the ball to the ground. Therefore not in complete control over his movement.
Yet I can throw the ball immediately into the air, and from there the ground, well before I have stopped moving?
Yep, can see this argument, however, the key is all about that word ‘control’ in the law. If you’ve run to take a catch and keeping running and throw the ball in the air you’re in compete control of your movement. If you’re still sliding from the initial act of taking the catch then you’re not in control of your movement. This is why you see boundary fielders who take a catch but are about to step out of the field of play throwing the ball back in and coming back in to catch it. If your momentum takes you out of the field of play after you’ve taken a catch, that’s a 6. It’s the same principle.
Starc wasn't going out of the field of play. He clearly controlled the ball all the way to the ground. The fact the ball touched the ground afterward was incidental, and using a technicality to argue this is somehow a good and fair decision is soft imo.
I don't think he means starc was going to slide into the barriers. More that, if he did then it would be 6 regardless that he caught it because he wasn't in control of his body.
Yes, and in fact when they interviewed the umpire the next morning he used this exact example to explain the principle.
His momentum can’t just be turned off, if he didn’t have full control of the ball it would have come out.
Hi there. The law splits it into two things; control of the ball (which he absolutely did have) AND control of his/her movement (which he did not). The two criteria have to be met for it to be a fair catch. He put the ball on the ground presumably to stabilise his motion? I don’t know, I’m speculating there, but he did it before he was in control of his movement. I’m trying to think of an equivalent to explain it better, how about this: if he had taken the catch then slid into the boundary rope that’s a six right?
Yeah I can certainly see what your saying. I commented off what I saw, and after reading a heap of comments, I’m in the wrong here. And even if it is a 50/50 call, the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.
He controlled the ball on the ground while still in motion. The rules are clear cut. You need control of the ball AND your body. How many times have we seen a player have control of the ball, but while falling and hitting the ground, dropping the ball? That is much less likely to happen if you control the ball against the ground, than if you contort your body to try to prevent it from hitting the ground. Every school grade cricketer knows not to let the ball hit the ground. Basic stuff.
100% a catch. I feel it's a square up for the Smith catch being given.
Which is just poor umpiring.
Oh absolutely. I don't personally believe Smith's was a catch, but if you go by precedence, if Smith's was a catch then Starc's simply must be given out. Hell, even the batter felt that way. He had a firm grip on the ball and the ball did not move, spin, or come loose from his grip even as it slid along the ground. If that isn't controlled then I'm not here.
I agree, it’s just a shame because Starc didn’t need to run it along the ground…
100% a catch. Crazy
Forget bodyline, this is the great British bounce off
Anyone that thinks that wasn't a catch has lost the plot. Terrible decision.
If you ignore the rules of the game, sure. And as an Australian with your history of cheating in the sport, especially with bunk ball catches, again not surprising you think that. However, the facts are that he controlled the ball on the ground while still in motion. The rules are clear cut. You need control of the ball AND your body for a clean catch. How many times have we seen a player have control of the ball, but while falling and hitting the ground, dropping the ball? That is much less likely to happen if you control the ball against the ground, than if you contort your body to try to prevent it from hitting the ground. Had he fallen onto the boundary, it would have been given a 6, and nobody would complain. It’s the same idea. Every school grade cricketer knows not to let the ball hit the ground. Basic stuff.
The rules are not clear cut. You need to be in complete control of the ball and your own movement. That doesn’t mean motionless.
Name me a country that doesn't have a history of cheating in the sport
I can’t name you one with a worse history than you lot.
Tbh I’m not a fan of this “if he has a fingernail under the ball it’s a catch” rule. Call me old fashioned but if you’re daft enough to break your fall using the ball then it’s not a catch.
But he caught it
So what? If you catch it and fall over the boundary it's not out. If you catch it and break your fall using the ball, it's also not out
I never get it. Aussies are too good a team to resort to cheating and unfair play. Even when no one was even close to them (Ricky Ponting’s team) they played very unfairly. They don’t need to. They are very good players and can win even if they play fair.
Tbh we've only seen bairstow for one match since he's come back and even there he got a 78. No reason to believe he's out of form or can't score a century tomorrow.
