Doubt regarding legitimacy of catch

[Precambrian]

Please watch the below video [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUbdo_dSzjY&feature=relmfu]Steve Waugh handles the ball like a bar of soap - *Unique Catch* on the 5th attempt!! - YouTube[/ame] WUbdo_dSzjY A juggling catch by Steve Waugh.. but in the 4th attempt when he pushes the ball up, it hits his cap... would'nt that make it illegal?

[Pagalpanti]

I don't think it touched the cap at all.

[panesarv]

who cares...

[Blackout_]

It's still attached to his head, I don't believe there is an issue unless it wasn't on his person. The cap is just piece of clothing in that instance.

[saket123]

Please watch the below video A juggling catch by Steve Waugh.. but in the 4th attempt when he pushes the ball up, it hits his cap... would'nt that make it illegal?

The law only applies when a cap or hat is used "willfully" in helping with the catch. In this case.. definitely not so.. hence it is perfectly legal.

[Robelinda]

[ame=

CATCH EVER? Mark Taylor takes a crazy catch off Michael Bevan's bowling... - YouTube[/ame]

[CSK Fan]

The law only applies when a cap or hat is used "willfully" in helping with the catch. In this case.. definitely not so.. hence it is perfectly legal.

Not so (at least with helmets). In a recent test match, a ball hit the helmet of a close in fielder and went to the keeper. It was not out eve though it was not wilfuly used. dont know if its different with caps

[saket123]

Not so (at least with helmets). In a recent test match' date=' a ball hit the helmet of a close in fielder and went to the keeper. It was not out eve though it was not wilfuly used. dont know if its different with caps[/quote'] The difference could be that in your example, the ball hit the helmet first.. in steve waugh's case.. it probably brushed his hat as he was juggling the ball.

[Trichromatic]

Not so (at least with helmets). In a recent test match' date=' a ball hit the helmet of a close in fielder and went to the keeper. It was not out eve though it was not wilfuly used. dont know if its different with caps[/quote'] That catch is legitimate.

[saket123]

That catch is legitimate.

so I guess helmet is ruled out period... because it could be used "unwittingly" to aid a catch.

[Precambrian]

Great thanks all

[Trichromatic]

so I guess helmet is ruled out period... because it could be used "unwittingly" to aid a catch.

I don't think it has been ruled out because it can aid a catch. It's more because of dead ball rule. The moment ball touches a fielder's protective helmet, it becomes dead and after that batsman can't be out. Protective helmet part of the rule is not specific for catches, rather it's just an implementation of dead ball rule in case of a catch.