OK, let me preface this by saying that this thread is meant to be a discussion of the rules. If anyone wants to bag a player or call them a cheat they can use the 20 or so other threads going around at the moment...


In all three games last weekend we saw identical catches of dubious legality claimed by fielders within a few hours of each other; Paul Harris, Matthew Sinclair and Ricky Ponting all took one-handed diving catches where they grounded the ball as they landed. The first two were claimed by the fielder, given by the umpire (in Sinclair's case the batsman walked), Ponting claimed the catch but the umpire didn't see the ball brush Dhoni's little finger.

There are also plenty of historical examples of the same thing happening in past, whenever I've seen it I've never felt comfortable with it.

According to the rule in question the act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement. And also while the hand holding the ball may touch the ground the ball most definitely cannot.

In the situations above (from here on I'll use Sinclair's as the example) the ball was caught and in the players hand and under control, however the fielder was diving in mid-air, and in the process of controlling his movement he landed on his hands, grounding the held ball in the process.

As I interpret the rules, this shouldn't have been a fair catch. As a closet physicist I would say a fielder is not in control of his movement unless the sum of the forces on his body was equal to zero (sorry for getting geeky). In other words, a player coming to a complete stop (i.e. after diving, or being stationary in the first place), or moving with constant speed (say, a running catch on the boundary). A fielder in mid air obviously has no control over their body until they land - and when they do they should be able to do so in a way which doesn't ground the ball.

Of course catches like these have been being claimed, awarded and batsmen walked since forever, however lately some people (most obviously the commentators at the time, and now me) have started to question them. This has turned into an opinion piece - sorry! - but I'm keen to hear what other people think...

__________________
never believe anything until it is officially denied . . .

People have to remember that the umpires don't have the luxury of 10 replays form all different angles i am surprised at how well the actually do especially the bat pad catches

If you have played cricket at whatever level you know in your own mind most of the time whether the ball has touched the ground as you tumble,all 3 of the claimed catches left a bad taste in my mouth the same as the KP incident last month as you start to question the integrity of the players involved.

I would love to see an end to all incidents like this but i fear it isn't going to happen.

Just as another example, Ross Taylor caught Andrew Symonds on the boundary cleanly in an ODI a couple of weeks ago. He held onto it for a fair while whilst sliding on the ground, certainly having a good 'control' over the ball. However, he thought he was going to hit the boundary rope, so after having held the ball for a good 1 or 2 seconds, he deliberately threw it away to prevent conceding a six (in the event, he never did touch the rope). This catch was NOT given, and to me shows a similar (if considerably more clear) non-catch than the 3 Mr. Kiwi mentions. Taylor had 'control' for the ball for a similar time as Harris/Ponting/Sinclair and then grounded it. Taylor's wasn't given - the other three shouldn't have been given either.

All easy in theory. Tough in practise through.

I actually think that the rule, as it stands, is open to considerable interpretation. If you ask a range of people at what time are they in control of their movement I think that you'll get a range of answers. Try telling a gymnast even three metres off the ground as they are in mid-spin that they are not in control of their movements. Cricketers don't spend as much time in the air as gymnasts, but I would expect good international fielders to claim to be in control of their movement even when not at a complete standstill, and possibly even mid-air - taking this to the extreme, my wife would be capable of twisting her ankle and dropping a ball even at a complete standstill (as I suspect would several less coordinated fielders, even at test level).

For what it's worth (yes, I know this suggests I'm about to give an opinion specific against the request), I think that Punter's catch didn't comply with the wording. However, I understand how he (and others in a similar position) might reasonably disagree with me. A tightening of the wording might be useful.

They dont and in a trial in 2004 they were apparently sending the descisions upstairs to the video umpire who sent most of the descisions back to them as "your call" ??????

Seems like the guy who has all the technology and replays in front of him. Will not make a descision.

Why have a third umpire ???

No-one has actually addressed Mr Kiwi's point about what constitutes a fair catch, other than by raising examples. I'm at the office just now so I don't have access to Tom Smith, but if memory serves he has interpreted the law (and every umpire in the world will go with his interpretation). I'll check this when I am at home tonight, but I think he is clear that the fielder has to have control of ball and body. Having the ball in hand whilst the fielder in flight is therefore not enough - because the fielder in flight is not in an indefinitely sustainable position: having it in hand while the fielder is running can be enough, but if he is off balance it might not be (think of a fielder taking the catch, coming down on his feet just inside the rope and then falling backwards over it and grassing the ball - surely six, not out).

I'll take a look at this tonight. For the record, based on my one viewing of Ricky Ponting's catch over the weekend, that was not out.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

OF, I thought that I did address the question, although my response was that further clarification is required. I would be interested to hear the Tom Smith interpretation

Sorry, LSD (and everyone else). That last post didn't start too well and I am ashamed to say that it sounds a lot too pompous. It wasn't intended that way at all. I'm just about to bail out of the office, and I'll see if I can dig up the Tom Smith while I'm cooking my dinner.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Well, sorry to disappoint, but actually Tom Smith, although having a couple of pages of commentary on what constitutes a fair catch, doesn't help us much here. All his examples relate to catches close to the boundary. For catches well infield, the only pertinent comment is that the catcher has to be "in full control of all his movements" (emphasis is mine).

Looking at the Ponting case, I doubt he was - he was either sliding under his own momentum (of which he does not have control) or his arm dropped to the ground before he could overcome the actions of gravity (which he also cannot control). I'd still say "not out", but Tom Smith doesn't have a specific example, I'm afraid.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan