Was Subhman Gill's catch was clean?

[Adamant]

35 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Fingers under the ball doesn't mean anything in this case

You are right, its a clear not out as far as rules are concerned.
Maybe some posters have written their own laws of cricket so uska to kuch nahi kar sakte

[BacktoCricaddict]

47 minutes ago, Adamant said:

The above law should clear any suspicions, it's a clear not out.
Not surprised by the low iq peeps here saying that a catch can be considered right even if ball touches the ground.
Making their own cricket rules ,lol. Matlab no need of any source or law bas jo aaye man mai bol do. 

It is laughable that the law actually says "usually."  Nice way to cop out for the umpires.

[BacktoCricaddict]

It is a legal catch in the PontingLangerSmith dimension.

[zen]

46 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

It is a legal catch in the PontingLangerSmith dimension.

 

Should be irrespective of which team took the catch unless the fingers were beside the ball (in that case a large part of the ball would be touching the ground). The ground can consist of grass (or debris), which can stick out and touch the ball. 

 

If you look at WK's gloves, there is a lot of webbing b/w the thumb and the index finger. It is out if the ball is caught b/w the thumb and the index finger even if the gloves touched the ground (if it were not out, that webbing should not be allowed):

 

 

 

 

Cricket laws will "usually" only point at the basics such as if the ball is grounded, it is not out. This, in general, implies that if the ball touches the ground before going into the hand (or fingers), it is not out. 

 

However, when we talk about fingers under the ball, some (not most) parts of the ball can touch the ground (which can include grass or some debris that can touch a ball through the fingers). There can be multiple scenarios in the grey area which require the umpire's discretion. 

 

As long as fingers are underneath (with some parts, not most parts, touching the ground) and the fielder is able to pick up the ball cleanly (displaying control), it is out in a "practical" scenario (it is not grounded). 

 

PS In a case where the fingers are only partially under the ball and where a large part of the ball touches the ground, it is not out (the fielder is not in control). If the fingers are beside the ball, it would imply that a large part of the ball (or basically the ball) touched the ground, and it would "usually" be not out (unless it is interpreted that the ball was in the air when the fielder caught it for a sufficient amount of time before it touched the ground). 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by zen

[asterix]

Those two raciest umpires look extremely trigger happy when India bats. When Aussies were batting they’re not giving any marginal decisions in favour of India.

 

in the ground, they didn’t showed any back angle replays when the umpires were reviewing. 
 

However, Gill doesn’t has any temperament to stay on the crease. The pitch is not that bad. The IPL money in his bank made him complacent.

[goose]

Where does the ground start? The ground is a collection of blades of grass of unequal height, if the fingers are shown to be underneath the ball the convention is that it is out. right decision. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

2 hours ago, zen said:

 

Should be irrespective of which team took the catch unless the fingers were beside the ball (in that case a large part of the ball would be touching the ground). The ground can consist of grass (or debris), which can stick out and touch the ball. 

 

If you look at WK's gloves, there is a lot of webbing b/w the thumb and the index finger. It is out if the ball is caught b/w the thumb and the index finger even if the gloves touched the ground (if it were not out, that webbing should not be allowed):

 

 

 

 

Cricket laws will "usually" only point at the basics such as if the ball is grounded, it is not out. This, in general, implies that if the ball touches the ground before going into the hand (or fingers), it is not out. 

 

However, when we talk about fingers under the ball, some (not most) parts of the ball can touch the ground (which can include grass or some debris that can touch a ball through the fingers). There can be multiple scenarios in the grey area which require the umpire's discretion. 

 

As long as fingers are underneath (with some parts, not most parts, touching the ground) and the fielder is able to pick up the ball cleanly (displaying control), it is out in a "practical" scenario (it is not grounded). 

 

PS In a case where the fingers are only partially under the ball and where a large part of the ball touches the ground, it is not out (the fielder is not in control). If the fingers are beside the ball, it would imply that a large part of the ball (or basically the ball) touched the ground, and it would "usually" be not out (unless it is interpreted that the ball was in the air when the fielder caught it for a sufficient amount of time before it touched the ground). 

 

 

To my credit, I'd be saying the same thing if Pujara took the catch off an Ozzie edge - that India got lucky.

 

Absolutely marvelous effort, commitment and athleticism from Cameron Green.  But it was clear that he did not really catch it in the air, rather his fingers went underneath the ball as it hit the grass.

[zen]

9 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

To my credit, I'd be saying the same thing if Pujara took the catch off an Ozzie edge - that India got lucky.

 

Absolutely marvelous effort, commitment and athleticism from Cameron Green.  But it was clear that he did not really catch it in the air, rather his fingers went underneath the ball as it hit the grass.

 

Are you saying it was a bump ball? A bump ball is where the ball touches the ground first before going into the hand. 

