Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Cricket] The Ashes- England v Australia- 2nd Test, Lords, June 28 - July 02, 2023

Ashes- 2nd Test- The result ?


  • Total voters
    74
  • Poll closed .










A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,492
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Pope rather than Root - but yes, I agree.
Yes you’re right, although Pope would have done something daft sooner or later
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
14,532
Manchester
Disappointing to give away those 3 cheap wickets in the last 2 hours (although 90 for 3 isn’t a disasterous middle-order collapse) but definitely a good day.

At the start of play the Aussies could have been on for 500, so any England fan would have taken us to have only a 138 deficit and 6 wickets remaining at the close. We’ll probably be declaring with a 10 run lead just before lunch.
 




Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,840
Disappointing to give away those 3 cheap wickets in the last 2 hours (although 90 for 3 isn’t a disasterous middle-order collapse) but definitely a good day.

At the start of play the Aussies could have been on for 500, so any England fan would have taken us to have only a 138 deficit and 6 wickets remaining at the close. We’ll probably be declaring with a 10 run lead just before lunch.
I would laugh, but that's not a joke.
 


Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
5,659
Darlington
I would laugh, but that's not a joke.
I did think while following the score during England's opening partnership, that Australia genuinely would have been better off declaring with about 10 overs left yesterday and giving their bowlers a go at us under cloud cover with the lights on.
Even after those wickets later in the day, I suspect that might still be true given how well they did in similar conditions on the 3rd evening at Edgbaston.
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,736
Chandlers Ford
Aussies on back foot,

Didn't think his fingers were under ball. Replays appeared to show ball hitting ground!
His fingers don’t have to be under the ball. If he catches it cleanly while it is in the air, and then proceeds to ground it (whilst still in control of it) it is still out.
 




Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
5,659
Darlington
His fingers don’t have to be under the ball. If he catches it cleanly while it is in the air, and then proceeds to ground it (whilst still in control of it) it is still out.
He has to be in control of his own body as well, so if the ball touches the ground while he's diving/sliding to take the catch it should be not out even if the fielder has a firm grip of the ball.
 


Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
5,659
Darlington
Since I mentioned Ian Chappell earlier, I see he's still not made up with Ian Botham. :lolol:
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,492
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Since I mentioned Ian Chappell earlier, I see he's still not made up with Ian Botham. :lolol:
Saw that on Twitter, the most awkward TV exchange I can remember seeing
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,736
Chandlers Ford




Sheebo

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2003
29,319
His fingers don’t have to be under the ball. If he catches it cleanly while it is in the air, and then proceeds to ground it (whilst still in control of it) it is still out.
Not sure I read the rules area that - doesn’t say anything about grounding it and the ball being alllwed to touch the ground?

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.

 




Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,840
He has to be in control of his own body as well, so if the ball touches the ground while he's diving/sliding to take the catch it should be not out even if the fielder has a firm grip of the ball.
The flaky area is the definition of 'ground'. The grass is not the ground. But the firm beneath it is. Generally speaking, if a player has his fingers underneath a low catch, and his hand is on the grass, it will be awarded unless it is apparent that the ground is involved in the stability of the catch (as in the ball is clearly grounded beneath his holding fingers). It's pretty much impossible to take a catch at pitch level without the ball touching a blade of grass.

The key issue is the soft signal of the umpire.

Cameron Green's catch is a tough one as his fingers were so spread. I thought Smith's, looking a the real time replay and hand movement, was okay.

But it's such a grey area.

Or a green one.
 


Sid and the Sharknados

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 4, 2022
5,659
Darlington
The flaky area is the definition of 'ground'. The grass is not the ground. But the firm beneath it is. Generally speaking, if a player has his fingers underneath a low catch, and his hand is on the grass, it will be awarded unless it is apparent that the ground is involved in the stability of the catch (as in the ball is clearly grounded beneath his holding fingers). It's pretty much impossible to take a catch at pitch level without the ball touching a blade of grass.

The key issue is the soft signal of the umpire.

Cameron Green's catch is a tough one as his fingers were so spread. I thought Smith's, looking a the real time replay and hand movement, was okay.

But it's such a grey area.

Or a green one.
The soft signal was removed a few months (weeks?) ago.
The decision has to be taken by the 3rd umpire based purely on the available camera angles.
Realistically you can't tell from a magnified image recorded from about 70yds away whether the ball is just in contact with the ground or not. And the camera will tend to make the ball look closer to the ground than it actually is.
That said, I thought Smith's catch looked fine, even if I was hoping the 3rd umpire would take the opposite view.
The caught law makes no reference to grass, it shouldn't matter if a few blades are touching the ball through the fielders fingers or not.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,840
The soft signal was removed a few months (weeks?) ago.
The decision has to be taken by the 3rd umpire based purely on the available camera angles.
Realistically you can't tell from a magnified image recorded from about 70yds away whether the ball is just in contact with the ground or not. And the camera will tend to make the ball look closer to the ground than it actually is.
That said, I thought Smith's catch looked fine, even if I was hoping the 3rd umpire would take the opposite view.
The caught law makes no reference to grass, it shouldn't matter if a few blades are touching the ball through the fielders fingers or not.
Blimey, yes, the soft signal has gone.

Poor third umpire. Stand to be hated by whole continents.

I was yelling at the third ump to tell him it was grounded. But actually, it was a pretty good catch.
 






Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,840
Keeping masterclass with James Foster at the moment.

One of the best keepers in history.

About seven Tests for England. All because he couldn't find the extra runs with the bat.
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,492
Deepest, darkest Sussex
'sake
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here