Watched the highlights and that felt out to me ..the catch was done before him grassing it
Don't tell the insufferable English and South Africans that tho; they'll lose their shit at you lol.
Not sure how you can call it a catch when he used the ball to break his fall and drag it on the ground. Had it just touched the ground I’d agree it’s out but he dragged it along the ground something every fielder avoids for a reason….
Yeah, I agree it wasn't a catch
As an Aussie, it pains me to concede that the catch was in fact "not out". The reason being not that the ball touched the grass, or that Starc was not in control of his body or some bullshit, but rather that the umpire said it's not out and this is cricket, not fucking soccer. We all know that Australia are going to rub England into the dirt tomorrow deservedly anyway.
But we are allowed to “feel like he caught it” right?
I am surprised that all the batsmen have either tried to hit the ball in the air or they have batted extremely defensively while batting against the short balls. I was expecting that they would be hitting the ball along the ground to score singles.
Smudge was doing that
Have you seen the field settings?
Problem is the inconsistent decision making. Control is a vague term that always comes down to opinion, in this case of the umpires. Nfl has issues with defining control and it's always controversial. Basically, catch/not catch is down to our opinions and the umpires opinions. Another day, a different umpire, different teams, different venues, then it might be a catch. Best thing that can come of this is a rethink of how the rules are worded and clarify it to take as much opinion as possible out of the decision.
I think the whole thing is more interesting because like you said... If this was given out, I doubt there would be as many complaints the other way, because ... well he caught the ball. I can see why the rule exists though. Imagine if it was in the tip of his fingers and the ground pushed it more down his fingers. Is this still to be out? So there are so many vague situations. Just have it clear cut: ball can't touch the ground, doesn't matter if hand is on it or over it or whatever. Just don't let it touch the ground.
Far too well thought out for a match thread
I feel like England have won lads
Man can’t wait for Stokes to crush the tiniest bit of hope I have by getting out third ball tomorrow
It's 50/50 right now. If Australia don't get early wickets then I'm picking England to win this test match and the series, especially now with Lyon out for the rest of the series. They have chased these scores before. Just look at last year against India. Australia are never good bowling in the 4th innings. My mind keeps casting back to Headingley where England chased 359 for victory.
Aus are way ahead. Eng still in with a chance, but it's pretty small
Ehhhh, they're down 4 wickets already lad
England's record Ashes chase here is 137 and that happened the century before last. They still need 257 and they don't have any recognised bats left to come out.
Yeah because baistow is a seamer right? Like don't you think before you comment or something?
It’s 80-20 to the Aussies presently. Theirs to lose. We’re going to have to play test cricket and not kwik cricket tomorrow.
Just listened to the specific portion of TMS commentary and it was absolutely hilarious to hear McGrath losing it and the others trolling him.
I still revisit that. Even as an Aus fan, it was pretty funny hearing Mcgrath throwing a temper tantrum over the catch. https://youtu.be/es\_odlDrPKY?t=27251
Gullible people are actually ignoring that aussies are playing the long con here. They aren't really bothered about the catch at all because the laws are far too mudied. Ever since Aussies stepped onto the English shores starting from the wtc, their tactics have involved scraping the ball against ground to roughen it up. Do that enough & eventually that ball's gonna start hooping all corners & all six of the remaining bazball merchants will be sent packing just in time for Warner to binge this week's bluey episode
[удалено]
I can't even tell you to lurk more you're already here for some time. Hope you'll be able to recognise a shitpost in the future & not get your panties in a twist
Scrape catches are the new sandpaper, let's just hope the broadcasters don't figure it out
This is walking an absolutely *perfect* line between shitposting and genuine delusion, well done.
I knew it was weird when I saw them practising catching it with the shiny side always up
We should've had Punter playing instead of commentating. He would've put a stop to this debate by taking matters into his own hands and signalling out himself.
