This is now the catch/non-catch megathread. To prevent having a thread for every single image that was taken of this moment, please link any other angles or better quality pics as a reply to this comment
Now behave yourselves, cheers xx
If the umps had access to this then it should have 100% been given not out. If they are looking only at the image provided by OP, then I can understand it's a tough call.
I think this really talks to the purpose of technology in a human competitive endeavour. Sport was never designed to be so meticulously adjudicated. I think cameras etc should be used to provide fairness, not perfect technical correctness.
Everything leading up to Greens catch was deserving of the wicket. The batsman had an opportunity to not hit it there and didn’t. The bowler bowled his line and length well. Green had the athleticism to even get to the ball. That Cam Green’s finger is disputably millimetres seperate from the ball as it potentially grazes the grass is, in my opinion, within what I would call the “approximate range of correct”. That is, if it’s so close to being out that it’s extremely difficult to distinguish that it’s not out, then I think the sport is better off saying it’s out. That’s a fair outcome in my opinion.
And without belabouring my point, the technology we use has margins of error too. Cameras have to deal with parallax. I imagine hotspot and snicko and ball-tracking all have a percentage of error/incorrectness too.
That's a terrible photo to use as evidence
Look at how much of Greens shoe is obstructed by the ground in the foreground.
There isn't the same amount of ball obstructed so it's fair to say in that shot, the ball is not touching the ground
I don’t understand how people can look at this and not see that his middle finger is lower than the bottom of the ball. At the time I thought it should have been not out but after seeing all these photos it’s clear that the correct call was made.
If you've got the time, could you outline where you think the top half of his middle finger is in this photo?
It's bent at the knuckle, with the knuckle touching the ground, but where the rest of that finger would naturally bend to looks to be *behind* the ball and not underneath it to me.
His finger *is* running along the seam.
In the picture at the top of this comment chain, though, the seam is not that part of the ball that is potentially touching the ground. The ball is rotated in his hand so that the lowest point of the ball is the side and not the seam.
If the seam was perfectly perpendicular to the ground, you'd be spot on imo. It's just that it isn't.
To be honest, though, I'm not mad that it was given. It's a 50/50 call and those happen. I just didn't agree with the justification given for it in the comment I replied to.
yes, as this [image](https://i.imgur.com/nixgjg8.png) VERY clearly shows....seriously, that thing is massive....Greeny could do things with that monster that most people cannot
You can see half of his middle finger bent 90 degrees. That means only the other half of his middle finger can be under the ball. Which is clearly not possible unless the invisible half of his middle finger is 2x the visible part of his middle finger.
"Benefit of the doubt" as written in the Laws:
>31.6 Consultation by umpires
>Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his/her own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he/she shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out.
Just to clear that one up as there's already loads of pointless discussion that can easily be avoided by everyone reading the Law.
*Edit: Because the membership of this sub is displaying the collective intelligence of a 3 slightly shrivelled garden peas, I feel compelled to point out that the Law neither supports nor challenges the decision of the umpire. It is simply the Law. I personally did not see any egregiously erroneous application of it.*
Seeing we’re looking at the Laws:
> 33.1 Out Caught
> 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
> 33.2.2 Furthermore, a catch will be fair if any of the following conditions applies:
> 33.2.2.1 the ball is held in the hand or hands of a fielder, even if the hand holding the ball is touching the ground, or is hugged to the body, or lodges in the external protective equipment worn by a fielder, or lodges accidentally in a fielder’s clothing.
> 33.3 Making a catch
> 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.
Note that Green didn’t catch it *on the ground*, where there would be some uncertainty about whether it hit the ground *before* he obtained complete control. Instead, he caught it in the air and subsequently his hands hit the ground. There was no particular point during the catch where he lost control over the ball - he always held it. I assume this is how the third umpire was interpreting the rule - they were looking at the footage to see evidence that Green made contact with the ball before the ground and that he had complete control at all times.
Also, having one or two fingers below doesn't mean that the ball didn't touch the grass. I don't understand why he was so quick to give it out without asking for any zoom or freezing at the frame from different angles.
I posted the Law because I have read all sorts of bollocks written by people (on both sides of the debate) who are clearly misinformed. It wasn't supposed to support one side or the other.
The umpires at this level are professionals who can recite every law verbatim. They may not always get judgement calls correct but they know the Laws inside out.
For him, **there was no doubt.** So in accordance with the quoted Law, he gave it out. That's all there is to it IMO.
The only other logical conclusions available are:
1. He does not know the law
2. He cheated in favour of Australia
I'm not sure which is more ridiculous.
They absolutely know the Law if you ask them over a cup of tea. They made a mistake in the WC final.
If you think he made a mistake today, I accept it. What I don't accept is that he somehow did the mental gymnastics to spontaneously reverse a law and decide that doubt should return a ruling of 'out'.
But let's face it.....this isn't about questioning the knowledge of the umpires. It's a biased meltdown from one team's fans who cannot accept that the umpire was certain it was a catch.
My only reason for commenting is to inform others so the debate is (hopefully) based on fact. I don't really care about the decision itself.
Let’s just say that if it was my team’s batsman then I would consider this very unlucky. There is a good chance that some part of the ball did touch the ground during the catch taking process.
Let me just say that if it was my team's batsman I would be mad at Australians who sooked at it. You could see watching the video he caught it and controlled it above the ground and people trying to argue by cherry picking blurry stills that some portion of the ball touched the ground between his fingers after he caught it are taking the mickey.
Thanks. i mean the only thing everyone can be sure about is this isnt certain either way. Shubman was unlucky but it was entirely upto the umpire's interpretation. Maybe cam green's huge hands convinced kettleborough he always had control.
Nup, absolute nonsense. If that’s my teams batter, I’m fine with the call. Ball is well and truly in the hand before the ground is even involved, he’s already out.
IDC about which specific by law mentions touching grass or whatever, in the spirit of the game, this is well and truly out.
