It's The Ashes (again)

[AnelkasBeard]

That bit is irrelevant as it didn’t touch the ground during the juggle and he held it after that.

The key is did it touch the ground when he caught it and his hand hit the ground.

It is incredibly relevant. The umpire is judging that Smith had control of the ball, whilst the ball was probably touching the ground, so he judged it as a catch.

However, Smith had to maintain control of the ball throughout the process of the catch (see rule below), and the juggle clearly indicates that he didn't.

"33.3 Making a catch
The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement."

Nope, if he ends with complete control, he can do keep ups, heads and volleys, anything he wants, as long as it ENDS with control and hasn’t touched the ground. The juggle is irrelevant. The only point in dispute is the earlier bit when it was borderline grounded.

You're contradicting yourself. For arguments sake, let's say that the ball did hit the ground (which it looks like it did).

For Smith to be awarded the catch, he has to have control of the ball before it touches the ground, and every moment thereafter until he controls BOTH the ball and his bodies movement (note the words "and his/her own movement" in the rule).

The juggle indicates that he was NOT in control of the ball, and his movement clearly wasn't stopped/in control. Therefore, when the ball was grounded, he wasn't in control of either the ball or his movement, so it shouldn't be a catch.

The key point is that the ball was potentially grounded, and he potentially didn't have control. One or the other would be fine, but not both. eg the Boundary catches where they throw the ball in to the air as they go over the rope, and catch it when they're back inside the rope. The ball is never grounded in that scenario.

There have literally been thousands of catches taken with a juggle. You do not need to be in control throughout the whole process if it doesn’t touch the ground. The juggle after is irrelevant. The control bit is relevant at the point the ball was close to touching, or touching the ground. The juggle on his chest after is not relevant.

Not sure if we’re talking at cross purposes. But if he scooped it without it touching the ground, then juggled, then got control, it would be fine.

I’m not sure his did though, but the chest juggle after isn’t relevant. Hence the endless replays haven’t focussed on that at all.

I agree with both bolded statements. But it did touch the ground. So the control is vitally important, and to me, him juggling it afteer the ground part, shows he didn't have control.

https://twitter.com/ESPNcricinfo/status/...0624608266

Cricinfo have posed the "control" question. I don't see how anyone can be judged to be in control of something that you end up juggling.

[backsidebaggie]

It is incredibly relevant. The umpire is judging that Smith had control of the ball, whilst the ball was probably touching the ground, so he judged it as a catch.

However, Smith had to maintain control of the ball throughout the process of the catch (see rule below), and the juggle clearly indicates that he didn't.

"33.3 Making a catch
The act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement."

Nope, if he ends with complete control, he can do keep ups, heads and volleys, anything he wants, as long as it ENDS with control and hasn’t touched the ground. The juggle is irrelevant. The only point in dispute is the earlier bit when it was borderline grounded.

You're contradicting yourself. For arguments sake, let's say that the ball did hit the ground (which it looks like it did).

For Smith to be awarded the catch, he has to have control of the ball before it touches the ground, and every moment thereafter until he controls BOTH the ball and his bodies movement (note the words "and his/her own movement" in the rule).

The juggle indicates that he was NOT in control of the ball, and his movement clearly wasn't stopped/in control. Therefore, when the ball was grounded, he wasn't in control of either the ball or his movement, so it shouldn't be a catch.

The key point is that the ball was potentially grounded, and he potentially didn't have control. One or the other would be fine, but not both. eg the Boundary catches where they throw the ball in to the air as they go over the rope, and catch it when they're back inside the rope. The ball is never grounded in that scenario.

There have literally been thousands of catches taken with a juggle. You do not need to be in control throughout the whole process if it doesn’t touch the ground. The juggle after is irrelevant. The control bit is relevant at the point the ball was close to touching, or touching the ground. The juggle on his chest after is not relevant.

Not sure if we’re talking at cross purposes. But if he scooped it without it touching the ground, then juggled, then got control, it would be fine.

I’m not sure his did though, but the chest juggle after isn’t relevant. Hence the endless replays haven’t focussed on that at all.

I agree with both bolded statements. But it did touch the ground. So the control is vitally important, and to me, him juggling it afteer the ground part, shows he didn't have control.

https://twitter.com/ESPNcricinfo/status/...0624608266

Cricinfo have posed the "control" question. I don't see how anyone can be judged to be in control of something that you end up juggling.

