• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aleem Dar

Aleem Dar

Striker
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.
 

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

Could argue that if the boundary rope wasn't raised as a result of those stupid adverts then he wouldn't have hit it.
 
Aleem Dar said:
Could argue that if the boundary rope wasn't raised as a result of those stupid adverts then he wouldn't have hit it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aleem Dar said:
Could argue that if the boundary rope wasn't raised as a result of those stupid adverts then he wouldn't have hit it.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
Aleem Dar said:
Could argue that if the boundary rope wasn't raised as a result of those stupid adverts then he wouldn't have hit it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aleem Dar said:
Whatever happened to taking the fielders word?
Click to expand...
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.
 
SAFC2403 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
SAFC2403 said:
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.
Click to expand...

is that why Kallis turned round to Prior and said did you catch it earlier in the tourny and happily walked
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top