SUBSCRIBE ► http://bit.ly/SubscribeSkyCricket
Ricky Ponting gives his thoughts on Mitchell Starc’s ‘dropped’ catch on day 4 of the 2nd Test between England and Australia in the Ashes.
Watch cricket LIVE on Sky Sports here ► http://bit.ly/GetSkySportsCricket
►TWITTER: https://twitter.com/skysportscricket
►FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/skysports
►WEBSITE: http://www.skysports.com/cricket
MORE FROM SKY SPORTS ON YOUTUBE:
►SKY SPORTS FOOTBALL: http://bit.ly/SSFootballSub
►SKY SPORTS BOXING: http://bit.ly/SSBoxingSub
►SKY SPORTS CRICKET: http://bit.ly/SubscribeSkyCricket
►SOCCER AM: http://bit.ly/SoccerAMSub
►SKY SPORTS F1: http://bit.ly/SubscribeSkyF1
►SKY SPORTS: http://bit.ly/SkySportsSub
►SKY SPORTS GOLF: https://bit.ly/SubscribeSkySportsGolf
39 Comments
Could have used sandpaper instead
It was not a catch, period, aussie cheats as usual
Good decision by the umpire. You are not allowed to ground the ball till the entire motion of catch is complete.
(Complete control over ball as well as balance of the body)
As per rule, what if Starc had put his hand below the ball, and due to impact with the Ground, the ball would have bobbled out.
So that's not out.
Had Starc held his position without touching the ground with the ball or hand, and then later on got up taking the support of the ball, it would have counted as a valid catch.
I completely agree it's a clean catch, third umpire makes a weird decision 🙏
No he didn’t “drop” the ball, but because the ball was in contact with the grass before Stark was fully in control, result not out!
Of course its a catch.
Given Ponting’s personal history of claiming a catch which clearly hit the ground (and the umpire believing him) it would have been interesting to have Gavaskar’s views.
Starc didn't drop the catch because he never caught it. This was according to the Umpire and the 'Spirit of Cricket' says that you abide by the Umpites decision as England should do with he Baitstow incident. Where the sledging and sandpaper come into the Spirit of Cricket, I'm not sure.
We should respect the rule
Same as Bairstow stumping
One of these 2 catches has mich more control before touching the ground.
So if he catches it and then crosses the boundary in the same motion is it not a six…? Same applies here.. He may have caught it but his momentum grounds the ball… Like my analogy… He may have caught it but carried it over the boundary for a six runs…
So now any team playing England can expect a week long legal battle involving any catch. Great…
Cmon who could even question both of those catches….anywhere else in the world…they are clear catches. Somehow even with the benefit camera angles, slow motion replays…the decision goes against Australia?? You just have to go back to the last two ashes played in England and see how so many decisions were all somehow concluded in England’s favour. And I won’t even bring up the way the World Cup was so obviously stolen from NZ…only recently. Please!! Who are the dirty slimy shifty cheats who whinge and carry on like little johnny lost his ball
he needed to support his weight on his left hand as he landed. Shame he didn;t turn his hand over so his fingers stayed under the ball.
Stupid mistake…….like Johnny Bairstow.
1-1 in the cheap-shot stakes.
the difference in this series. We have two trundling geriatrics over 37, and a couple of newbies who can barely bowl past 82mph.
The whole idea of catching the ball is keeping the ball off the ground Stark put the ball on the ground.
Starc made a brilliant fielding maneuver to stop four runs. How about that?
How about re-writing the law to something like this?
"If in the process of taking a catch and until such time as the umpire deem the fielder to be in control of both the ball and his/her own body, any part of the ball comes into contact with the ground, then the batsman is not out."
Two possible alternative scenarios . . . 1) Starc catches the ball, but on falling, comes into contact with the boundary rope. Is that out or four? 2) Starc catches the ball, but on falling, the ball is knocked out of his hand. Is that out or not out? Conclusion . . . if the fielder is falling or diving, the catch is not completed until the fielder has concluded the fall or dive. Ricky’s point about throwing up a slip catch has really no relevance to Starc’s situation. The slip fielder is already in a stable, standing position and can’t throw the ball away unless the ball is already secure in the hand(s).