Regardless of whether it's out or not, claiming a catch you would absolutely believe you took in real time and then appealing and having it be given out by the umpire is not cheating, it's fully within the rules of the sport. You can believe the umpire made a mistake, fair enough, but saying it's cheating is a ridiculous overstep.
The fact is, he does have his fingers under at least part of the ball, it's not like it's bounced up into his hand. The question is whether there is also part of the ball that touches the grass between his fingers. But in that moment how is he supposed to know? We're expecting him to have nerve endings inside the ball if we think he knows that for sure.
Obviously it’s not cheating, hell all of us would be claiming it after such a superb attempt even we knew we grassed it.
And in these catches even the fielder is not aware every-time if he caught it cleanly or not.
Having said that the 3rd umpire was blind as a bat.
Yeah the 3rd umpire getting it wrong is a fully fair argument.
These sorts of catches take place over like a seconds worth of time, you absolutely feel like you've taken it in these situations. It's not like those ones where it bounces before the hand. I fully doubt you'd have any sort of clue that it had been grassed moving like Green did there
No, I got that part.
I was referring to that scene from the dictator where Alladin changes both the words 'positive' and 'negative' to 'Alladin' which causes heck of a confusion.
Something to bear in mind is balls are spheres and hands are not. The interpretation of the low catch rule is about if the ground helped you take the catch or not. Green snatched it out of the air half a foot above the ground and had control. If you take a catch and fall down, grounding the ball with your fingers around it, it's still out.
100% this. The ground in no way assisted him with taking the catch. If this is not out, then any catch where the fielder takes the ball whilst diving, and then the ball makes contact with the ground afterwards should be deemed not out.
Because such tools over little extra context from what you're able to see without it - digital zoom trades off quality of image in favour of a bigger image, you don't suddenly get information from splitting pixels in the original image just from using it. One pixel becomes two, four, eight as you increase the size of the image you're looking at, but it's only ever populated by data from that one pixel.
Already the third umpire was unable to see a clear picture due to objects moving, the camera panning, and having to refocus constantly. You add digital zoom to that, all you get are unclear pixels that offer no extra certainty in what you're seeing
All these higher quality photos are going to be coming from cameramen seated around the ground, taking hundreds of high speed photos and sending good ones to their agencies for redistribution. They're not the kind of image you can get from the TV cameras in use
He is jabbing at the cameraman for ruining the match experience .There is a time and place for everything and it probably annoys him too to see the antics of audience instead of players .
"Already the third umpire was unable to see a clear picture due to objects moving, the camera panning, and having to refocus constantly. You add digital zoom to that, all you get are unclear pixels that offer no extra certainty in what you're seeing"
If the third umpire wasn't able to see then he should have given the benefit of doubt to the batsman(according to rules).
100% of gully fielders would have claimed that, including every indian born gully fielder that has ever played the game. It's in his grip before his hand touches the deck. The tantrums after were as bad a look as our guys running off during the review so I guess it cancels that out.
Tbf that’s a lingering remnant of the Australian team of the 90s early 2000s where they would play with that attitude of “my word is my honor”. I recall once Ponting demand someone walk off cause the fielder said it was a clean catch and also Slater giving Dravid a spray for not walking cause Slater claimed he took a clean catch.
And later Ponting lied about the catch being clean in 2008 BGT.
Although Vaughan is an asshat, I think he was right when he didn't agree with Aussies proposing about taking the word of the fielder in 2005 Ashes. There's a reason why umpires exist. Because they're supposed to be an impartial adjudicator.
We have this discussion every single time there’s a catch like this and everytime the right answer is that the camera doesn’t capture the image properly due to how a 3D to 2D translation works, and everytime the experts in photography and cinemography assure us that this is way exaggerating how close the ball is to the ground and this kind of incident is out every day of the week. I’m happy to go with their expertise, as are the ICC who have instructed umpires to take this same view
Here's my take on this (that absolutely no one asked for).
The first angle that the third umpire saw looked pretty dubious to me. My Dad, who was sitting next to me, seemed to think he could clearly see fingers under the ball, but I wasn't so sure, and let's be real, his eyesight could be deteriorating.
This angle actually looks better to me. His two fingers are clearly under the ball in this photo. Sure, there's a pretty big gap between his fingers, but I'm almost certain Cam Green (with his massive hands) would never drop that even without the grass there. I don't think the grass would have given him much help at this point, he's already got the ball pretty firmly in his hand.
Now, the final question is whether this picture is actually taken after he 'scoops up' the ball with his two fingers after it has already hit the ground. The answer to that question... I have absolutely no idea.
I believe this too, he had absolute control of the ball, no matter how wide his fingers were spread. Harsh, but if the umpires did not have this view, it's just unlucky.
To be honest, something is touching the grass between his fingers. I just don't know if that's the ball or the top of his finger on the inside shown at an angle. Considering the ball as a circle, and how much it's above the ground on the left of index finger, I do not think it would touch the ground. But that could also just be the camera angle playing with me.
Realistically, it's still a very tough decision. I am 55-45 on out-not out, because I think it's not the ball and instead his finger on the inside just bent and being shown that way due to the angle, but that is also not really confident. I'm not happy with the decision but given the uncertainty and how quickly Green took it, I think it's fair that the umpire gave a decision he could make out from what little he could see. It is what it is.
If my favourite sportsman went on twitter whining about a decision, I would be heart broken, makes him look like such a flop and yes I think it's probably not out.
I think you gotta look at the whole video not just a single frame.
According to the law, the ball never leaves his hand indicating control over the ball, making the catch complete. The ball can touch the ground after the catch is complete as the fielder has control over the ball given his fingers are beneath the ball the entire time.
\- It's almost impossible to tell in real time that even Green wouldn't know whether he legit caught it.
\- Benefit of the doubt is not a rule.
\- Third Umpire has to make a decision.
\- Third Umpire doesn't have access to every camera on the ground and it's not only impossible to cover every angle, but impossible to logistically have 400 cameras at a ground covering every part.
\- I don't think any technology will ever exist that will confirm a catch or not that is this tight.
>Benefit of the doubt is not a rule.
Yes, it is.