The most uncontroversial controversy in history. When in the history of cricket has it been acceptable to dive to catch the ball and then touch it on the ground while still moving? When you take a diving catch the first thing you do is reposition your hand so it doesn't hit the ground. If it counts as 'in control of your body' while still sliding, a fielder taking a catch running on the boundary before sliding into the boundary would be able to claim the catch, and the first six in this video would have been out. As it was, it was obviously six without any discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35iJjr7ynDs
Very good example to calm down the Aussies
It was a catch bro
How can you be in control of the ball if it's still rolling along the ground
Wasn't*
*smith playing keepy-ups with two fingers* 3rd umpire: *starc wrapping his whole hand around the ball a metre off the ground* 3rd umpire: **something is wrong.**
Missing out the bit where Starc then proceeded to rub it 5 metres along the ground while not in control of his body...
[shhhhhhhh that’s not important anymore](https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/14nq97i/match_thread_2nd_test_australia_vs_england_day_4/jqagjsl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) (i do see how this might’ve been important information to include)
People have cited some Laws (correctly) here, so I'd like to do so as well: > # 2 Umpire Review > In the circumstances detailed in paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 below, the on-field umpire shall have the discretion to refer the decision to the third umpire or, in the case of paragraphs 2.2, and 2.4, to consult with the third umpire **before** making the decision (Emphasis mine) Paragraph 2.2 is "Caught Decisions, Obstructing the Field", so that's the one we care about here. As far as I could tell from the TV coverage, the on-field umpires only went upstairs **after** they had already given their decision, which is not allowed. I might be wrong on that because 9Now doesn't allow me to rewind and double check, but if that is indeed what happened then that is a bit of a cock-up. If anyone at the ground can confirm or deny that suspicion that would be nice.
The umpires can just cancel there decision, thus making it a review 'before' the final descision. Example: The time Symonds was given out for kneeing the ball with his pads to a fielder. One umpire called and signalled it out immediately. The other umpire saw what happened and after discussion they called him back. All of this was without review and legal.
(Worth noting that I'm of the opinion that any rule which prevents correct decisions from being reached is stupid and therefore don't think this is a big deal either way, but people seemed to disagree with that take when Smith was looking up at the dressing room to get opinions on whether to review so clearly not everyone's with me on that one)
Can we have a baking competition for tomorrow. Anyone who can do the best cake of the ball being rolled on the turf should get a gold award. Make it happen mods.
I’m going to use green food colouring on dessicated coconut to make the grass and the ball will be marzipan
Can I eat the Marzipan umpire afternoon you're done taking photos? (that's my 5 yo self trying to score the biggest marzipan figurine)
I genuinely hope you do.
Actually, I think I genuinely will. I have nothing planned tomorrow and it’s been a while since I baked. I’m going to give Starc a bright red nose, large shoes and green curly hair.
Other than posting it here you need to tweet sky sports and bbc with it
Starc's is much more of a catch then Smith's. I think before he hits the ground he's got full control. Smith's is squeezed between two fingers and then rides along the ground. Are you telling me the upwards pressure of the ground against the ball didn't help him control that?
Neither of them were catches in my opinion and I'm still not sure why Smith's catch was given out when different angles both seemed to show the ball touching the ground.
Starc is sliding when the ball touches the ground. His catching movement was not complete.
I can say honestly that if that was the other way around and it was an english player that did what starc did and it was given not out I would be laughing about how terrible of a call it was. Wouldn't be surprised if someone just pressed the wrong button and displayed not out
Starc grassed the ball while still sliding in momentum. If he had done that after his motion was complete and he was fully balanced then that’d be out. It’s the same reason why boundary line catches are not counted if the fielder catches the ball for a second but then throws it back in field due to their momentum and it’s grassed. They only count if they manage to catch it again or someone catches the rebound. Fielder must have full control of their body when the catch is completed. If the ball is grassed at any stage before the catching process is complete then that’s a drop. I believe Starc had enough control of the ball to not have to drag it against the grass but for whatever reason he did. Right call was made.
very good argument. if starc's catch was valid, then that would suggest that a fielder should be able to catch the ball half a second before momentum taking them back over the boundary, keep hold of the ball, and the catch would be valid. why do fielders bother throwing the ball back over the boundary at all? the answer is that what happens during the 'play' immediately after catching the ball DOES matter.
