Only 2.2 overs remained in the day’s play on the fourth day of the second Ashes Test when Ben Duckett miraculously skied a high ball to fine leg despite attempting to guide the ball to third man.
Quick off the mark, Mitchell Starc sprinted to his left and took a brilliant catch on his knees to end the innings of England’s opener for 50.
Until, with Duckett halfway off the field, third umpire Marais Erasmus deemed that the catch was in fact not a catch due to the belief Starc did not have control of his body.
It was, as one of Channel 9’s two experts Aaron Finch explained, an absolutely shocking decision.
And, as the third high-profile controversial catching decision in the last three Test matches in England, this latest verdict serves only to highlight the inadequacies in cricket’s umpiring.
To be clear, and on the whole, I have great respect for cricket’s umpires, particularly her Test-level umpires.
However, when faced with replays and technologies, umpires seem only to make a shambles of things.
Starc’s catch/non-catch is a prime example of over-using technology to interpret the rules of the game over basic common sense.
According to umpire Erasmus, the issue in adjudicating Starc’s catch was not whether or not he had been in control of the ball, but whether he had been in control of his body.
If this is the case, what is the logical extension of this rule? Was Mitchell Starc supposed to dive to his knees and support himself with only one hand, thus risk flipping himself onto his side? Was he to slide to his knees with no hands to brace himself at all?
We need only suffer from vague shoulder pain ourselves to watch a catch like Starc’s and wince at the outcome had he not put both hands out in front to slide and prevent himself from face-planting into the grass – or worse, smacking into the ground in a rolling attempt to cradle the ball aloft from the hallowed turf of Lord’s, almost certainly guaranteeing that he dislocate his shoulder or snap his collarbone in the process.
A safe catch, sure, but at what expense? Where is the duty of care to the fielder in such a situation?
Had Mitchell Starc’s catch been deemed legal, however, and the Lord’s viewing screens displayed replay after successive replay, we can no longer doubt that players and spectators would have been apoplectic! “But look! The ball touched the ground!”
This was similarly the argument with Cameron Green’s controversial catch in the gully during the World Test Championship Final played at the Oval only a few weeks ago.
“Look!” they cried, in despair and mortification. “The ball touched the grass! Such coming together of leather and grass shouldst never be!”
As with Mitchel Starc’s non-catch, common sense should have prevailed – as it did in Cameron Green’s case.
Anyone who has played cricket knows that a catch does not require our fingers to be closed together in a mitten-like-grip to hold the ball securely. And in a man’s hand the size of Cameron Green’s – this author is quick to recognise his soft writer’s hand would be dwarfed – a cricket ball is all the more likely to be safely secured had it only been held between three of his giant fingers, let alone snug at the base of all five.
Where, then, is the legislation of common sense in interpreting cricket’s rules? When replay after replay serves only to further increase the number of blades of grass that are brought into contact with such hallowed, blessed red leather, when does experience and common sense come into play to adjudicate a catch “secure”?
Mitchell Starc of Australia. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
But it is not just catches which our current system so obscures. How many times has an umpire ruled a batter out based solely on a spike on Snicko or Ultra Edge (or whatever we’re calling it this year)?
I’m very glad the technology is available to us, but until we also put the umpires through a course in how soundwaves work, it is useless.
We have doubtlessly seen close decisions given out simply because there was a murmur on the soundwave line, without checking if it was a sharp spike (as is necessitated when the ball snicks the wooden bat) or a fat wobble, or even a longer fluctuation, as is the case when the bat hits the pad or pitch at the same time as the ball passes the bat.
Similarly frustrating is an umpire’s decision to adjudicate a dismissal despite available camera angles necessary to deliver a conclusive verdict. This may come as a surprise to some, but there are numerous times when the camera angles available are quite literally unable to provide the necessary clarity.
It is at these times that the on-field umpire’s original “soft” signal is so necessary – as is the case in Hawk-Eye referrals when “Umpire’s Call” has to fill in the gap between that computer’s cannot yet fill.
When technology needs to be interpreted – contra to situations when computer simulations like Hawk-Eye need no human interpretation – understanding of both the technology but also the literal physics of the situation are required, as well as a healthy dose of on-field experience and common sense.
There remain other questions, as well: Why was the third umpire reviewing Mitchell Starc’s catch of Ben Duckett at all – who reviewed the decision, as there was no evidence Ben Duckett reviewed the catch?
Was it an on-field umpire’s decision or are all catches reviewed by the third umpire? If all catches are reviewed by the third umpire, why are not all dismissals reviewed? Why have referrals at all?
At the end of the day, as Channel 9’s second expert analyst, Callum Ferguson suggested at the end of day four’s broadcast, if Mitchell Starc’s catch is in fact not a catch, then the rules need to be modified. Anyone replaying Starc’s meaty paws wrapped around the ball will recognise a safe and secure catch.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
In all reality, Starc held the ball safely in his hand before it even touched the grass longer than some hold the ball before tossing the ball back into the sky in celebration.
And when all is said and done, anyone who has ever played a ball sport can clearly see that Starc was also in complete control of his body as he gracefully slid to a stop, the ball clutched firmly in his left hand.
Let’s, then, return some measure of common sense to the game of cricket?
David Thorman
Roar Rookie
Erasmus' decision on the Starc catch was ludicrous. If his pedantic interpretation of what constitutes a catch becomes the norm, cricket spectators at international matches will have to regularly sit through replays of tumbling or diving outfield catches, instead of spontaneously celebrating one of the highlights of the game. Furthermore, this interpretation will create arguments at all levels of cricket, as batters refuse to accept catches where part of the fielder's hand touches the grass. In most of the cricket games I played over the years, the batting team took on umpiring duties. Tensions would quickly boil over in these (low level) games if the umpire denied a catch similar to the one taken by Starc.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Just an absurd decision considering the 100+ years of precedent. The umpires were clearly spooked by the crowd booing and close up replays which showed the ball in contact with the ground after he clearly took the catch and had control of the ball.