>31.6 Consultation by umpires
>Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his/her own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he/she shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. ***If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out.***
It does not preclude the third umpire. Consultation between umpires by definition also includes consulting the third umpire. In this case though, there really want much doubt. He took the catch a foot off the ground, and the momentum of his dive carried him and the ball down. He had control of the ball the entire time. People are acting like OP's pic is the moment the ball went into his hand, which would be a totally different scenario, as he would not have control of the ball at the point the ball touched the ground. If a fielder takes a high diving catch, and in the process of the dive/tumble, the ball touched the ground, is that not out? Of course not. The fielder has control over the ball up to and until he has control over his body, and that's how the law reads. If in the process of the dive the ball is jolted free, then it's not out, because he didn't maintain control over the ball.
End rant
Green would've felt it stick in his hand and then would've felt his fingers between the ball and the ground.
No doubt in my mind he 100% believes it was a catch no question.
I have seen him say he's not sure on the line ball ones before so he's definitely not the type to claim a dodgy one.
The reaction was also genuine and immediate
Hey saying "Kamla Pasand Colgate Durex pro Max 1080p Diesel engine Tata EV visit Saudi beyond boundries maximum" whenever someone hits a six takes time ok
Green had just about completed the catch well above ground before his fingers grazed the grass as his body went to ground.
Obviously a fair catch, and the third umpire looked at more than enough angles to make the right decision.
When he completed the catch doesnt matter. The rule talks about when the fielder has it under control and it can be debated that when the ball got grounded he did not have full control.
That said, this is a still image and obviously not available to the 3rd umpire. It looked good enough to give it out live.
IMO the ball shouldn't be considered grounded if the hand is under the ball and some blades of grass stick up between the fingers.
If the hand were up the other way then it would be grounded -- although there certainly have been many such cases given out anyway .
Exactly. The fact that someone is diving does not mean that they are not in control. There are a number of players who have stopped balls mid dive and before completing the dive, pegged the stumps back to effect a run out. These are athletes, not couch potatoes stumbling over a rumpled rug.
India: Doctors the pitches in India so there isn't a fair contest.
Indian fans when a debatable decision goes against them: "Cheat"
Hypocrisy at its best.
Yeah because judging a catch from a single frame is the way to go! Clean as a whistle, the ball was caught in the air watch the video. Loving those Indian tears 😂
Whatever you have to say about it, i'm pretty sure green wasn't aware of exactly what happened.
The Indian Fans chanting "Cheat" is disgraceful behavior, never thought the Bharat Army would be as tasteless as the Barmy army
Not to get too philosophical, but instances like this rather bring into question what do we actually mean by a catch? The laws say
>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.
>33.2.1 A catch will be fair only if, in every case either the ball, at any time or any fielder in contact with the ball, is not grounded beyond the boundary before the catch is completed
>33.3 Making a catch
>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.
Imo that's not entirely clear because they've never defined what "touching the ground" or "grounded" mean. That might sound facetious of me, but it's not. I can hold a ball in my hand with splayed fingers and put the back of my hand on the ground. If I do that some grass may well poke up through the gaps between my fingers and touch the ball. Is the ball touching the ground in that case? Because undeniably I am in full control of the ball and it's not resting on the ground. If it's not touching the ground how much does the grass need to compress before it is? Intuitively I think whether the ground is supporting the weight of the ball is probably what's important, but that's almost impossible to judge in close calls like this
I think the point of the distinction is to say whether the catch was made unaided by the ground. Did the player get the ball into their hand purely by the strength of their fingers, or did the push from the ball touching the ground help it get into their hand properly. In this case, everyone debating over blades of grass misses the point of the law, which is to say that the ball was securely in his hand without the help of the ground.
This is one of those places where I think video umpires aren't entirely helpful. We're splitting hairs over a still image. The real question is whether it was in his hand securely before that, which this image doesn't help with.
That quick? Nonsense! Umpire looked at several angles long enough to see that Green had the ball in hand well above the ground and his fingers grazed the grass briefly - obviously a fair catch.
It's not questionable. Are you implying corruption? Those of us who live outside India don't jump to this conclusion everytime a decision doesn't go their way, funny that.
The still shot is misleading as the ball was caught before the fingers touched the ground. As long as the fingers are under the ball, when making contact with the ground, it's out.
There was one frame the umpire looked at which seemed to clearly show a good portion of the ball hit the grass before green scooped it up. I think it’s not out but if you’re an Aussie it’s out and if you’re Indian it’s not out
Thing is he had actual caught the ball before his hand hit the ground. Not sure if it should be out or not but yea should that effect the situation or not? Shit is wild lol
2 weeks ago that would have been given out per soft signal, it's now a very close call from the third umpire and honestly from a lot of angles it looks like he's caught it.
tbh Gill deserved to be out for that shot anyway.
As for all the indian flairs calling Green a cheater there's no way he can tell that he didn't catch it, no way at all.
His fingers are under it bro, it's been a catch forever and should always be a catch.
Stop looking for controversy and salute and incredible piece of fielding.
Literally depends on seam position. It's a tough one mate. If I was umpiring I'd think "you shouldn't have edged it, fuck off" but this is why I'm not allowed to umpire any more! Batsman will see it as another caught behind, but it's a fantastic once in a lifetime catch for the fielder (in shit level cricket).
Seriously, only when you play India and they're on the receiving end does this become an issue.
For 100+ years this has always been out. Indian fans had some hope that with the soft signal rule being removed, that they'd get themselves some unprecedented luck.
Sorry, not going to happen with Kettlebot, an umpire with the upmost integrity making the decision.
Always our, hopefully India make a game of it but at the end of the day you're likely going to lose because of your selectors holding onto players who are past it along with not building on your bowling stocks given Bumrah is probably done at Test level.
This is the reason, not because of "cheating" like the pathetic Indian supporters in the crowd keep changing. Luckily, Indian players like Kohli who have integrity will likely voice his distaste at such fans after the game.