I guess because you could be in control, then juggle, then back in control. But the key is the part when the ball was/wasn’t grounded. It looks like it was to me, although it’s so hard to tell. Is grounded when the ball is touching grass but not resting on the solid turf? God knows. It’s so close I just think accept the decision and get on with it.

[AnelkasBeard]

Nope, if he ends with complete control, he can do keep ups, heads and volleys, anything he wants, as long as it ENDS with control and hasn’t touched the ground. The juggle is irrelevant. The only point in dispute is the earlier bit when it was borderline grounded.

You're contradicting yourself. For arguments sake, let's say that the ball did hit the ground (which it looks like it did).

For Smith to be awarded the catch, he has to have control of the ball before it touches the ground, and every moment thereafter until he controls BOTH the ball and his bodies movement (note the words "and his/her own movement" in the rule).

The juggle indicates that he was NOT in control of the ball, and his movement clearly wasn't stopped/in control. Therefore, when the ball was grounded, he wasn't in control of either the ball or his movement, so it shouldn't be a catch.

The key point is that the ball was potentially grounded, and he potentially didn't have control. One or the other would be fine, but not both. eg the Boundary catches where they throw the ball in to the air as they go over the rope, and catch it when they're back inside the rope. The ball is never grounded in that scenario.

There have literally been thousands of catches taken with a juggle. You do not need to be in control throughout the whole process if it doesn’t touch the ground. The juggle after is irrelevant. The control bit is relevant at the point the ball was close to touching, or touching the ground. The juggle on his chest after is not relevant.

Not sure if we’re talking at cross purposes. But if he scooped it without it touching the ground, then juggled, then got control, it would be fine.

I’m not sure his did though, but the chest juggle after isn’t relevant. Hence the endless replays haven’t focussed on that at all.

I agree with both bolded statements. But it did touch the ground. So the control is vitally important, and to me, him juggling it afteer the ground part, shows he didn't have control.

https://twitter.com/ESPNcricinfo/status/...0624608266

Cricinfo have posed the "control" question. I don't see how anyone can be judged to be in control of something that you end up juggling.

I guess because you could be in control, then juggle, then back in control. But the key is the part when the ball was/wasn’t grounded. It looks like it was to me, although it’s so hard to tell. Is grounded when the ball is touching grass but not resting on the solid turf? God knows. It’s so close I just think accept the decision and get on with it.

Why do that when you can argue semantics for about 10 posts?

I agree though, close enough he probably caught it. It's not like Smith has a history of cheating or anything.

[rsbaggy2]

These kind of 'catches' will always happen in cricket, just the presence of multicams and increased definition have resulted in things being analysed to death so much that you can see it as a good or bad catch. Seem to remember Pope taking one against Pakistan recently that looked for all the world as not out. In cases like this it is unfair to accuse anyone of cheating.

[AnelkasBeard]

These kind of 'catches' will always happen in cricket, just the presence of multicams and increased definition have resulted in things being analysed to death so much that you can see it as a good or bad catch. Seem to remember Pope taking one against Pakistan recently that looked for all the world as not out. In cases like this it is unfair to accuse anyone of cheating.

Especially not Steve Smith. His integrity is without question.

[rsbaggy2]

These kind of 'catches' will always happen in cricket, just the presence of multicams and increased definition have resulted in things being analysed to death so much that you can see it as a good or bad catch. Seem to remember Pope taking one against Pakistan recently that looked for all the world as not out. In cases like this it is unfair to accuse anyone of cheating.

Especially not Steve Smith. His integrity is without question.

Like I said before, glass houses and all that.

[AnelkasBeard]

https://twitter.com/tickerscricket/statu...8219747328

Just to prove (mainly to myself) that I'm not going completely mental, and it's a valid argument.

[ChamonixBaggie]

So when is Stokes going to bite the bullet and captain from the bench?

14 tests since his last 50 (which was also his last ton) averaging 24.

[Ted Maul]

So when is Stokes going to bite the bullet and captain from the bench?

14 tests since his last 50 (which was also his last ton) averaging 24.

He's been captaining the side brilliantly but as you say the batting and bowling has fallen to pieces.

[SuperBob2002]

I love Stokes, he's been a superb captain, but serious discussions need to be had about his continuous inclusion. He is currently a liability with both bat and ball due to not being fully fit.

Could we not drop him, but then have him on the field as a sub to unofficially captain the side?