'He's a pretty honest guy,' 'Looked like it bounced': Test teammates Carey and Khawaja clash over key catch in BBL

I agree with Usie on 2 points. Cricket has an age old policy, the batsman has the benefit of the doubt. Therefore it never makes sense for the umpires to go to the 3rd umpire due to doubt, and give a soft decision of “out”. If there is doubt, the soft option must be “not out” by default. If the 3rd umpire does not have conclusive evidence, the “not out” should prevail. On the other hand if the umpire has no doubt, then the 3rd umpire should not be engaged. — — The rule is that the ball should not touch the ground. It is not that the fingers should be under the ball. The rule has no reference to fingers. In this case, there is no doubt the ball touched the ground. There is only some doubt whether a finger was under the ball, which is irrelevant. — — I would add that many of us who play the game now accept that often the fielder may genuinely feel they caught the catch, when they haven’t. Therefore the old custom of accepting the fielders view should no longer apply. — — As a Thunder supporter, I am deeply disappointed, and can’t help feeling the biases within cricket are against some clubs.

Having been involved in a couple of these I know the fielder thinks that he has taken a clean catch. I have seen the third slip take the ball on the half volley and claim the catch. Me at 2nd slip and the gully both reckoned it bounced. The two batters and umpires from the other team were both happy with the claimed catch. What can you say?

It scraped along the ground. Come on.

I like the soft signal, because it puts the onus on the on-field umpire to make a call. There had been a trend of referring anything that might be the slightest bit controversial up to the third umpire. Mainly because the on field umpires were sick of getting pilloried by the media and public over decisions that were wrong. TV replays should be to deal with the howler. This was a decision that could have gone either way, and as such I am happy to leave that to the on-field umpires.

"I think in the pre third umpire era the on field umpire would have given it not out." Maybe, but that's just speculation.

Didn't look like it touched the ground to me. It 'may' have come into contact with some blades of grass at the same time as the fielder took control of the ball, but really, if that's the level of rigour of decision making I think we've lost perspective about what taking a catch means.

Hey Christo, I think in the pre third umpire era the on field umpire would have given it not out. Some famous groundstanders are Bradman and G S Chappell. Vaughan spent half that run fest summer he had, standing his ground for low down catches. I can remember Slats after taking catch charging in in disbelief and yelling at a batsman "are you calling me a liar!?" In all these cases the bat survived. Pretty sure there are many others. Right or Wrong, the batsman used to get the benefit of the doubt. The only famous bat I can remember not getting a reprieve was Brian Lara, when Steve Waugh claimed a catch, that he lost and regathered. That was a terrible decision on replay and one of many that lead us on the windy path to DRS. In the third umpire era, the soft signal is their vibe. It didn't exist in the past and shouldn't exist now.

Regardless of the outcome and this decision there have been too many in correct decisions by umpires on and off the field . Some might even the temerity to say their biased but I'd say they'res probably More incompetence than anything else . At this level and the money involved they have to get it right .

That seems to be how a lot of people expect the law to be interpreted, yeah. I agree with you that it's a very strict definition and if enforced would likely result in a lot of catches being ruled as not out. It's almost impossible to adjudicate with certainty no matter where you draw the line, but I think if the fielder arrests the movement of the ball above the height it would have reached uninterrupted, it's reasonable to call that a catch. Which means that slightly splayed fingers between the ball and the ground result in a catch. But I can see the argument for the strict definition - I guess you have to draw the line somewhere.

Ok…

I'm with the umps...including the TV vision. Nothing to overturn. TV always has depth of field issues.

You're kidding

Agree except for the bit about holding it aloft. You can have control well before that.

Agree, probably wrong decision but you’re not too unlucky if you get a huge edge and the fielder gets his fingers around the ball. Though the soft signal business is really dumb.

If this was red ball cricket sure there is room for debate. ------- But this is white ball, go with the ump.

So, if in catching the ball, you pin some leaves of grass between your fingers and those grassy tips touch the ball, it's not out? The problem, as I see it,in a horticultural sense,is equating "the grass" with "the ground".

There are a number of drawbacks involved

I addressed this in my subsequent commen reply to BillyW, and I agree. There's still the issue of determining whether the ball did touch grass (and it may well have done so).

Debatable on replay too.

100%. "Clash" headline unwarranted. The Roar can do better.