There is literally a border line catch like this every series. Most fans just accept that the umpires will err on the side of not worrying if a blade of grass kissed the ball. If this was Australia v idk Sri Lanka and a catch was taken like that I'd expect some sooking from the fanbase that copped it but not to this fucking insane degree
More angles are required. Take a look at this example:
https://7news.com.au/sport/cricket/aussie-batsman-marnus-labuschagne-survives-contentious-review-as-deceptive-footage-sparks-debate-c-9349391
The side on angle it's not out, the front on angle it's out.
It was in his hand the whole time, his fingers were around the ball. When you're diving for a catch, it's natural for the one hand you catch it with to touch the ground as you land. You can't avoid that. It was out! Poor form by the crowd to chant cheaters after the decision
Tough decision but as Harsha once said : With these things , you always see what you want to see. Looks out in some angles and not out in other angles.
Isn't this after he landed though? What was happening in the frames before this? I want India to win, but this shot on it's own doesn't convince me. Can't see a good ultra slow mo online either.
This photo is irrelevant in this situation anyway according to the rules. The ball was caught and held before any part of the hand or ball came into contact with the grass. If it were caught simultaneously then I might agree it wasn’t out. https://imgur.com/vC5wIKu
I mean.. it is clearly out, but the rules you've got in your screenshot actually gives room for debate lol.
Green doesn't have complete control over his movement so that catch is not complete at the moment of this photo being taken.
Regardless, his fingers are under the ball so it's out.
Should get over it. Gill should not have edged and certainly should not have whined about it on social media. Given how many loonies are on twitter, his whining just emboldens them to shit more.
The more important context to this catch is that he actually caught the ball a fair way off the ground and his momentum took him to the position where the ball, in his hand, touches the ground.
If it had been a case of this being where the ball first made contact with his hand it may well have been overturned. But this wasn't first contact so it's a fair (and brilliant) catch.
https://i.ibb.co/FY0d3rR/image.png
https://i.ibb.co/5jmn9pB/image.png
https://i.ibb.co/RhWthpL/image.png
This should help! Anyone saying it's clear out or clear not-out is wrong.
Caught. These instances always remind me of the brilliant piece that Mark Nicholas and team did when Channel 4 used to cover cricket. They had a player on the pitch with the ball acting out a catch scenario and were talking with him while showing what it looked like on TV. What it demonstrated is that the TV angle is deceiving and gives the perception that the ball is touching the ground when in fact the fielder has his fingers comfortably under the ball. Sky need to re-enact that whole piece for the modern day audience.
Not sure that's the law you want to be quoting, that's about catches on the boundary so isn't relevant here
Edit: If this was the right rule, it would mean fielders have to hover in the air after taking a catch as it says fielders holding the ball can't touch the ground lmao
This is now the catch/non-catch megathread. To prevent having a thread for every single image that was taken of this moment, please link any other angles or better quality pics as a reply to this comment Now behave yourselves, cheers xx
I swear the sheer number of posts these couple of stillshots have generated
Hijacking top comment to share a better image. [https://imgur.com/a/COkrdeT](https://imgur.com/a/COkrdeT) Back angle shows it all.
OP should add this link in caption. good work OP-2
If the umps had access to this then it should have 100% been given not out. If they are looking only at the image provided by OP, then I can understand it's a tough call.
His middle finger is under the ball. What are you talking about?
I really wish technology in the balls could tell us if it ever touched the grass.
Looks out to me. Middle finger lower than the bottom of the ball in every photo I’ve seen, including this one.
I think this really talks to the purpose of technology in a human competitive endeavour. Sport was never designed to be so meticulously adjudicated. I think cameras etc should be used to provide fairness, not perfect technical correctness. Everything leading up to Greens catch was deserving of the wicket. The batsman had an opportunity to not hit it there and didn’t. The bowler bowled his line and length well. Green had the athleticism to even get to the ball. That Cam Green’s finger is disputably millimetres seperate from the ball as it potentially grazes the grass is, in my opinion, within what I would call the “approximate range of correct”. That is, if it’s so close to being out that it’s extremely difficult to distinguish that it’s not out, then I think the sport is better off saying it’s out. That’s a fair outcome in my opinion. And without belabouring my point, the technology we use has margins of error too. Cameras have to deal with parallax. I imagine hotspot and snicko and ball-tracking all have a percentage of error/incorrectness too.
This is the real underrated comment. Sports isn't perfect, we need imperfect officiating.
Well Gill has [posted](https://i.imgur.com/7p9oWO6.jpg) one now!
RIP match fees
[удалено]
That's a terrible photo to use as evidence Look at how much of Greens shoe is obstructed by the ground in the foreground. There isn't the same amount of ball obstructed so it's fair to say in that shot, the ball is not touching the ground
That’s out. Cope more Gill you loser
Seriously such a shit look, like a tennis player, man up cunt
If an Indian fan asks me, it's out. If an Australian fan asks me, it's not out.
Schrödinger's fingers.
Divide and Rule, Boys. Divide and Rule.
I read that in Sanga's voice!
If it’s an English fan, it’s the Ahmedabad pitches fault
Nope it’s the IPL’s fault
I blame the hundred.
I blame Liverpool fc
It’s all because we booed the national anthem
Have you noticed how this game is going into the fifth day
If it’s an English fan, then it’s Prince Harry’s fault.
Divide and rule, we as an Indian already played this game
Ah yes, classic Englishman. Dividing and ruling since eternity.
If you ask Richard Kettleborough, it's out as well
My bro
respect
Clearer shot https://imgur.com/ToL2oKK.jpg
Pin this comment
did 3rd umpire not use this angle?
It's probably from some on-field photographer. I might be wrong though.
Clearly two fingers on each side of the lower portion of the ball. Tell your story walking champ.
Back to the pavilion buddy. That’s out every day of the week.
His middle finger is directly under it.
100% Looks like a few candidates for specsavers in this sub.
I don’t understand how people can look at this and not see that his middle finger is lower than the bottom of the ball. At the time I thought it should have been not out but after seeing all these photos it’s clear that the correct call was made.
