Cricket needs to consider law change or batters will keep exploiting benefit of doubt for low catches

Technology is good enough to remove doubt from low catches in cricket but not at a stage where it can eradicate it. 

Cricket’s lawmakers are faced with an extremely tough dilemma when it comes to low catches otherwise batters will keep exploiting the benefit of any scintilla of doubt that they enjoyed three times in the SCG Test last week. 

Fielders, batters and umpires are all fearful of being accused of making an error or downright cheating when a catch is taken low to the ground because they are such a contentious decision. 

The problem in the interpretation of the law is that when a fielder or wicketkeeper scoops a low catch just above the surface, even if it is taken cleanly, it will appear at some point on one of the many replay angles to have touched the grass.

CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch cricket on KAYO

Fielders are at a disadvantage because replays can create optical illusions when the slope of the ground – the centre-wicket square on any cricket field is slightly raised compared to the outfield so there will be an uneven camera angle from the long lens used on the boundary, as we saw with Steve Smith’s claim to dismiss Heinrich Klaasen in South Africa’s second innings. 

Steve Smith tries to catch Dean Elgar. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

Third umpire Richard Kettleborough, because he was unable to view a side-on angle of the incident, then ruled not out even though the two on-field umpires had referred it to him with a soft signal of out. 

“I was pretty certain I got underneath it today,” Smith told the ABC after stumps. 

Smith said he thought there was a bit of doubt about his spectacular first innings catch off Josh Hazlewood which Dean Elgar so he wasn’t too aggrieved over that decision. 

When you look at the close-up replay of the Elgar one, the ball clearly doesn’t touch the ground when it first hits his fingers but may have done so after impact. 

Law 33.2.2.1 states a catch will be deemed fair if “the ball is held in the hand or hands of a fielder, even if the hand holding the ball is touching the ground”. 

If the ball then touches the ground after the initial impact, as long as the fielder has control of the ball, should it then be given out?

Basically, if a catcher gets to the ball on the full, as long as they have control of the ball, should it matter if it grazes the turf? 

Otherwise the vast majority of these incidents will continue to go in favour of the batter.

Pretty much every current and former player, commentator and fan thought all three contentious low catches were out during the third Test, including the Marnus Labuschagne incident when he was on 70 and Simon Harmer claimed him at slip, which was also denied by Kettleborough. 

Obviously if the fielder loses the ball out of their grip and it clearly bounces on the ground without their fingers wrapped around it, that should be not out.

But does it really matter if the ball skims the grass either by poking through the split fingers of a fielder’s hand? 

If cricket’s lawmakers can live with that outcome then it can solve the low catch conundrum. 

But if the current system remains in place, batters will follow Klaasen’s lead, the poor old umpires on the field will guess what they think has happened before sending the review upstairs with a largely irrelevant soft signal and for the most part, the fielding team will be denied even when the catcher is convinced they have completed a fair dismissal.

At least Kettleborough was consistent with his three 50-50 rulings. If all low catches were given this litmus test, there would not be cries of inconsistency.

But we only have to go back a month to England’s tour of Pakistan when wicketkeeper Ollie Pope snared a low catch off local batter Saud Shakeel.

As was the case with the trio of SCG incidents, the ball appeared to briefly skim the grass as he gloved it down leg side on day four of the second Test in Multan.

Despite the doubt and a frame of the replay showing the ball on the ground as it was clenched between Pope’s gloves, third umpire Joel Wilson gave Shakeel out, at odds with Kettleborough’s modus operandi.

The controversial decision not only denied him a shot at a maiden century on 94, it significantly affected Pakistan’s run-chase as they lost the match by just 26 runs to go 2-0 down in the three-match series.

Prior to the third umpire era getting underway in the 1990s, there was an unwritten rule that players would accept the fielder’s word on whether they had scooped a catch up before it hit the ground.

That was a system that only worked when players told the truth, which is not always the case in the international arena with so much on the line. It’s arguably rarely the case at all levels of cricket.

Once the video replays started getting better and player’s verdicts were being questioned from the commentary booth, cricket allowed the third umpire to rule on low catches after the innovation was initially only brought in for run-out and stumping adjudications. 

But that didn’t rectify the issue either. Michael Slater infamously blew up at Rahul Dravid at Mumbai in the epic 2001 series when the Indian batter stood his ground when the Australian opener claimed a low catch at square leg off Damien Fleming. 

After umpire Srinivas Venkataraghavan signalled for a review, third umpire Narendra Menon ruled the ball hadn’t carried and the batter got the benefit of the doubt. 

Sound familiar? Video review technology is not new and neither is this problem. 

After the green light flashed up, Slater lost his cool, getting in Dravid’s face as he launched into a foul-mouthed tirade. 

Dravid, as he was most of the time when he was at the crease, was unmoved and Slater later apologised profusely for his tantrum.

“Sledging Rahul Dravid was one the mistakes of my life. He did not lose his cool even when I was hurling abuse at him. I could not stomach the fact that he was singlehandedly demolishing the best team in the world. When the rage wore out on me, I realised that I was an animal and he was a gentleman. He won my heart instantly.”

Slater’s ugly outburst led to him being given an official warning by the match referee, Cammie Smith. At least cricket has made advances on the on-field behaviour front – if a player did that these days they’d be suspended for sure.