Was the Mitchell Starc catch out? | #TheAshes

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[fkm]

Probably the best take I've seen on the catch

[nottsoserious]

Just want consistency from the umpires. Root should also have been not out.

[buno]

Karma hit within a day, yesterday it was rules and today it is Spirit of Game …

[ashutoshdeshwal]

The best possible explanation of the dropped catch.

[ytuser]

Ball was deliberately dragged on the ground by Starc, unlike the Cam Green's catch in WTC final or Smith's catch earlier in this game, where the ball seemed to touch grass during catching motion that too in few frames.

[chillin]

Australia got the benefit of Gibbs “dropped the World Cup” catch. We just have to grin and bear it.

[AngelicusImmortus]

Ball in contact with the ground - Not out.
Hand under the ball - out
Simple.

[albertsjoberg]

Twaddle. By this analogy, as long as I stop the ball by pressing it against the ground you want it to be a fair catch.
Nobody can honestly think that is fair.

[thatsbollox]

Reality was he was trying to avoid injury to his bowling arm/shoulder as quicks in a 5 day test match are instructed when on the fence. Dont risk it...allow it to go to the fence if there is risk. Cannot afford to lose a bowler of that class during a 5 day game. Different in white ball cricket. He was cushioning the landing for his bowling arm and shoulder...if he twisted his hand upward his bowling arm and elbow would dig into the ground. It was probably just subconcious self protection. Was a terrific catch, but better to let the umpires decide either way. There was no real controversy in it...more like confusion.
Spirit of the game the batsman could have kept walking coz it was a definite "catch" ruled not out on a technicality. Spirit of the game though doesnt apply when it is England.

[Sbock]

Whatever happened to common sense. That is just simply out. No different to throwing the ball up in the air immediately after catching it.

[shrikant]

Aussies make their own rules, even catch taken by Green during WTC final was touched ground.

[owendavies]

How long does a catch need to be held is the question, I argue it had it 2 hands for longer than some players catch then throw a ball to ground or in the air to ground.
If Mitchell threw that ball immediately, would we be saying not out or out.

[adamgodfrey]

I like this guy’s explanation, but you also need to factor in the fact that the ball was grounded during the same motion that it was caught. This is another reason it was not out. Same reason the Stokes catch was not out. The catch and the inadvertent hitting against the knee was part of the same motion. Result: not out

[ross]

That's the rule well explained, we move on. On the other hand Pomgolians are still throwing the toys out the cot.

[MostSignificantBite]

you need to hold the ball in your hand for a reasonable amount of time without touching the ground. avoiding risk of dropping a catch cannot be used as an excuse

[mikefriend]

To me this was a fair catch. You could not have pried that ball from Starc’s hand with a crowbar. However, I then thought of the Travis Head drop and the scenario described by Geoff Lemon. If fielders are allowed to take a catch and turn their hands face down in order to mitigate the risk of the ball being jarred loose when their elbows hit the ground, then of course they will take advantage of that.

[ironic]

that's what Cameron green did in that shubhman gill catch he pressed the ball against the ground in order to get the control of ball but these biased people supported green at that moment but now when it happened with England so it was not out

[jacqloock]

Now see, when someone makes an insightful cogent argument suddenly we are not only persuadable but in fact persuaded.

[michaelanderson]

But he’s caught it clean then braced for impact?

[ivanjoseph]

Wasn't this the same case with the Green catch of Gill?