Catching

[Bulldog1954]

If he says he caught it, your out

This referring to the third umpire, everyone standing their ground is a load of trash

 

[lamby29]

I agree. If they refer it to the 3rd umpire and he is 99.9% sure it is out, he will still give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. It is bull****. Instead, they should confirm it with the catcher.

 

[DaveW]

Of course we need the video. Umpires can't be expected to see what happens 10-20 metres in front of them.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

Hussein's non-catch this evening is conclusive proof that no player will ever be given out caught on the video replay. And, safe in that knowledge, no player is ever going to walk.
Low catches - endangered of going the way of the dodo, child chimney sweeps and duffle coats.

 

[Macca19]

Gillespie did not catch the ball. It is simply bias which has everyone saying he caught it. You can quite simply see the ball move down and hit the ground after it touches his hands. Theres no way he woulda got his fingers underneath the ball.

Im not calling Gillespie a liar, as im sure he thought he caught it considering it all happened 100 times quicker than the luxury of slow motion we saw it in...but i dont reckon he caught it at all.

Good decision by the third umpire.

 

[BW]

Originally posted by Macca19
Gillespie did not catch the ball. It is simply bias which has everyone saying he caught it. You can quite simply see the ball move down and hit the ground after it touches his hands. Theres no way he woulda got his fingers underneath the ball.

Im not calling Gillespie a liar, as im sure he thought he caught it considering it all happened 100 times quicker than the luxury of slow motion we saw it in...but i dont reckon he caught it at all.

Good decision by the third umpire.

Gotta disagree there, although from the evidence the 3rd umpire had he made the right call. One things for sure theres no possible way the naked eye could of seen whether the fingers were underneath the ball. I think it hit him on the tips of his fingers. If the ball hit the ground, then theres a fair chance it wouldnt of popped up in the air for a dolly of a catch on the 2nd bite. It would of kept travelling. It was a catch in my book.

 

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by Bulldog1954
If he says he caught it, your out

Sounds simple (and that's what Langer wants it to be like), but if modern cricketers don't walk when they know they have nicked the ball and the umpire doesn't give them out, why should we suddenly rely on the good judgement of players on whether they've taken a catch a not.

Modern players, particularly the Australians, say it's up to the umpire to give decisions when talking about not walking for edges; they should have the same viewpoint for deciding how a catch is made.

Former cricketers have said that the old adage of walking (when batsmen gave themselves out when they knew they nicked the ball and didn't wait for the umpire) was exploited as certain players walked when it suited them and didn't when the match was close.

The same thing could occur with when fieldsman claim catches that are close to the ground; they would say that they weren't sure that they caught it when there is little riding on the match, and could claim a catch that they weren't sure about when the match is close.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Macca19
Gillespie did not catch the ball. It is simply bias which has everyone saying he caught it. You can quite simply see the ball move down and hit the ground after it touches his hands. Theres no way he woulda got his fingers underneath the ball.

Im not calling Gillespie a liar, as im sure he thought he caught it considering it all happened 100 times quicker than the luxury of slow motion we saw it in...but i dont reckon he caught it at all.

Good decision by the third umpire.

Rubbish. All bar one angle suggested he caught it. The one angle that suggested it hit the turf was very blurry. Also, I've heard sky tv had a camera angle channel nine didn't have that clearly showed the legitimacy of the catch. Can anyone confirm this?

In any case, Dave Orchard was right in front of the catch and should've called it as he saw it. Which to everyone else who watched it live, was out.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

There's always going to be one camera that either wasn't watching the action, was inconclusive or had someone getting in the way blocking the view. No player will ever be given out by the third umpire.

 

[Dipper]

The TV blokes in England did an experiment where one of them went on the outfied & held a ball very close to the ground, sometimes with it touching & sometimes with his fingers under it.

They had all the camera angles they wanted & it wasn't a moving ball but you know what? it was totally inconclusive, some where it was off the ground looked like it was grounded & vice versa.

Purely & simply TV is a 2 dimensional medium & we live in a 3d world, it's impossible to tell exactly where the ground finishes & starts in relation to the ball.

I mean Butcher reckons he didn't catch Waugh(then changed it to not sure but according to the papers it looked like it was clean).

It's almost impossible for the 3rd ump to give not out so they should leave the decision with the pitch umps unless.

 

[scmods]

The breakdown of the history of 3rd umpire catching decisions tells the story really:

Given not out because the replay clearly showed it not out - a few

Given not out because the replay was unclear - most

Given out - none


All that has been proved is that the technology just isn't good enough. The more you zoom in, the less clear the pictures become.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by DaveW
Rubbish. All bar one angle suggested he caught it. The one angle that suggested it hit the turf was very blurry. Also, I've heard sky tv had a camera angle channel nine didn't have that clearly showed the legitimacy of the catch. Can anyone confirm this?

In any case, Dave Orchard was right in front of the catch and should've called it as he saw it. Which to everyone else who watched it live, was out.

i might watch sky news a bit later. the fox sports news highlights only showed the inconclusive angle.... probably to give the umps more credibility. it's not their fault though... the law needs to be changed.

 

[wagstaff]

From what I saw of it, I agree with Macca19 on this one

I watched in on the big TV screen at Crown Casino - my opinion (and those I heard around me) was that it couldn't be given out.

There was only one angle that was any help and in my mind it looked as if it had bounced.

However, I'd probably want to have another look at it to be compleltely sure that the umpire made the right decision.