He didn't "drop it", he literally put it flat on the grass whilst not in control of his movement. End of. Not out.
I've changed my mind on this. That's a deadset catch. I just saw a Mark Waugh slip catch off Warnie back in the 90s and Waugh used both hands to balance himself as he was tumbling to the ground.
Starc showed he can't catch when he chucked one over the boundary off Stokes. Back to basics
It's not about cessation of movement, but about retention of control. Starc was never in FULL control of the ball at any point from the moment the ball entered his hand to the moment the ball made contact with the ground.
If ANY of the ball touches the ground, it should be given ‘Not out’. A catch would never be disputed again with this simple change of rule. Even when fielders take a catch with 1 finger under the ball, some part of the ball has usually touched the ground and should be given ‘Not out’. Onus should be on the fielder to take a clean catch with the many different ways to get a batsman out.
So why WTC final green catch was legal
He put a fair bit of weight on the ball against the ground to balance himself, not a controlled catch. Not out is the right call.
If Starc had slid into the boundary and held the ball, it would have been given a six as it hadn't bounced. Same applies here, he wasn't in control of his movement, he lost the out call.
captains like Ricky have created this confusion over the years..Ricky used to be an intimidating captain and during his captaincy he would pressurise umpires and some umpires gave it in..and that's how this became a norm for the confusion..then these captains became commentators and they even further solidified this confusion..one example is catches that involve having fingers under the ball but yet the ball is grassed(Shubman Gill's catch in WTC)..that is, the ball touches the grass through the fingers..such catches now a days are given OUT without a second thought because the narrative of 'seeing a 3-D catch on 2-D screen' has been hammered into viewers brains mostly by the australian cricketers and commentators..but nobody questioned them 'if the fingers were under the ball, how can a ball then touch the grass'.
To be more realistic these days, I think the laws should be modified to simply control. Cricket is a totally professional sport and the old rule of not leaning on the face of the ball goes the against the bodies natural tendency to do exactly that. I don't want to see large fast bowlers breaking their wrists or rolling dislocating their shoulder to comply with the current catching rule. With all the video analysis the umpire can refer to third umpire to review if catch was controlled.
Similarly head deliveries should be totally banned, talk about unsportsmanlike behaviour, does it get any worse? Jardine in 1932-33 tour to Australia devised it to combat Bradman. This is the moment the spirit of the game was broken. As an Englishman did it it was praised as clever. Cricket was never the same again.
and that's why you stay in your crese from now on champs
It was dumb of starc to grind the ball on the ground, there's no discussion here it has always been like this you have to make sure ball doesn't touch the ground… Smith didn't let the ball touch the ground
The Laws of Cricket need to be changed . Congrats to Starc.
This is simple, don't grind the ball on the grass. Very simple not out decision.
"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." Starc was not in control of his own movement, which is why the ball hit the turf. If you can't keep it off the ground until you have stopped moving or are clearly in control of your body then it isn't a fair catch. Nothing controversial about it.
This is not a catch even street players knows
First thing you're taught at school is turn you hand so the ball doesnt touch the ground 😂 i dont see the controversy at all
That is the first time I have seen the catch and I cannot believe there is any controversy about it at all. He caught the ball, landed on the turf and slid along with the ball ON the ground. Who thinks that is a catch? That's madness; it doesn't matter how long it's in your hand, you have to have control over the further disposal of the ball.
I thought Ponting would have mellowed by now since he hasn't played for so long and I definitely thought Glenn McGrath had mellowed since working with the BBC!
It was not out, as was the Stokes catch yesterday. It’s very simple: the ball was grounded during the same motion it was caught. The difference is the Stokes drop was avoidable but the Starc one wasn’t. However, that difference shouldn’t be a factor in the decision, which was correctly not out both times
This was a catch. He had complete control of the ball (England fan)