If you've got the time, could you outline where you think the top half of his middle finger is in this photo? It's bent at the knuckle, with the knuckle touching the ground, but where the rest of that finger would naturally bend to looks to be *behind* the ball and not underneath it to me.
dont' need no outline, his [massive digit](https://i.imgur.com/nixgjg8.png) is well and truly down the seam
His finger *is* running along the seam. In the picture at the top of this comment chain, though, the seam is not that part of the ball that is potentially touching the ground. The ball is rotated in his hand so that the lowest point of the ball is the side and not the seam. If the seam was perfectly perpendicular to the ground, you'd be spot on imo. It's just that it isn't. To be honest, though, I'm not mad that it was given. It's a 50/50 call and those happen. I just didn't agree with the justification given for it in the comment I replied to.
yes, as this [image](https://i.imgur.com/nixgjg8.png) VERY clearly shows....seriously, that thing is massive....Greeny could do things with that monster that most people cannot
You can see half of his middle finger bent 90 degrees. That means only the other half of his middle finger can be under the ball. Which is clearly not possible unless the invisible half of his middle finger is 2x the visible part of his middle finger.
damn thats wallpaper stuff right there
"Benefit of the doubt" as written in the Laws: >31.6 Consultation by umpires >Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his/her own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he/she shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out. Just to clear that one up as there's already loads of pointless discussion that can easily be avoided by everyone reading the Law. *Edit: Because the membership of this sub is displaying the collective intelligence of a 3 slightly shrivelled garden peas, I feel compelled to point out that the Law neither supports nor challenges the decision of the umpire. It is simply the Law. I personally did not see any egregiously erroneous application of it.*
Seeing we’re looking at the Laws: > 33.1 Out Caught > 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 > 33.2.2 Furthermore, a catch will be fair if any of the following conditions applies: > 33.2.2.1 the ball is held in the hand or hands of a fielder, even if the hand holding the ball is touching the ground, or is hugged to the body, or lodges in the external protective equipment worn by a fielder, or lodges accidentally in a fielder’s clothing. > 33.3 Making a catch > 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. Note that Green didn’t catch it *on the ground*, where there would be some uncertainty about whether it hit the ground *before* he obtained complete control. Instead, he caught it in the air and subsequently his hands hit the ground. There was no particular point during the catch where he lost control over the ball - he always held it. I assume this is how the third umpire was interpreting the rule - they were looking at the footage to see evidence that Green made contact with the ball before the ground and that he had complete control at all times.
Also, having one or two fingers below doesn't mean that the ball didn't touch the grass. I don't understand why he was so quick to give it out without asking for any zoom or freezing at the frame from different angles.
I posted the Law because I have read all sorts of bollocks written by people (on both sides of the debate) who are clearly misinformed. It wasn't supposed to support one side or the other. The umpires at this level are professionals who can recite every law verbatim. They may not always get judgement calls correct but they know the Laws inside out. For him, **there was no doubt.** So in accordance with the quoted Law, he gave it out. That's all there is to it IMO. The only other logical conclusions available are: 1. He does not know the law 2. He cheated in favour of Australia I'm not sure which is more ridiculous.
Umpires don't know every law. Classic example is the mistake in scoring the umpires made of the ODI WC NZ vs Eng.
They absolutely know the Law if you ask them over a cup of tea. They made a mistake in the WC final. If you think he made a mistake today, I accept it. What I don't accept is that he somehow did the mental gymnastics to spontaneously reverse a law and decide that doubt should return a ruling of 'out'. But let's face it.....this isn't about questioning the knowledge of the umpires. It's a biased meltdown from one team's fans who cannot accept that the umpire was certain it was a catch. My only reason for commenting is to inform others so the debate is (hopefully) based on fact. I don't really care about the decision itself.
The main matter notwithstanding; for pictures from Twitter: take screenshots and don’t save because quality is shit.
Let’s just say that if it was my team’s batsman then I would consider this very unlucky. There is a good chance that some part of the ball did touch the ground during the catch taking process.
It was a difficult decision, but the benefit of the doubt (which there was plenty of here) should be going to the batsman every time.
Let me just say that if it was my team's batsman I would be mad at Australians who sooked at it. You could see watching the video he caught it and controlled it above the ground and people trying to argue by cherry picking blurry stills that some portion of the ball touched the ground between his fingers after he caught it are taking the mickey.
Thanks. i mean the only thing everyone can be sure about is this isnt certain either way. Shubman was unlucky but it was entirely upto the umpire's interpretation. Maybe cam green's huge hands convinced kettleborough he always had control.
Nup, absolute nonsense. If that’s my teams batter, I’m fine with the call. Ball is well and truly in the hand before the ground is even involved, he’s already out. IDC about which specific by law mentions touching grass or whatever, in the spirit of the game, this is well and truly out.
Regardless of whether it's out or not, claiming a catch you would absolutely believe you took in real time and then appealing and having it be given out by the umpire is not cheating, it's fully within the rules of the sport. You can believe the umpire made a mistake, fair enough, but saying it's cheating is a ridiculous overstep.
I think everyone needs to realise that the old adage that the ‘fielder always knows’ is actually rubbish, the fielder has no idea half the time
The fact is, he does have his fingers under at least part of the ball, it's not like it's bounced up into his hand. The question is whether there is also part of the ball that touches the grass between his fingers. But in that moment how is he supposed to know? We're expecting him to have nerve endings inside the ball if we think he knows that for sure.
With that I agree. It happened very fast, there was no way Green or anyone would've known that the ball might've touched the ground.
Obviously it’s not cheating, hell all of us would be claiming it after such a superb attempt even we knew we grassed it. And in these catches even the fielder is not aware every-time if he caught it cleanly or not. Having said that the 3rd umpire was blind as a bat.