 

If the fingers are underneath the ball (not a bump ball) and if some part of the ball touched the "ground" (which has its dimensions including grass and debris), it is considered "practically" out.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by zen

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, asterix said:

Those two raciest umpires look extremely trigger happy when India bats. When Aussies were batting they’re not giving any marginal decisions in favour of India.

 

in the ground, they didn’t showed any back angle replays when the umpires were reviewing. 
 

However, Gill doesn’t has any temperament to stay on the crease. The pitch is not that bad. The IPL money in his bank made him complacent.

correct, the IPL bucks and glamour got to him.

[jalebi_bhai]

It is out as per protocol. The only way Gill could've been saved is if the umpire deemed that Green was not in control of the ball. There was no evidence to prove otherwise. He plucked the ball in the air itself and managed to wrap enough of the ball.

 

The law states that the ball can touch the ground if the fielder is in complete control. Umpire deemed it so. At no point did the ball completely pop out of Green's hand.

 

Marginal, but unfortunately for us, technically the right call.

[BacktoCricaddict]

30 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Are you saying it was a bump ball? A bump ball is where the ball touches the ground first before going into the hand. 

 

If the fingers are underneath the ball (not a bump ball) and if some part of the ball touched the "ground" (which has its dimensions including grass and debris), it is considered "practically" out.

 

 

I am saying it hit his hands first, but as he was trying to scoop it up, it touched the grass before he controlled it and could bring it up. If he had more fingers underneath and did not let leather meet grass, it would be a catch.  

[goose]

Check Gill’s latest tweet, what a massive dick

[vvvslaxman]

1 hour ago, jalebi_bhai said:

It is out as per protocol. The only way Gill could've been saved is if the umpire deemed that Green was not in control of the ball. There was no evidence to prove otherwise. He plucked the ball in the air itself and managed to wrap enough of the ball.

 

The law states that the ball can touch the ground if the fielder is in complete control. Umpire deemed it so. At no point did the ball completely pop out of Green's hand.

 

Marginal, but unfortunately for us, technically the right call.

 

i think they have to re-write the definition of a clean catch. Finger underneath is loose. If it touches the grass in between fingers it shouldn't be out. Only way you can make that conclusive is your fingers should not touch the ground when you hold the ball. We declare boundary when you touch the ball on the boundary while your other part of the body touches the rope. That is fairly definite way of judging.  They have to have something like this. This "underneath" the ball is sketchy at best because cameras are never going to be sharp enough to catch that.

[zen]

31 minutes ago, goose said:

Check Gill’s latest tweet, what a massive dick

 

He is ok to tweet (as if it is going to change anything) but he should post a better picture (if available):

 

 

 

In the picture, the ground appears wavy. A part of Green's shoes is hidden under the wave.  A "wave" (rather than the actual ground) appears to touch the ball (when the ball appears above the ground at its level with Green probably in an upward motion). 

 

This picture is dumb. Gill should know better. 

 

 

PS This is one of the reasons I don't go by multiple angles (and stuff on social media) as with some angles the reality can be distorted (we have seen that with Sniko too where at an inappropriate angle one can show whether the ball was close to the bat or even not). 

Edited June 10, 2023 by zen

[goose]

10 minutes ago, zen said:

 

He is ok to tweet (as if it is going to change anything) but he should post a better picture (if available):

 

 

 

In the picture, the ground appears wavy. A part of Green's shoes is hidden under the wave.  A "wave" (rather than the actual ground) appears to touch the ball (when the ball appears above the ground at its level with Green probably in an upward motion). 

 

This picture is dumb. Gill should know better. 

 

 

PS This is one of the reasons I don't go by multiple angles (and stuff on social media) as with some angles the reality can be distorted (we have seen that with Sniko too where at an inappropriate angle one can show whether the ball was close to the bat or even not). 

it’s during the match and is dissent towards the umpire - I’d like to see the  match ref have a word

[zen]

9 minutes ago, goose said:

it’s during the match and is dissent towards the umpire - I’d like to see the  match ref have a word

 

Yeah, that is an issue too. 

[Trichromatic]

2 hours ago, goose said:

it’s during the match and is dissent towards the umpire - I’d like to see the  match ref have a word

There is no way to prove that it's dissent.

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, Trichromatic said:

There is no way to prove that it's dissent.

it is out there for everyone to see, even if no words were used explicitly.

[vvvslaxman]

Didn't watch it live or video. But i saw this image. This doesn't look right. This appears to be picking the ball rather than grabbing it.  When in doubt should have been ruled in favor of batsman. This doesn't suggest Green is in control of the ball. The gap between those fingers won't be that far apart if your fingers are actually under the ball. It  seems only one finger is under. 

 

 

[rkt.india]

5 hours ago, goose said:

Check Gill’s latest tweet, what a massive dick

Nothing wrong in that. It was clear not out. Ball touching grass is not. There is a term called grassed used for such catches. Green had grassed it.