Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[willow]

There was an interesting discussion regarding the catch Oram took to dismiss Pathan, was it legal?

The relevant portion from the law... Law 32 (caught)

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-32-caught,58,AR.html

3. A fair catch
A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.

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.

there is some duplicity in the law and it should be changed to reflect these modern day happenings.

it is clear to me that this should be regarded as a fair catch... not only because is rewards quick thinking and athletic prowess of the fielder concerned but also to add to the drama which is modern limited overs cricket.

in my view making the catch should be interpreted as starting from the point Oram walks back onto the field of play and completes the catch and not from the point when he actually first touched the ball. this would comply with the laws.

however, strictly going by the laws, it seems to be an infringement.

comments!

[k-slice]

willow it isnt against the rules.
as long as the fielder is within the field of play while the catch is being taken it is fine. in fact a fielder can pull in a ball that has crossed the boundary but has not touched the ground on the other side.

[gopolks]

Technically its within the rules of the game.

[WicketView]

Assuming it is a repeat where the player pushes the ball in goes out and comes back in to take the catch, I think it is fine according to the rules. He is not in contact with the ball when he is out of the ground. So where is the problem?

[willow]

gopolks/kslice/wicketview

why dont you read the law again.

the law states that throughout the making of the catch, which starts from when the fielder first touches the ball to the completion of the catch, he must be in the field of play and in complete control of the ball and his movement.

which neither oram nor voges was.

i have already said that these catches should be fair but they do not seem to be according to the current laws.

as an example ....if Oram threw the ball to another fielder, X, while still in the field of play and X took the catch it would satisfy the laws as they stand now.

if oram himself takes the catch he infringes the law as it stands. he was not in complete control of the ball or his movement while he was in the field of play. it needs changing. that is my point.

hope you get it now

[gopolks]

I think your right, if he is not allowed to leave the field of play, it shouldn't of been a catch.

[WicketView]

gopolks/kslice/wicketview

why dont you read the law again.

the law states that throughout the making of the catch, which starts from when the fielder first touches the ball to the completion of the catch, he must be in the field of play and in complete control of the ball and his movement.

I don't see this anywhere ... maybe I am missing it. 

which neither oram nor voges was.

i have already said that these catches should be fair but they do not seem to be according to the current laws.

as an example ....if Oram threw the ball to another fielder, X, while still in the field of play and X took the catch it would satisfy the laws as they stand now.

if oram himself takes the catch he infringes the law as it stands. he was not in complete control of the ball or his movement while he was in the field of play. it needs changing. that is my point.

hope you get it now

Nope.

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.

This defines the 'time of making' of the catch

3. A fair catch
A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.

In other words, it is true that the fielder was outside the field while the catch was being made. However, since he was not in contact with the ball,  that does not violate the law which makes requirements only of player(s) in contact with the ball.

[k-slice]

willow,
so what you are trying to say is that from the point the player first comes in contact with the ball to the poit he is in control of the ball he must stay within the field of play. assuming that is right then lets see the following scenario:
1. player comes in contact with he ball.
2. player exits field of play but the ball somehow hovers within it.
3. player now comes back into field of play and makes fresh contact with said hovering ball.
4. player completes catch within the field of play.

i get your point dude and it makes complete sense too. just playing the devil's advocate here. but imagine the above scenario. i think it would be interesting to see if there is a law governing minimum players on the field. if a player leaves the field during an over he usually waits till the end of the over to return. this too technically would be leaving the field in the midst of an over. anyone know the laws around that?

[dextrous]

"throughout the making of the catch"

excellent point... i think ICC needs to clarify if this means while ball is in hand or at anytime after the contact

[dhruvdeepak]

bah trivial technicalities. the guys (voges and oram) have worked around the rules and found a novel way of trying to stop these innumerable sixes.
in fact i've always wondered why this wasnt done more often before.
this and diving to get into your crease (i dont think people apart from kaif do it often enough).

i think the bigger issue is the boundary itself. fielders IMO should be allowed to make contact with the rope while fielding the ball. the rope is there to give the fielder some space to slide. so let him use it!
the only thing that shouldnt be allowed is standing outside the boundary line to field/catch the ball.

[pieterSAN]

I agree with Willow completely....if the law was implemented the way it is written then the batsman was not out as soon as the catcher stepped outside the boundary. I think the game would be more exciting if the law was re-written.

[keep-it-cool]

A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.


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.

I do not see a problem.

In simple words, the law states that throughout the time of "making the catch" - any fielder who is in contact with the ball should be within the field of play.

In this case, when Oram was outside the field of play, he was not in contact with the ball.

So, he does not contravene any law.

The law does not say that any fielder involved in the catch should never be outside the field of play during the "making of the catch". That "being within the field of play" condition appears to be restricted to players when they are "in contact with the ball".

[keep-it-cool]

I think WV said pretty much the same thing in reply 6

[dhruvdeepak]

A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.


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.

I do not see a problem.

In simple words, the law states that throughout the time of "making the catch" - any fielder who is in contact with the ball should be within the field of play.

In this case, when Oram was outside the field of play, he was not in contact with the ball.

So, he does not contravene any law.

The law does not say that any fielder involved in the catch should never be outside the field of play during the "making of the catch". That "being within the field of play" condition appears to be restricted to players when they are "in contact with the ball".

agree with you for what its worth

[keep-it-cool]

A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.


