Jump to content

Was Subhman Gill's catch was clean?


Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, Austin 3:!6 said:

Looks like the ball was grassed. Benefit of doubt should have been given to batsman. Unlucky Gill?

not really unlucky. he flashes at most balls outside off, so would have gotten out soon enough.

Posted

I'm afraid everyone's going to focus on this decision and blame the third umpire for our inevitable defeat while all the leaches in the team management go away scot free. Rohit should immediately double Green's MI contract for saving his sorry arse..

 

There was nothing wrong with the catch. He had full control on the ball all the way through.

Posted
Just now, Norman said:

I'm afraid everyone's going to focus on this decision and blame the third umpire for our inevitable defeat while all the leaches in the team management go away scot free. Rohit should immediately double Green's MI contract for saving his sorry arse..

 

There was nothing wrong with the catch. He had full control on the ball all the way through.

yes, they will use this noise as distraction

Posted
Just now, Vijy said:

was bound to nick one outside off soon enough. he was the one who went flashing at that ball. hard hands, no footwork, no decision making, etc

He always played like that. No footwork depending on youthful reflexes and hand-eye coordination 

Posted
Just now, coffee_rules said:

He always played like that. No footwork depending on youthful reflexes and hand-eye coordination 

yes, exactly. should play in MO, and ideally not in test team at all.

 

Everyone knows I have been plenty critical of Brat over the years, but he was scoring much more than Gill by this time of his test career despite, IMO, not having as much "talent" (however one defines it) as Gill at the same age

Posted (edited)

Too much ambiguity in the current rules, gets subjective based on the umpire's interpretation.  They need to change the rules to  if any part of the ball touches the ground, it's not out.

Edited by vice
Posted
52 minutes ago, Vijy said:

yes, exactly. should play in MO, and ideally not in test team at all.

 

Everyone knows I have been plenty critical of Brat over the years, but he was scoring much more than Gill by this time of his test career despite, IMO, not having as much "talent" (however one defines it) as Gill at the same age

 

huh? Kohli only debuted at this age in Tests

Posted
43 minutes ago, zen said:

As long as fingers are underneath the ball (some part of the ball can touch the turf b/w the fingers), it is out. 

is that in rulebooks?

Posted
17 minutes ago, Lord said:

is that in rulebooks?

 

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. 

Posted
Just now, kosingh said:

 

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. 

nothing there says ball can touch the ground between the fingers

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...