Finals Day 2021. 18th September

mikemanc said:
I see what the argument is. I just think he held it cleanly and was in control of his body so catch completed. Then DBD smashed into him. Admittedly you only see that when you watch it frame by frame.

19.5 Fielder grounded beyond the boundary

19.5.1 A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is in contact with any of the following:

- the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary;

- the ground beyond the boundary;

- any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary;

- another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.

If the umpires think DBD was assisting the fielding..... :lol:
Click to expand...
You won’t find me disagreeing :lol:
 


Superb day of cricket; action, controversy, great performances and fun. Who needs the hundred!
And better still all four competing counties do not host teams In the Hundred!
mikemanc said:
I see what the argument is. I just think he held it cleanly and was in control of his body so catch completed. Then DBD smashed into him. Admittedly you only see that when you watch it frame by frame.

19.5 Fielder grounded beyond the boundary

19.5.1 A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is in contact with any of the following:

- the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary;

- the ground beyond the boundary;

- any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary;

- another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.

If the umpires think DBD was assisting the fielding..... :lol:
Click to expand...
But was it his intention to do so?
 
Last edited:
Best side won no question
Enjoyed the incident with the “catch”. Love stuff like that but would have made more sense to be out
 
Last edited:
mikemanc said:
I see what the argument is. I just think he held it cleanly and was in control of his body so catch completed. Then DBD smashed into him. Admittedly you only see that when you watch it frame by frame.

19.5 Fielder grounded beyond the boundary

19.5.1 A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is in contact with any of the following:

- the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary;

- the ground beyond the boundary;

- any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary;

- another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.

If the umpires think DBD was assisting the fielding..... :lol:
Click to expand...
I've read that four times and I still don't understand how it was a six and not out.
 
bumble2 said:
Superb day of cricket; action, controversy, great performances and fun. Who needs the hundred!
And better still all four competing counties do not host teams In the Hundred!

But was it his intention to do so?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean, his intention to do what? I agree he was trying to take the catch himself but the rule seems to be discussing him making contact with the other player to assist, almost like it's saying for example you can't dive beyond the boundary and be held up by a teammate.

And totally agree on the day itself, rarely fails to deliver. Although both semi finals were much better games than the final itself today.
matt228 said:
I've read that four times and I still don't understand how it was a six and not out.
Click to expand...
Reading that, I think they got it wrong
 
Last edited:
mikemanc said:
I see what the argument is. I just think he held it cleanly and was in control of his body so catch completed. Then DBD smashed into him. Admittedly you only see that when you watch it frame by frame.

19.5 Fielder grounded beyond the boundary

19.5.1 A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is in contact with any of the following:

- the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary;

- the ground beyond the boundary;

- any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary;

- another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.
Click to expand...

mikemanc said:
If the umpires think DBD was assisting the fielding..... :lol:
Click to expand...
I’ve been looking at this again. Looking at the last bullet point “
mikemanc said:
I see what the argument is. I just think he held it cleanly and was in control of his body so catch completed. Then DBD smashed into him. Admittedly you only see that when you watch it frame by frame.

19.5 Fielder grounded beyond the boundary

19.5.1 A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is in contact with any of the following:

- the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary;

- the ground beyond the boundary;

- any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary;

- another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.

If the umpires think DBD was assisting the fielding..... :lol:
Click to expand...
I’ve been looking at this again. Taking that last bullet point:

“- another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.”

DBD was surely running in the direction of the ball with the intention of fielding it, whether he succeeded or not. So on that count alone I think the decision would have been correct. However, in my opinion the ball was already dead by the time he ran into Cox because Cox had caught it cleanly invoking 20.1.1.3 underlined below.

20.1 Ball is dead

20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when

20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.

20.1.1.2 a boundary is scored. See Law 19.7 (Runs scored from boundaries).

20.1.1.3 a batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.

On this basis I think the wicket should have counted.

Fortunately it has become immaterial but I can’t help wondering what was going through both the umpires minds afterwards and whether it caused distraction that resulted in that dreadful lbw decision which could have been the turning point of the match.
 
bumble2 said:
I’ve been looking at this again. Looking at the last bullet point “

I’ve been looking at this again. Taking that last bullet point:

“- another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.”

DBD was surely running in the direction of the ball with the intention of fielding it, whether he succeeded or not. So on that count alone I think the decision would have been correct. However, in my opinion the ball was already dead by the time he ran into Cox because Cox had caught it cleanly invoking 20.1.1.3 underlined below.

20.1 Ball is dead

20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when

20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.

20.1.1.2 a boundary is scored. See Law 19.7 (Runs scored from boundaries).

20.1.1.3 a batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.

On this basis I think the wicket should have counted.

Fortunately it has become immaterial but I can’t help wondering what was going through both the umpires minds afterwards and whether it caused distraction that resulted in that dreadful lbw decision which could have been the turning point of the match.
Click to expand...
I agree I think the catch was complete and DBD was obviously trying to catch the ball. But the last section says the intention of the contact is to assist the fielding. They weren't gaining anything by the players colliding so how is that assisting the fielding?
 
mikemanc said:
I agree I think the catch was complete and DBD was obviously trying to catch the ball. But the last section says the intention of the contact is to assist the fielding. They weren't gaining anything by the players colliding so how is that assisting the fielding?
Click to expand...
But the intention wasn’t to collide. The intention was to field, ( the definition of which surely includes trying to catch the ball).
 
bumble2 said:
But the intention wasn’t to collide. The intention was to field, ( the definition of which surely includes trying to catch the ball).
Click to expand...
But the rule says it's the intention of the contact to assist the fielding, not try to take the catch himself. Do you think two players colliding assists the fielding?
 
mikemanc said:
But the rule says it's the intention of the contact to assist the fielding, not try to take the catch himself. Do you think two players colliding assists the fielding?
Click to expand...
Don’t think we’re getting anywhere here! I sometimes bump into Neil Bainton so next time I see him……..
 

Back
Top