-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
Nein commentary has become a farce. Maxwell seemingly gets caught, on review it clearly shows the fingers were not under the ball and it touched the ground so the decision was reversed. Clarke was going on and on about how it was clearly caught and they should ask the fielder. Then when Maxwell's facing up for the next ball Nicholas wonders why he's not moving off the ground thinking Maxwell was given out.
As out a catch as you will see. Zero doubt.
Crazy these days as everytime one of those is reviewed it is given not out.
Crazy these days as everytime one of those is reviewed it is given not out.
Leysy Days said:
Makes the point of the onfield call kind of irrelevant. The emphasis once the on field call was out was to prove without doubt that the ball hit the ground. There was doubt on both sides, but in that case they should be going with the umpires call every time.
IanG said:
There were 2 images, the front on one looked obviously as if the ball has hit the ground, the side on suggested it didn't, particularly with Roys right hand, seems like both his 4th and 5th fingers were tucked under the ball.
The footage was inconclusive either way IMO, and therefore the way that the rules are currently setup is that they should be going with the umpires call, as they did with both the Khawaja one in the test series and the Buttler one in the ODI's.
Leysy Days said:
Disagree. One finger under the ball which has clearly touched the ground. Clearly. Not sure what rule book they use in tassie but the rules clearly state the ball cannot touch the ground.
Yes he had the ball in his hands but the ball also contacts the ground. He had not completed the catch at any stage before the ball touched the ground. Very straight forward.
I think you’re upset no show showed up
I agree MD, the ball bursts through Roy's fingers, hits the ground, bounces back into his fingers which then close around the ball. IMO the ball clearly hits the ground, so definitely not out. Roy wouldn't have been able to tell though, so certainly no blame to him.MD Jazz said:
Midsy said:
Kind of contrary to what I said before I agree, however the ICC have now got a setup with the soft calls that complicate the whole matter. I'd have no issue with the umpire not giving a soft signal, the umpire refers upstairs and they then say its inconclusive so its not out. However the current process asks for a soft signal, which means that it has to be proven without doubt that the ball did hit the ground which IMO it did not, it was still inconclusive so it should stay with the onfield umpire.
In a similar way to Khawaja catching I think Bairstow at the MCG, given out onfield, he rolled over the ball and there was no way to know if he actually caught that ball. Inconclusive but given out onfield so he's out. No real issue but in a similar way to the AFL, the thing that drives supporters crazy is inconsistency.