First, a look at the rule to determine what makes a fair catch.
Law 33 of the Laws of Cricket deals with catches states: “The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his/her bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch, as described in 33.2 and 33.3, before it touches the ground.”
Further, Law 33.2 states, “a catch will be fair if the ball is held in the hand or hands of a fielder, even if the hand holding the ball is touching the ground” (read: hand holding the ball touching the ground, not the ball touching the ground).
Finally, Law 33 further states: “The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement” (which means ball can’t touch the ground until the process is completed).
Going by this very rule, it is acceptable that Cameron’s Green’s hand, that is holding the ball while taking the catch of Shubhman Gill in India’s second innings, is touching the ground. The fielder obtaining ‘complete control’ over the ball and his movement comes after the process of having held the ball in the first place.
How can there be no conclusive evidence of the ball not touching the grass but a catch being awarded solely on the basis of a fielder being in control? A fielder can be in control while jumping back and forth of a boundary rope in order to grab a catch, or juggling the ball before grabbing it, or using the foot to help keep the ball in the air – all of these elements and more can determine control.
Simply put, if the rule can’t take into consideration that for a catch to be fair, the simplest assertion must revolve around the fielder having caught the ball cleanly, which means the ball should not be touching the ground in any way before the process of the catch has been completed. Keeping control must begin from that point.
The important bit to note here is that the very premise of this rule is based on television screen grabs. The only way to determine whether or not the ball was cleanly collected or whether or not the fielder was in complete control can be asserted only through videos of the catch or screen grabs.
Those in the know say, the visuals can’t get clearer – especially in the case of this particular incident – than what’s available. And the visuals / screen grabs do not give a thorough confirmation / evidence of the ball being collected cleanly.
Given that the batter needs only one wrong decision to force him back to the pavilion, a moment that can change a team’s fortunes in seconds, it is imperative that benefit be awarded for lack of enough evidence.
It was the good old rule anyway.
Apropos this line of discussion, soft signals and umpires’ calls need to be done away from the cricketing dictionary simply for the reason that it is not fair on the team seeking a review to a field umpire’s decision only to see the TV umpire relaying it back to the field umpire to take the final call.
Why did the team / play then go to the TV umpire in the first place? It is because he / she wasn’t convinced with the decision of the field umpire. They why go back? Because the advantage of having a review is so that the TV umpire can clarify.
The absurdity of rules in cricket could go a long way in harming the sport as youngsters look to learn the game. Test, as a format, isn’t any less complicate anyway.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