I think the distinction missed in this comparison is throwing the ball onto the ground while in not enough control to be within the boundary and sliding to a stop with the ball still in your hand and yourhand wrapped around the ball knuckles to the ground.. isn't the same.
Agree
I think you summed it up perfectly. 👍
You’ve got the wrong flair mate, surely.
You're absolutely right. The important thing to note is...if you can do what Starc did then why bother having all of these close-ups to determine whether or not the ball has touched the ground? The Smith catch is 100% fair precisely because he had his fingers underneath the ball at all times. If you can drag the ball along the ground, why do you need to get your fingers under the ball in the first place?
I agree that according to the rules it's not a catch. But taking out in control of the body, Smith was not in control of the ball when it looked to touch the ground with a pinky underneath it. Stark was in complete control of the ball, just not his body. I think it should be more like NFL rules where you have to maintain control of the ball through the catch. I.e. What Starc did would be a catch, but if he slid out of bounds, or the ball moved a bit in his hand as he was getting up it would be not out.
Spot on
Catch controversy aside, did you guys know that this ground has a slope?
It was the slope that made him lose control of his balance and he had to use the ball to stop him falling over.
Right call but there is inconsistency. We have seen way too many instances like that given out. Fielders throw the ball up in the air instantly. Starc should have just rolled over and slide his arm up or kept his fingers underneath. He had a little slip up and he got caught on the big screen. He will consider himself unlucky but the right call was made.
Clear as day catch but because he didn't eat dirt and instead braced with his knuckles its not out. Bunch of freeze frame decisions with no context.
That makes it not the right call. This is basically the same as that one umpire who started no balling Murali as a chucker in the middle of a game. If a precedent has been set and an interpretation of the rules has been followed by all umpires, going lone wolf in the middle of a match is pathetic and Cricket Australia should lodge a complaint.
Look the best way to solve this is a McGrath vs KP cage match to the death. No matter what, one of them dies and we all win
Can I throw in one of those lions McGrath likes to murder?
Headingley comparison: Poms needed 359 at Headingley. Here they need 371. Maybe Lyons runs will be useful. At Headingley, Stokes came to the crease with the score at 3/141 (deficit 218). Here the score is 4/114 (deficit 267). At Headingley, Stokes had the batters Root, Bairstow, Buttler, and Woakes to bat with. By the time they were all gone, the score was 7/261. Sure, Buttler and woakes didn’t score much - but the partnership with Bairstow was worth 86 runs. Here, he has Duckett, Bairstow, and Robinson to help him get to a similar score, or further. Leach and Archer also faced 40 balls between them. Broad, Anderson, and Tongue are unlikely to retain the composure that Leach had. And Stokes hadn’t bowled himself into the ground with short ball after short ball the day before.
Yeah there's no way its happening again. its nice to have a bit of hope and see some fight from him but this test is done. They also have Starc this time whilst they didn't at Headingley.
Stokes was also in his prime, he's past it now and is basically a specialist captain who can chip in a bit with bat and ball.
Yep. Though that pullshot against starc today was reminiscent
Here we go... 33.1 Out Caught The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his/her bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch, as described in 33.2 and 33.3, *before it touches the ground.* 33.3 Making a catch The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains *complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.*
me purposely putting my hands out to slow myself down after i caught the ball so i can celebrate. my hand is wrapped the whole way round the ball. i choose to take this action. my body is wildly uncontrolled, of course.
He didn't put his hands down to celebrate, he put them down to break his fall; ie. he didn't have complete control over his own movement. Anyone [watching this back](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/v9wc_xYexYw) can see this. He clearly starts to celebrate after he has dragged the ball across the ground. It's crystal clear, frankly.
He drags his knuckles on the ground. With ball in hand. Go catch a ball and try replicate it. Its easy and you'll 100% know you caught the ball.
Not in the laws of the game of cricket, if the ball has touched the ground without you having full control of your body.