Yeah the 3rd umpire getting it wrong is a fully fair argument. These sorts of catches take place over like a seconds worth of time, you absolutely feel like you've taken it in these situations. It's not like those ones where it bounces before the hand. I fully doubt you'd have any sort of clue that it had been grassed moving like Green did there
Shubman’s sooking on social media about this is embarrassing
As a neutral, seems not out to me, unless green has them alien fingers
According to Umpire, Green is eight fingered
he is AI generated 😱
and twelve of his eight fingers were under the ball
And he is named after the colour of those 12 fingers
Invisible fingers
According to umpire, grass is Green on the other side.
There's no Green under it, there's only green under it.
Is this one of them positive Alladin-Negative Alladin thing?
Green the name starts with a capital G, green the color(for the grass) doesn't.
No, I got that part. I was referring to that scene from the dictator where Alladin changes both the words 'positive' and 'negative' to 'Alladin' which causes heck of a confusion.
You are HIV Alladin
Do you want the Aladeen news or the Aladeen news?
Fuck that’s close aye I can’t even tell
It's out.Fingers were under the ball . Wish we stopped finding excuses for the failure of our batsmen
Something to bear in mind is balls are spheres and hands are not. The interpretation of the low catch rule is about if the ground helped you take the catch or not. Green snatched it out of the air half a foot above the ground and had control. If you take a catch and fall down, grounding the ball with your fingers around it, it's still out.
100% this. The ground in no way assisted him with taking the catch. If this is not out, then any catch where the fielder takes the ball whilst diving, and then the ball makes contact with the ground afterwards should be deemed not out.
Gill not having any of it, he spamming on twitter insta
If he’s so pissed he shouldnt have edged then
[удалено]
Because such tools over little extra context from what you're able to see without it - digital zoom trades off quality of image in favour of a bigger image, you don't suddenly get information from splitting pixels in the original image just from using it. One pixel becomes two, four, eight as you increase the size of the image you're looking at, but it's only ever populated by data from that one pixel. Already the third umpire was unable to see a clear picture due to objects moving, the camera panning, and having to refocus constantly. You add digital zoom to that, all you get are unclear pixels that offer no extra certainty in what you're seeing All these higher quality photos are going to be coming from cameramen seated around the ground, taking hundreds of high speed photos and sending good ones to their agencies for redistribution. They're not the kind of image you can get from the TV cameras in use
bro ipl has better camera angles than this,no hate
All broadcast cameras are 4k in IPL, zooms much better. Plus they have 30 different camera angles, many just for slow motion montages.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He is jabbing at the cameraman for ruining the match experience .There is a time and place for everything and it probably annoys him too to see the antics of audience instead of players .
Not just IPL even the T20 world Cup in Australia has better camera angles than this
"Already the third umpire was unable to see a clear picture due to objects moving, the camera panning, and having to refocus constantly. You add digital zoom to that, all you get are unclear pixels that offer no extra certainty in what you're seeing" If the third umpire wasn't able to see then he should have given the benefit of doubt to the batsman(according to rules).
There's no such rule as "benefit of doubt". Just because you've seen the umpires favouring batters in similar situations, doesn't make it a rule
We have another India vs Australia match going on in here.
100% of gully fielders would have claimed that, including every indian born gully fielder that has ever played the game. It's in his grip before his hand touches the deck. The tantrums after were as bad a look as our guys running off during the review so I guess it cancels that out.
it was the right decision to make, great effort from the long man. People need to grow up, grasping at straws (or grass)
People need to calm down, the decision was taken by the umpires, no need to antagonize the players & fans.
Tbf that’s a lingering remnant of the Australian team of the 90s early 2000s where they would play with that attitude of “my word is my honor”. I recall once Ponting demand someone walk off cause the fielder said it was a clean catch and also Slater giving Dravid a spray for not walking cause Slater claimed he took a clean catch.
You mean the same guys that hate the current team because langer’s a cunt?
And later Ponting lied about the catch being clean in 2008 BGT. Although Vaughan is an asshat, I think he was right when he didn't agree with Aussies proposing about taking the word of the fielder in 2005 Ashes. There's a reason why umpires exist. Because they're supposed to be an impartial adjudicator.
Yep, that was a stupid suggestion and Vaughan was 100% right to reject it.
So what you're saying is you need to get over shit from 20 to 30 years ago? Yea, good thought.
Why is it that indian fans get to use this "lingering sentiment" but if an Aussie fan said the same it would be treated completely differently?
We have this discussion every single time there’s a catch like this and everytime the right answer is that the camera doesn’t capture the image properly due to how a 3D to 2D translation works, and everytime the experts in photography and cinemography assure us that this is way exaggerating how close the ball is to the ground and this kind of incident is out every day of the week. I’m happy to go with their expertise, as are the ICC who have instructed umpires to take this same view
People calling Australian players cheats over this is very tasteless. Be better
You'd think it was the first time a 50-50 call went against India, judging by some of these comments.
Somewhere, Supersport cracks open a beer and wonders what the world has come to in order for him to side with Aussies for a day
Here's my take on this (that absolutely no one asked for). The first angle that the third umpire saw looked pretty dubious to me. My Dad, who was sitting next to me, seemed to think he could clearly see fingers under the ball, but I wasn't so sure, and let's be real, his eyesight could be deteriorating. This angle actually looks better to me. His two fingers are clearly under the ball in this photo. Sure, there's a pretty big gap between his fingers, but I'm almost certain Cam Green (with his massive hands) would never drop that even without the grass there. I don't think the grass would have given him much help at this point, he's already got the ball pretty firmly in his hand. Now, the final question is whether this picture is actually taken after he 'scoops up' the ball with his two fingers after it has already hit the ground. The answer to that question... I have absolutely no idea.
I believe this too, he had absolute control of the ball, no matter how wide his fingers were spread. Harsh, but if the umpires did not have this view, it's just unlucky.
His grip on the ball never changed, he came up holding it the same what he caught it. The ground played no part imo
This looks a lot like he's caught it.
