It's a batsmans game, or do catches win matches?

Aleem Dar · 18th March 2011, 11:58 AM

2 days in a row we have seen disputed catches go the way of the batsman despite the 3rd Umpire claiming the ball touched the ground, or the fielder fell over the rope. Whatever happened to taking the fielders word?

Of course todays decision will have been made easier by the fact it was Mahela playing in Sri Lanka...

Both shocking decisions, IMO, as they looked out in real time.

MacRowners · 18th March 2011, 12:04 PM

I think Troot hit the boundary rope = 6 to me it looked like 6 but Trott thought it was out.... fielders 'cheating'.......go figure.

Aleem Dar · 18th March 2011, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacRowners

I think Troot hit the boundary rope = 6 to me it looked like 6 but Trott thought it was out.... fielders 'cheating'.......go figure.

Could argue that if the boundary rope wasn't raised as a result of those stupid adverts then he wouldn't have hit it.

GarethQ · 18th March 2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleem Dar

Could argue that if the boundary rope wasn't raised as a result of those stupid adverts then he wouldn't have hit it.

One angle it looked like he hit it, from the other angle it looked like it didn't.

It's a real funny one. Stakes are so high now that people are cheating, look at Pakistan, so I can see why players don't always take that batsmans/fielders word.

MacRowners · 18th March 2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleem Dar

Could argue that if the boundary rope wasn't raised as a result of those stupid adverts then he wouldn't have hit it.

The raise advertising rope is the boundary if it hits that before the field of play its six.

If it had been a rope or a chalk line now there would have been a steewards enquiry.....

The Breen Machine · 18th March 2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleem Dar

Could argue that if the boundary rope wasn't raised as a result of those stupid adverts then he wouldn't have hit it.

I agree and I thought that although it was a very difficult decision to give, there was no evidence of any contact or movement on the boundary rope, so it should have been given out.

SAFC2403 · 18th March 2011, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleem Dar

Whatever happened to taking the fielders word?

In international cricket those days are long gone. TV has made sure of that. If they can use TV for lbw's etc then they should use it for catches etc.

For the record I think the call was correct Trott did hit the rope, His should came into contact with the advertising which is the boundary. However I dont think Trott cheated. I reckon he genuinely thought he'd caught it. This is where TV replays come in handy as if they'd gone on the word of the fielder he would have been out, wrongly in my view.

Still in local cricket the word of the fielder should be taken.

Aleem Dar · 18th March 2011, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAFC2403

In international cricket those days are long gone. TV has made sure of that. If they can use TV for lbw's etc then they should use it for catches etc.

For the record I think the call was correct Trott did hit the rope, His should came into contact with the advertising which is the boundary. However I dont think Trott cheated. I reckon he genuinely thought he'd caught it. This is where TV replays come in handy as if they'd gone on the word of the fielder he would have been out, wrongly in my view.

Still in local cricket the word of the fielder should be taken.

I don't disagree with the use of TV, but there was no proof Trott touched the boundary rope/advertisment and only inconculsive replays. I feel it should have been given out. Not that it matters as we won in the end. But using todays, bowler takes a smart return catch and Mahela reviews. Again, absolutely no replays can show whether the ball touched the floor and in real time and in replays it does look like he took the catch cleanly. Yet the decision was not out. Why? Mahela was on 19 when he was given not out and was eventually out on 66. The intervening 47 runs may make the difference between New Zealand winning and losing this game.

Just my opinion/musings.

Andy.SAFC · 18th March 2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleem Dar

Could argue that if the boundary rope wasn't raised as a result of those stupid adverts then he wouldn't have hit it.

That was the point I made at the time. If the boundary rope was, I dunno, a rope, then he would be out.

MacRowners · 18th March 2011, 01:03 PM

I believe the title says it all mate.....

.....of course it's a batsman game.

The benefit of doubt always goes with the batsman. That's I believe is in the laws of the game.

Trott I feel touched the boundary (he may not have even known it but it was six as long as I have a hole in my bum as I don't wear rose tinited spectacles) and i think the correct descion was made. I called six when he took it and I was shocked it took that long to review.