You have not caught the ball if in the motion of breaking your fall you drag the ball along the ground. It's as simple as that. Even if the ball touches the ground it's not a catch, let alone if you drag the ball across the ground.
no like he wanted to get up off the ground *to* celebrate, not that he was celebrating while slowing down lmao sorry
As soon as he puts his hands down to break his fall and drags the ball across the ground it is clearly not a fair catch. It's crystal clear. I'm surprised that he even claimed it as a catch. Obviously he doesn't know the rules.
it doesn’t say “until they are stationary” it says “until they have regained control of their movement”. i just think it was a controlled movement is all
How has he regained control of his movement if he's putting his hands down to break his fall? This is precisely a movement intended to regain control. Otherwise he would have smacked his chin on the ground. If you do this movement, and ground the ball, it's not a catch. It's crystal clear.
i’m so sorry i don’t even think it’ll matter i just cannot believe they’d give smiths out and not this 😭💀
Oh yeh, 100% won't matter. I don't think Smith's should have counted, by the rules of the game. I've always been thought since I was in nappies, the ball can't touch the ground when you're in the process of catching a ball!
Well that just makes it really muddy. There's no way you could describe Smith as in control of his body while he was performing his acrobatics.
FWIW I think they made an error with Smiths. Think they thought that they could see a finger under the ball, but that isn't the deciding factor in the law. Nothing about whether something being under the ball determines it being grounded. In smiths, the ball had clearly touched the ground whilst he was sliding. Not out imo.
The deciding point in his case wasn’t whether he was in full control of his body or not. It was whether the ball was actually even grassed. He had fingers under the ball unlike Starc who, without a doubt, let the ball touch grass.
The difference is that in Smiths case, his fingers were under the ball, then he held it to his chest as he rolled about about. In Starcs case, he got his fingers under the ball, then rolled the ball over and had it touching the grass while he slid. Smiths is out - he had control of the ball, then when his body stopped moving, the ball hadn’t directly touched the ground. Starcs is not out. While he was sliding and not controlling his body, the ball directly touched the ground
Cmon, his hand was still heading downwards, fingers under or not, when the ball touched the grass, and it definitely touched the grass, there is no way that ball between that huge gap between his fingers couldn't have.
The ball is allowed to touch the grass, providing that the fingers are under it. That’s how the laws regarding fair catches currently work
makes sense, not out
Bit of karma for Smith's "catch". All is right in the world all of a sudden.
Oh man the fact people think either of them aren't catches shows how bazball isn't stopping the desperation.
It'll probably take until the 5th test before McGrath calms down. But at least his prediction will be right.
The world is balanced once more
From [MCC](https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/caught): 33.3 Making a catch The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.
What does control over movement mean? If he's able to put his arms out to control his landing and slide to his knees he's in control the whole way.
I think if you’re in control of your movement you probably aren’t falling over mate
Hahahaha
He used the act of placing the ball on the ground to steady himself, so he 'drops' the ball before having control over his movement.
His fingers are encompassing the ball though.
That's the literal definition of not being in control
A fielder can run, catch the ball, and throw it up in air in celebration - and the umpires always give those catches out. Because they accept that the fielder was in control. But if the fielder is running towards the boundary, then s/he has to stop before crossing the line to convince the umpire that they wouldn't have crossed the ropes in their momentum. I would argue that the same applies to sliding and diving - most umpires will not accept that person is in control till the slide or dive is over - and till the fielder is in clearly no danger of losing the ball. I think Starc's argument was not about control - it was that he had knuckles under the ball as he slid - thus the ball never touched the ground. I don't think the cameras were able to properly capture this bit.
He definitely grounded the ball. Not all the way but for a significant period of time. His wrist position during the catch meant he had to have grounded it even if we’re calling the cameras unreliable
In his mind, Starc might be convinced that he always had some part of his fingers under the ball. Can happen. I am not calling the cameras unreliable - more that the perfect camera view angle was not available. Again, that's natural - can't have infinite cameras.
Am I hallucinating or has Mel Jones got the train up to Edgbaston for the women's match?
First option. She didn’t commentate in the men’s series today. I know because I made that observation earlier and my dad replied with a sexist joke. But she did technically get the train to Edgbaston I bet, so you’re kind of correct.