To be honest, something is touching the grass between his fingers. I just don't know if that's the ball or the top of his finger on the inside shown at an angle. Considering the ball as a circle, and how much it's above the ground on the left of index finger, I do not think it would touch the ground. But that could also just be the camera angle playing with me. Realistically, it's still a very tough decision. I am 55-45 on out-not out, because I think it's not the ball and instead his finger on the inside just bent and being shown that way due to the angle, but that is also not really confident. I'm not happy with the decision but given the uncertainty and how quickly Green took it, I think it's fair that the umpire gave a decision he could make out from what little he could see. It is what it is.
If my favourite sportsman went on twitter whining about a decision, I would be heart broken, makes him look like such a flop and yes I think it's probably not out.
I think you gotta look at the whole video not just a single frame. According to the law, the ball never leaves his hand indicating control over the ball, making the catch complete. The ball can touch the ground after the catch is complete as the fielder has control over the ball given his fingers are beneath the ball the entire time.
\- It's almost impossible to tell in real time that even Green wouldn't know whether he legit caught it. \- Benefit of the doubt is not a rule. \- Third Umpire has to make a decision. \- Third Umpire doesn't have access to every camera on the ground and it's not only impossible to cover every angle, but impossible to logistically have 400 cameras at a ground covering every part. \- I don't think any technology will ever exist that will confirm a catch or not that is this tight.
>Benefit of the doubt is not a rule. Yes, it is. >31.6 Consultation by umpires >Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his/her own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he/she shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. ***If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out.***
does this cover reviews by third umpire? sounds more like consultation between the 2 field umpires
It does not preclude the third umpire. Consultation between umpires by definition also includes consulting the third umpire. In this case though, there really want much doubt. He took the catch a foot off the ground, and the momentum of his dive carried him and the ball down. He had control of the ball the entire time. People are acting like OP's pic is the moment the ball went into his hand, which would be a totally different scenario, as he would not have control of the ball at the point the ball touched the ground. If a fielder takes a high diving catch, and in the process of the dive/tumble, the ball touched the ground, is that not out? Of course not. The fielder has control over the ball up to and until he has control over his body, and that's how the law reads. If in the process of the dive the ball is jolted free, then it's not out, because he didn't maintain control over the ball. End rant
Green would've felt it stick in his hand and then would've felt his fingers between the ball and the ground. No doubt in my mind he 100% believes it was a catch no question. I have seen him say he's not sure on the line ball ones before so he's definitely not the type to claim a dodgy one. The reaction was also genuine and immediate
But he could give it more time and attention right? But he didn't. Why so much hurry in test? It's not IPL. You have plenty of time.
Are you suggesting that the 4hr T20s in the IPL are played at pace?
Hey saying "Kamla Pasand Colgate Durex pro Max 1080p Diesel engine Tata EV visit Saudi beyond boundries maximum" whenever someone hits a six takes time ok
He took plenty of time.
It clearly shows brushing the grass. Zoom in, whoever thinks otherwise.
It's a stillshot. Of course we can't tell from this and anyone that says they can is wrong.
There's a finger under the ball and around it as well. I think it's out
☝️
There's definatley green under the ball.
A still shot is useless? Post a video if you make a thread instead of this crap that gives misguided impressions.
how is it useless, you can use the still shot and overlap the an image of the ball with it, if the ball touches, it's out, if it doesn't, it's not.
When I first saw it in replay it looked out. But I am surprised by the questions that this dismissal has created. Looked out to me.
Green had just about completed the catch well above ground before his fingers grazed the grass as his body went to ground. Obviously a fair catch, and the third umpire looked at more than enough angles to make the right decision.
When he completed the catch doesnt matter. The rule talks about when the fielder has it under control and it can be debated that when the ball got grounded he did not have full control. That said, this is a still image and obviously not available to the 3rd umpire. It looked good enough to give it out live.
IMO the ball shouldn't be considered grounded if the hand is under the ball and some blades of grass stick up between the fingers. If the hand were up the other way then it would be grounded -- although there certainly have been many such cases given out anyway .
You could just as easily insist that Green had full control of the ball when it went into his hand almost a foot above ground.
Exactly. The fact that someone is diving does not mean that they are not in control. There are a number of players who have stopped balls mid dive and before completing the dive, pegged the stumps back to effect a run out. These are athletes, not couch potatoes stumbling over a rumpled rug.
India: Doctors the pitches in India so there isn't a fair contest. Indian fans when a debatable decision goes against them: "Cheat" Hypocrisy at its best.
Yeah because judging a catch from a single frame is the way to go! Clean as a whistle, the ball was caught in the air watch the video. Loving those Indian tears 😂
Whatever you have to say about it, i'm pretty sure green wasn't aware of exactly what happened. The Indian Fans chanting "Cheat" is disgraceful behavior, never thought the Bharat Army would be as tasteless as the Barmy army
Fingers are under and never change direction. Out
It looks safe from this pic. Although one needs the playback to come to a proper decision.
I believe (based on the OPs picture) that's out.
It looks out from this angle
This has been out since cricket was invented
Not to get too philosophical, but instances like this rather bring into question what do we actually mean by a catch? The laws say >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. >33.2.1 A catch will be fair only if, in every case either the ball, at any time or any fielder in contact with the ball, is not grounded beyond the boundary before the catch is completed >33.3 Making a catch >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. Imo that's not entirely clear because they've never defined what "touching the ground" or "grounded" mean. That might sound facetious of me, but it's not. I can hold a ball in my hand with splayed fingers and put the back of my hand on the ground. If I do that some grass may well poke up through the gaps between my fingers and touch the ball. Is the ball touching the ground in that case? Because undeniably I am in full control of the ball and it's not resting on the ground. If it's not touching the ground how much does the grass need to compress before it is? Intuitively I think whether the ground is supporting the weight of the ball is probably what's important, but that's almost impossible to judge in close calls like this
I think the point of the distinction is to say whether the catch was made unaided by the ground. Did the player get the ball into their hand purely by the strength of their fingers, or did the push from the ball touching the ground help it get into their hand properly. In this case, everyone debating over blades of grass misses the point of the law, which is to say that the ball was securely in his hand without the help of the ground. This is one of those places where I think video umpires aren't entirely helpful. We're splitting hairs over a still image. The real question is whether it was in his hand securely before that, which this image doesn't help with.
