Dodgy Catch Decision

If a fielder catches a ball and then the hand the ball is in hits the ground with the ball still in it, and the ball touches the ground but remains in the fielder's hand at the same time, is it out or not?

out, as long as he had control before it hit the ground.

There we go! WG and the mighty rule book have spoken. Looks a pretty convincing NOT OUT to me.

I'd personally be slightly annoyed if I took a superb diving catch, the ball skims the ground despite being in my hand and it being given not out.

Originally posted by Kerm I'd personally be slightly annoyed if I took a superb diving catch, the ball skims the ground despite being in my hand and it being given not out.

You'd rather cheat and claim it ehh Kerm? By definition you have not taken a superb diving catch, you have superbly fielded the ball, but failed narrowly to take a clean catch.

The problem will get bit more complicated if it reads like this. Fielder takes the catch and has controlled it, but accidetly touches the ground with it. Now how is this one defined?

Originally posted by Migara The problem will get bit more complicated if it reads like this. Fielder takes the catch and has controlled it, but accidetly touches the ground with it. Now how is this one defined?

Depends if he is in control of his body or not, as the law clearly states.  If he is prone but has come to rest and has clearly caught the ball  he can do whatever he likes once the decision is made.  No complication at all.

Let's see how far we can stretch this increasingly absurd discussion...........

Fielder dives and catches ball, but before he lands he is swooped up by a Golden Eagle who, struggling with his prey, drops him from a great height.  He lands with the ball still firmly clasped in his hand but, whilst emptying his bladder from shock - so is not in control of his 'movements', allows the ball to touch the ground.  Is it out?

Originally posted by 143no Your either missing the point or are just being stupid, I am not talking about a catch that hits the ground before or even at the same time a ball is taken into the hand. If a ball is taken cleanly a foot off the ground and the feilder is falling, what you are saying is that if a blade of grass pokes through his fingers and touches the ball, that is not out?  have I got your stance correct?  Also, and please don't think it gives me pleasure correcting your many mistakes, but a ball has to do more than mearly hit the stumps to be given out, it needs to remove a bail. I think you are to the rule book as some of these young fellows are to the stats, seems pretty clear cut, but often other things need to be taken into account.

Hmmmmmm, being called stupid by someone who can't understand a stated law of the game - now there's a novelty!! 

I do not have 'a stance' - I am simply stating the law as written. 

Law 32

The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any member of the fielding side and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground.

A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if:

(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.

The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.

What could be simpler.

I am, however, glad that you take no "pleasure correcting my many mistakes" - you would look a larger fool than you already do if you took joy in getting something as wrong as this.  According to you a legal catch includes grounding the ball, quite insane.

Tell me, given your repeated inability to understand them - have you ever read any of the laws?

You are the king of being pedantic, how can you have no stance? if your only point was to quote a rule then that should have been the end of it.

Originally posted by 143no You are the king of being pedantic, how can you have no stance? if your only point was to quote a rule then that should have been the end of it.   I would be interested in your opinion though of what I said, if a blade of grass came in contact with the ball between the fingers whilst the fielder was rolling with the ball safely in his hands?

That wasn't the question raised by the original poster, and I'm not minded to play your silly little games. 

I don't need to have 'a stance' when the law relating to a fair catch is quite clear with regard to the ball coming into contact with the ground whilst the fielder is not in control of his/her movement.  We can go round and round in circles as much as you wish, but the law remains the same.  End of.

Guess thats the easiest answer.

I beleive that there was every chance that some part of that ball touched the turf at some stage, yet because he had control over that ball, it was never even thought of that it might not be a fair catch.

How can it have potential to be ruled as grounding under the understanding of the rules if they are black and white? Bottom line is there are many many catches like this that are deemed fair catches, because it is judged by the umpire that they have control of the ball. I believe you need to think a bit more openly rather than saying things like " cant be doing" It makes you sound very set in your ways and unwilling to listen to different views. It would be good if others that didn't have personal grudges against anyone not english or under the age of 50 would post some thoughts on this thread.

Originally posted by Kerm Originally posted by W.G. Originally posted by 143no I beleive that there was every chance that some part of that ball touched the turf at some stage, yet because he had control over that ball, it was never even thought of that it might not be a fair catch. Had the ball touched the ground before his body came to rest it would have been unfair within the terms of the laws of the game.  If you watch the clip there is a case that he grounds the ball before standing up, in fact he almosts rests his weight on the ball as he takes to his feet - and anyone who has done any cricket coaching at any level knows that is something to be avoided as it has the potential to be ruled as grounding the ball within the overall understanding of the laws. Yet to have ever given that not out would have been considered silly. Rulebooks are fine but so is common sense.

Which, Kerm, is why I said it was out.

Back to the original post..............

Originally posted by Freddie If a fielder catches a ball and then the hand the ball is in hits the ground with the ball still in it, and the ball touches the ground but remains in the fielder's hand at the same time, is it out or not?

Law 32 outlines the criteria that must be met for a catch to be legal.  Much depends on whether or not the fielder is in control of his or her own body as well as the ball.  For example there are a number of notable instances when catches have be declared illegal when, tossing the ball up to celebrate the catch, the fielder has allowed the ball to drop to the ground.

"The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement."

In my opinion, if the hand hits the ground whilst the fielder is still in the act of securing the catch and is still moving and the ball touches the ground the catch should be adjudged incomplete within the scope of the laws.  To follow some of the other interpretations in this thread - a fielder taking a diving catch then dropping it can be deemed to have caught the ball as long as they had control for the briefest of moments, clearly absurd.

Not out.