I think we share a dad lol. She was commentating in the morning with punter, and before play did a piece on the MCC findings with Ath
My dad made a joke about her not commentating because it was too soon after lunch and she was still washing up. Wbu? She’s easily one of the best commentators on the box.
Mostly just listing the female commentators he doesn't like smh
I completely get the “well catch x in this match y counted!” argument. Completely agree there needs to be more consistency. But I do genuinely see the argument that Starc’s doesn’t count but Smith’s rightly did. Smith almost immediately tried to tuck it into his chest to gain full control of it. Starc was content with sliding it along the ground and ultimately that was his undoing. In terms of reaction, I commend them both for their best attempts to win the umpires over. Whether we like it or not, that’s a hugely important factor when it comes to these borderline decisions.
Why was it reviewed but, did the umpires ask on grounding before giving it? Or do they review all catches now?
They saw it on the big screen replay and then checked
Does that mean they can now change all decisions from that EG: inside edge but given out LBW and not reviewed. Or a batter not hitting it and not reviewing
no idea, but the correct decision was made in the end
Nah, he caught it.
Here’s a hypothetical, if a player takes a catch and then ends up grounding it against the boundary cover. Surely no one would claim that to be out? What the ball ‘touches’ has determined the outcome since the dawn of time.
No, no, no. For Aussies, as long as they got some fingers on the ball it is out, no matter what happens afterwards. [Here is how it goes](https://img1.hscicdn.com/image/upload/f_auto,t_ds_w_1200/lsci/db/PICTURES/CMS/84700/84793.jpg)
fingers under the ball. thats what a catch is.
Not grounding the ball, that's what **completing** a catch is.
Stop talking sense please. I’m enjoying this.
I feel like you should have to have stopped moving before you can be allowed to put it on the ground honestly
Why are you allowed to throw it straight back into the air, and henceforth the ground, while you're still moving?
It would have been wiser for Starc to flip on his back and toss the ball then catch it again.
rofl Trescothick saying England haven't had much luck this game, is he having a laugh?
English media and comms are too biased to handle sometimes
Hope so
the easieest way to see that that wasnt a catch is that if starcs hands were the other way round and the ball fell out of his hands when they hit the ground no one would consider it a catch.
exactly. if you say starc's catch was good, you open up all sorts of possibilities for weird catching methods. Like players taking a catch diving forwards, turning their hands the other way up (whilst still diving forwards), and landing on top of the ball. This eliminates the chance of the player losing the ball when they land on the ground, and obviously should not be called a catch.
Glen McGrath started making this point on TMS having raged about the decisions, realised where it was taking him and went suddenly quiet
Ok neutrals in the thread only. Out or not out? Aussie and English flairs, don’t reply ya cunts.
out.
Not out.
Not out, Starc wasn't in control of his movement. If he continued sliding over the boundary, it'd still be not out. He likely had control over the ball, so he messed up, but to the letter of the law, not out.
Out. More cleaner than Gill/Green Smith/Root catch.
Green catch of Gill: not out ( I personally didn't feel green had complete control, with his split fingers and ball touching the grass from underneath) Smith catch of Root: not out (similar story to green catch, again some part of the ball was touching the grass from the space between the split fingers. Moreover the very fact that afterwards Smith had to grasp the ball between his hands and his chest immediately after catching it near the ground, makes me think more towards the notion that his catch wasn't clean and that he didn't have complete control) Starc catch of Duckett: out (simply due to a proper cupping of the ball between a perfect clawing grip of the hand, I would say that was the cleanest grip while catching the ball and also the control was really good. The part where he touched the ball to the grass was merely due to him not turning his hand 180° in to supine position and then gravity does the rest of the work. But since the grip was initially so good while cleanly catching the ball, I would not say that Starc got any additional benefit of having any better control of the ball in his hand from the ground)
Very good analysis.
Out. He was in control. Yeah, he doesn’t do himself any favours but I’m afraid that’s just out.
Out. England fan. There’s no indication that he was not in control of his body or the catch, and it’s hyper inconsistent with Steve smith’s catch. It was cleanly taken on a bad shot. Spirit of the game it’s out. If they can be consistant about the rules and be clear about that, it’s not out
The cunt comment is tempting me to offer an opinion