Jump to content

SKYs Catch


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

There's some grass being displaced just before he throws the ball in the air, but again zero movement of the "boundary" & at that momentum it's nearly impossible for it to move 0.1mm to deceive the human eye.

there's no conclusive evidence. no visible deflection. benefit of doubt always goes to fielder. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, MK55 said:

Well I’m pretty sure it’s a clean catch.

 

AND even if there was a scenario he had touched the rope hypothetically, I wouldn’t GAF. That’s life lol. 

 

 

South Africa only have themselves to blame. how do you not get 30 in 30?

Link to comment

There is no controversy whatsoever here. Its a clean catch. This is how all umpiring decisions regarding such catches have been made. If there is no evidence to suggest that the fielder's foot or any part of the body touched the boundary at the same time as they were in contact with the ball, then it is deemed as a fair catch.

 

This is how they have always ruled in all such catches and we have seen countless such catches in World cricket in the last few years.

 

Why should the umpires do something different in a World Cup final? :hmmm:

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Laaloo said:

fpp9c7q.png

 

I still think it was a six as the boundary moved a little. Wish this would have been called a six and then we would still eventually end up winning. Takes some shine off. The 3rd umpire also only saw two replays and made his decision. Meanwhile we have seen in meaningless games, where they go through 10 replays to make a decision. Not sure why he was in so hurry in a crucial game.

 

https://www.wisden.com/series/icc-mens-t20-world-cup-2024/cricket-news/doubts-raised-over-crucial-suryakumar-yadav-catch-due-to-displaced-rope-and-slo-mo-replay

What kind of brainfart comment is this?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, FischerTal said:

South Africa only have themselves to blame. how do you not get 30 in 30?

To be honest, we were ahead till those two overs by Kulli and Axar. 

Theye lost because South Africa were conservative as there was no one after Miller, add some elite bowling from India. It's mostly justified. Also, Maharaj and Jansen faced 11 bowls, makes massive difference. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Chakdephatte said:

To be honest, we were ahead till those two overs by Kulli and Axar. 

Theye lost because South Africa were conservative as there was no one after Miller, add some elite bowling from India. It's mostly justified. Also, Maharaj and Jansen faced 11 bowls, makes massive difference. 

Yep.  SA always have had this problem of a long tail.   It was evident from Rohit's body language (he didn't panic at all) that he had the game awareness when SA needed 30 from 30 with 6 wickets left.  All Team Ind needed to do was pick up 1 wicket & get a few dot balls. SA would collapse.  This is exactly what happened.  Full credit to Bumrah Pandya Arshdeep here.  Also credit to Rohit for exhibiting the self belief that we could still win from that position.  

Link to comment

There is enough evidence to show that was a clean catch. OP is showing snapshots from an angle that ofcourse will create parallax illusion to strengthen the argument that feet touched the rope which has not happened in actual.

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Laaloo said:

fpp9c7q.png

 

I still think it was a six as the boundary moved a little. Wish this would have been called a six and then we would still eventually end up winning. Takes some shine off. The 3rd umpire also only saw two replays and made his decision. Meanwhile we have seen in meaningless games, where they go through 10 replays to make a decision. Not sure why he was in so hurry in a crucial game.

 

https://www.wisden.com/series/icc-mens-t20-world-cup-2024/cricket-news/doubts-raised-over-crucial-suryakumar-yadav-catch-due-to-displaced-rope-and-slo-mo-replay

 

Why don't you migrate to paxtan and get on their tv shows? It doesn't take shine off of our win as you're being fed an illusion. There's no conclusive evidence to show that there is a movement in the toblerone no matter how much wisden doubts it. wisden is in the same boat as the telegraph article that claimed unfair favoritism to Indian scheduling. the ump made the right call so don't throw water on our euphoric moment. your post is a blight on waking up to a beautiful sunday morning with a cup of coffee on hand.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

 

Why don't you migrate to paxtan and get on their tv shows? It doesn't take shine off of our win as you're being fed an illusion. There's no conclusive evidence to show that there is a movement in the toblerone no matter how much wisden doubts it. wisden is in the same boat as the telegraph article that claimed unfair favoritism to Indian scheduling. the ump made the right call so don't throw water on our euphoric moment. your post is a blight on waking up to a beautiful sunday morning with a cup of coffee on hand.

Not a single TV channel or even pak conspiracy theorists raised this as an issue. Few South africans shared it. But some south africans admitted it was a  fair catch.

Link to comment

bhai..if this is not a clean catch..then every catch where 3rd umpires says fingers under the ball..are never clean for me..they are not out too..just enjoy the moment it was a senasational catch under immense pressure..

Link to comment

There is no universe in which this is not a catch. 
 

That being said, the 3rd umpire’s quick decision and the fact that SA lost from 30 needed of 30 with only 2 Bumrah over (that means 30 off 18 on non Bumrah overs) is a little….

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Not a single TV channel or even pak conspiracy theorists raised this as an issue. Few South africans shared it. But some south africans admitted it was a  fair catch.

 

This is a situation of analysis paralysis with too much camera action going on. In certain situations like when the fielder has all his fingers under the ball and claiming a low catch, the replays show that the ball is touching the ground. But in most cases, its given out unless the ball is not under the possession of the fielder. But to the viewer, it may appear dodgy. Its the case of a 3D visuals (like a match) shown in 2D screens giving the illusion that its dodgy.

Link to comment

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...