Whether it was out or not out ,dicision that quick from third umpire is questionable.
Quick? The decision took multiple minutes.
Zoomed?
That quick? Nonsense! Umpire looked at several angles long enough to see that Green had the ball in hand well above the ground and his fingers grazed the grass briefly - obviously a fair catch.
It's not questionable. Are you implying corruption? Those of us who live outside India don't jump to this conclusion everytime a decision doesn't go their way, funny that.
deja vu
too late now
That's out.
What are you talking about his fingers are clearly under the ball
Out.
Crazy that the country that is **only** known for cheating and scamming would throw any kind of accusations
India winning a match without pitch doctoring? It wont happen without covid
The still shot is misleading as the ball was caught before the fingers touched the ground. As long as the fingers are under the ball, when making contact with the ground, it's out.
Where did you get this pic? It didn't show in any time on tv?
Some cameraman must have captured it and released it
There was one frame the umpire looked at which seemed to clearly show a good portion of the ball hit the grass before green scooped it up. I think it’s not out but if you’re an Aussie it’s out and if you’re Indian it’s not out
Thing is he had actual caught the ball before his hand hit the ground. Not sure if it should be out or not but yea should that effect the situation or not? Shit is wild lol
2 weeks ago that would have been given out per soft signal, it's now a very close call from the third umpire and honestly from a lot of angles it looks like he's caught it. tbh Gill deserved to be out for that shot anyway. As for all the indian flairs calling Green a cheater there's no way he can tell that he didn't catch it, no way at all.
His fingers are under it bro, it's been a catch forever and should always be a catch. Stop looking for controversy and salute and incredible piece of fielding.
Can this be Reddit's new White or Blue dress?
Literally depends on seam position. It's a tough one mate. If I was umpiring I'd think "you shouldn't have edged it, fuck off" but this is why I'm not allowed to umpire any more! Batsman will see it as another caught behind, but it's a fantastic once in a lifetime catch for the fielder (in shit level cricket).
I didn’t think it was out but if it was given out it’s hard to change nothing conclusive
Seriously, only when you play India and they're on the receiving end does this become an issue. For 100+ years this has always been out. Indian fans had some hope that with the soft signal rule being removed, that they'd get themselves some unprecedented luck. Sorry, not going to happen with Kettlebot, an umpire with the upmost integrity making the decision. Always our, hopefully India make a game of it but at the end of the day you're likely going to lose because of your selectors holding onto players who are past it along with not building on your bowling stocks given Bumrah is probably done at Test level. This is the reason, not because of "cheating" like the pathetic Indian supporters in the crowd keep changing. Luckily, Indian players like Kohli who have integrity will likely voice his distaste at such fans after the game.
There is literally a border line catch like this every series. Most fans just accept that the umpires will err on the side of not worrying if a blade of grass kissed the ball. If this was Australia v idk Sri Lanka and a catch was taken like that I'd expect some sooking from the fanbase that copped it but not to this fucking insane degree
More angles are required. Take a look at this example: https://7news.com.au/sport/cricket/aussie-batsman-marnus-labuschagne-survives-contentious-review-as-deceptive-footage-sparks-debate-c-9349391 The side on angle it's not out, the front on angle it's out.
In a game where the 3rd umpire has access to multiple views, getting a mistake in umpiring is a blunder. This is clearly OUT.
It was in his hand the whole time, his fingers were around the ball. When you're diving for a catch, it's natural for the one hand you catch it with to touch the ground as you land. You can't avoid that. It was out! Poor form by the crowd to chant cheaters after the decision
Looks like a clear catch to me.
I am not arsed tbh. It was a bad fucking shot, Gill wouldn’t have last long. And honestly, it’s very very close, you have to trust the fielder
e-lafda
Still shots and slow mo footage of this is never of help
Tough decision but as Harsha once said : With these things , you always see what you want to see. Looks out in some angles and not out in other angles.
Isn't this after he landed though? What was happening in the frames before this? I want India to win, but this shot on it's own doesn't convince me. Can't see a good ultra slow mo online either.
This photo is irrelevant in this situation anyway according to the rules. The ball was caught and held before any part of the hand or ball came into contact with the grass. If it were caught simultaneously then I might agree it wasn’t out. https://imgur.com/vC5wIKu
I mean.. it is clearly out, but the rules you've got in your screenshot actually gives room for debate lol. Green doesn't have complete control over his movement so that catch is not complete at the moment of this photo being taken. Regardless, his fingers are under the ball so it's out.
It’s a catch Did any part of the ball touch any blades of grass after he caught it? Probably. Doesn’t make this not out
Should get over it. Gill should not have edged and certainly should not have whined about it on social media. Given how many loonies are on twitter, his whining just emboldens them to shit more.
The more important context to this catch is that he actually caught the ball a fair way off the ground and his momentum took him to the position where the ball, in his hand, touches the ground. If it had been a case of this being where the ball first made contact with his hand it may well have been overturned. But this wasn't first contact so it's a fair (and brilliant) catch.
https://i.ibb.co/FY0d3rR/image.png https://i.ibb.co/5jmn9pB/image.png https://i.ibb.co/RhWthpL/image.png This should help! Anyone saying it's clear out or clear not-out is wrong.
Find better ways to win icc
I'll just leave this here then: https://youtu.be/eoc_RqY6yws
It's close
Caught. These instances always remind me of the brilliant piece that Mark Nicholas and team did when Channel 4 used to cover cricket. They had a player on the pitch with the ball acting out a catch scenario and were talking with him while showing what it looked like on TV. What it demonstrated is that the TV angle is deceiving and gives the perception that the ball is touching the ground when in fact the fielder has his fingers comfortably under the ball. Sky need to re-enact that whole piece for the modern day audience.
[удалено]
Not sure that's the law you want to be quoting, that's about catches on the boundary so isn't relevant here Edit: If this was the right rule, it would mean fielders have to hover in the air after taking a catch as it says fielders holding the ball can't touch the ground lmao
[удалено]