ICC clarify controversial run out and catches rule

[adamberry]

The ICC have taken action after the fiasco regarding Dhoni's bizarre dismissal in the 1st Test between India and the West Indies. In the case of the Dhoni case, the third umpires job would have been to determine whether a boundary had been scored or not.

Full article here.

[BarmyBarmyArmy]

I'd love to see fielders being honest (not saying Ganga wasn't) and Batsmen just walking. It's how cricket should be played.

[muhammad]

i agree to you i have always idealized cricket as a game of real gentlmen . players with sportsmanship. n i think incidents like the above mentioned affect the spirit of game ... player should b honest .

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by adamberry

The third umpires job would have been to determine whether a boundary had been scored or not.

Okay, so Dave Richardson has given his 5 points "clarification" about boundary decisions. In point 2 and 3 he says that the tv umpire has to make a decision regarding whether or not a boundary was scored. If the tv evidence is inconclusive, no boundary can be awarded.

Fine. But it's point 4 that gets my goat: I quote "In these circumstances, as no boundary has been scored, the only decision left is for the on-field umpire at the bowler's end to give the batsman out - caught." Why? I mean, if the evidence cannot show that a boundary was scored, AND the evidence does not show that a catch was taken cleanly, how come the umpire at the bowlers end HAS to give the batsman out? What happened to "benefit of the doubt going to the batsman?"

[Vrock]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

What happened to "benefit of the doubt going to the batsman?"

I feel the exact same way Wanderer.

The only thing I can think is if the fielder states that he caught it, then the batsman should take his word as read.

But if the confusion of no evidence arises, and the fielder is also unsure, then the case for the batsman getting the 'benefit of the doubt' goes out of the window, and down the lane to fall off the edge of the pier and drift out to sea.

[adamberry]

Interesting analogy there Vrock...

I completely agree with your point Wanderer, it'll be interesting to see what would have happened if these 'clarifications' had been put in place before the incident that prompted them. Would Dhoni have still been given out with these rulings?

[DomainK]

My doubts are still there.

1.Why didnt the umpires make any decision for 15 minutes? Whos is responsible for the loss of time and the pressure of the players?

2.How come these rules justify Lara's behavior?

3. Like Wanderer pointed out, what happened to the benefit of doubt going to the batsman? When did fielders start getting benefit of doubt in case of a decision regarding a dismissal?

[Ninjaman]

Benefiit of the doubt for the batsman??

What doubt??

That he hit it??

The decision was always a boundary or a catch.

Take the catch out of it, let us say Ganga had dropped it, it would have been boundary or the runs the batsmen had run.

If the 3rd umpire cannot determine that it is a boundary, he says to the umpire let the amount of runs actually run stand. Since if he can't determine if the fielder touched the ropes, then he DID NOT touch the ropes.

Now when we know the fielder did take the catch, since we can't conclusive say he did not touch the rope, then we must assume he did not.

If he did not, the catch is valid. OUT!!

This is an issue of the fielder and the rope in my opinion.

Doubt for the batsman should go in cases of if we unsure he is back in his crease or if he did get bat on it i.e. doubt over the batsman's actions.

The only thing delaying Ganga's departure was did Ganga touch the boundary.

Everything else was in order.

You can't not give the six and then let Dhoni stay at the crease.

Anybody remember Bell "catching" Yousuf last year. Who got the benefit of the doubt there?

Dhoni was already walking and after the delay of being able to make the decision, Lara told Dhoni to accept the decision and walk off (like he already was doing anyway) and accept Ganga's catch in good faith.

Why?

Because every West Indian would.

Flintoff "catching" Adams at Edgbaston in 2000 comes to mind. The ball bounced but Flintoff said it didn't. Adams took his word and that was that.

That is what upset Lara, that the umpires (one of whom is poor i.e. Rauf and another who we keep being told is the best i.e. Taufel) could not make a decision and accept the fielder's word in good faith which is done for many a catch.

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

That is what upset Lara, that the umpires (one of whom is poor i.e. Rauf and another who we keep being told is the best i.e. Taufel) could not make a decision and accept the fielder's word in good faith which is done for many a catch.

I read on Cricinfo at the time that Ganga admitted that he wasn't sure. He didn't THINK he touched the rope, but couldn't be sure that he hadn't brushed it as he took the catch. I think that clouded the issue still further as the fielder wasn't 100% sure.