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.

I do not see a problem.

In simple words, the law states that throughout the time of "making the catch" - any fielder who is in contact with the ball should be within the field of play.

In this case, when Oram was outside the field of play, he was not in contact with the ball.

So, he does not contravene any law.

The law does not say that any fielder involved in the catch should never be outside the field of play during the "making of the catch". That "being within the field of play" condition appears to be restricted to players when they are "in contact with the ball".

agree with you for what its worth

... one can analyse stocks from as many angles as one wants ..they are still going one way ..so, may as well analyse obscure cricket rules

[Rocky]

OK! Then consider this scenario:
The batsman hits the ball - it is going to go about 5 meters over the rope but not into the stands.
The fielder seeing this steps out of the field - over the rope - 5 meters out.
When the ball reaches him, he jumps, palms the ball back into the field of play - while still in the air.
He then runs into the field of play inside the rope and completes the catch.

Note:
The ball has never touched an object grounded outside the rope.
He has completed the catch in the field of play.
You can argue that the fielder was not in the field of play while palming the ball, but you are allowed to palm the ball which is over the ropes back into the field of play. So the hand of the fielder is outside the field of play. So why can't the rest of him be outside but not in contact with the ground?
Now what?

[keep-it-cool]

To me, it is simple. A batsman is not considered to be in his crease unless some part of his body is grounded behind the crease. Likewise, a fielder should also be considered out of the field of play only if some part of his body is grounded outside the field of play or to the boundary rope (under current laws)

[diwanara]

they should use basketball rules / NFL football rules.. if a player goes out of bounds during a play and comes back in.. he shouldn't be the first person to touch the ball..

[k-slice]

rocky,
the way the rule is currently being implemented that would be out.

[LosingNow]

they should use basketball rules / NFL football rules.. if a player goes out of bounds during a play and comes back in.. he shouldn't be the first person to touch the ball..

Agree, this is a fair way of resolving this..

..no matter how athletic this play(and I for one, enjoyed and admired it for its athleticism and ingenuity), to be fair to the batsman, once the ball has crossed the "imaginary plane" above the rope.. it should be considered a SIX.. unless someone who is continuously intouch with the ground within the ropes is bringing it back.

[keep-it-cool]

Why?

Why is it "unfair" on the batsman?

[LosingNow]

Why?

Why is it "unfair" on the batsman?

IMO

 "once the ball has crossed the "imaginary plane" above the rope.. it should be considered a SIX.. unless someone who is continuously intouch with the ground within the ropes is bringing it back"

[willow]

Why?

Why is it "unfair" on the batsman?

IMO

 "once the ball has crossed the "imaginary plane" above the rope.. it should be considered a SIX.. unless someone who is continuously intouch with the ground within the ropes is bringing it back"

winningnow

what you are suggesting is a football/soccer type of scenario.

did the ball cross the line..the goal line in this case.

all it does.... is bring more 'was it or wasnt it' scenarios.

the law is good as it is... only the definition of 'making a catch' needs to be tweaked.

the catches are good in my opinion notwithstanding the outrageous scenarios suggested.

according to the law at present if, oram threw the ball to a compatriot, who took the catch, the catch would be fine.

the 'making of the catch' definition needs to be changed so as to allow these kind of catches. which in my opinion is fair.

at present it is being interpreted as .......the start of making the catch being when oram walked in to field again and took it, not when he first touched the ball.

when oram first touched the ball he was not in control of the ball as well as not being in control of his movement in the field of play....contravenes the laws as they stand. he had to go out of the field of play while making the catch. an important footnote.

i agree that the catch was fair as it should be ....but we need to change the laws and I am certain it will be.

[keep-it-cool]

the law is good as it is... only the definition of 'making a catch' needs to be tweaked.

I still do not understand what the problem is. The catch is clean even as the law stands today.

the 'making of the catch' definition needs to be changed so as to allow these kind of catches. which in my opinion is fair.

Agree that the catch is fair ...but I think it is fair even without tweaking the law

at present it is being interpreted as .......the start of making the catch being when oram walked in to field again and took it, not when he first touched the ball.

Nope. The making of the catch started when Oram touched the ball for the first time. Even so, it is fair.

when oram first touched the ball he was not in control of the ball as well as not being in control of his movement in the field of play....contravenes the laws as they stand.

he had to go out of the field of play while making the catch. an important footnote.

The law does not seek the fielder to be in control of the ball or his movement from the point he first touches the ball or through the process. He needs to be in control at the time he completes the catch.

Nothing in the law disallows Oram from leaving the field of play while making the catch AS LONG AS while he is outside the field of play, he is not in contact with the ball - which he was not, in this case.

See below:

A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play.

The condition in bold states that during the making of the catch:

- any fielder in contact with the ball should be within the field of play

That does not mean that the same fielder cannot go out of the field of play during the process. It just means that through the process, when a fielder is in contact with the ball, he should not step outside the field of play.

In this case, through the process, Oram did not step out of the field of play when he was in contact with the ball.

[Rocky]

rocky,
the way the rule is currently being implemented that would be out.

Well! All I can say is that if the ICC does not clarify this and do it fast, some smart aleck is going to do this very thing at the last ball of a T20 with the batting side needing 6 to win.
And then all hell WILL break loose!