Steve Smith's catch - Legal or Illegal ?

[lion100lion]

See this video... The title says it all

 

[bigred]

I love it!

 

[_Sam_]

In my opinion as soon as the bowlers released the ball any fielder that won't distract the batsman should be able to do what they want.

 

[IceAgeComing]

@lion100lion; why don't you tell us what you think? You started the thread; so surely you have some thoughts on the validity of this catch that you'd like to share with the forum?

Provided a fielder isn't moving before a shot is made or in a position that could distract a batsman, preemptive moves should be perfectly OK. Especially since it would be hilarious if there was an edge to slip in a case like this, since it would make Steve Smith look like a bit of an idiot.

 

[PokerAce]

Well I liked the innovative thinking, but under the laws [Law 41 (7) r.w. Law 41 (8)] the catch is illegal.

Law 41 (7) - Movement by fielders

Any significant movement by any fielder after the ball comes into play, and before the ball reaches the striker, is unfair. In the event of such unfair movement, either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball. Note also the provisions of Law 42.4 (Deliberate attempt to distract striker).

Law 41 (8) - Definition of significant movement

(a) For close fielders anything other than minor adjustments to stance or position in relation to the striker is significant.

Reading these two laws together -

Smith (at slip, and hence close fielder), can at most have adjusted his stance a little bit, till the ball reaches the striker. If we watch the replay, Smith starts to move to leg slip, with the ball still mid-way down the pitch, and before the ball had reached the striker.

This movement to leg slip is clearly not just a minor adjustment to stance or position. Its in fact a move to an entirely new position of leg slip from 1st slip, before the ball reached the striker.

Hence the umpire's should have signalled dead ball. No Catch.

 

[abhi_jacko]

This is what ICC had to say on why it was legal:

Smith's movement could be declared unfair under those Laws but the ICC has relaxed the playing conditions, making significant fielder movement a subjective issue and leaving it open to interpretation.
In a press release a day after the match, the ICC said, "Given the recent trend of fielders moving in anticipation after a batsman had moved to play a shot, the ICC consulted with the MCC and advised the umpires to use the following interpretation: 'As long as the movement of a close catching fielder is in response to the striker's actions (the shot he/she is about to play or shaping to play), then movement is permitted before the ball reaches the striker. On the day, if umpires believe any form of significant movement is unfair (in an attempt to deceive the batsman), then the Law still applies.' This interpretation was discussed during the Match Officials' Workshop in Dubai in late September."

Its odd that they teach the Match Officials to interpret it as such but don't actually change the rule. Causes confusion

 

[Champagnepapi]

Well if a batsman can change his stance, I don't see why a slip can't move.

 

[abhi_jacko]

^^ In that way, the bowler shouldn't have to tell the batsman which side or which arm he is going to be bowling from. He could just hop around at the last minute and change his bowling arm

 

[PokerAce]

Well if a batsman can change his stance, I don't see why a slip can't move.

Batsman changing his stance and fielder moving are not the same thing. Its like saying that if a batsman is not confined to batting from behind the crease and can step out to hit a shot, why should the bowler be confined be having to bowl from behind crease.

If you think that the batsman is likely to change his stance and pop a catch to leg slip, then keep a leg slip, by all means. You cannot though have a 1st slip move mid-delivery, before the ball has reached the striker, run to leg slip.

Not under law 41 (7) and 41 (8) as they stand anyway. Change the laws first.

 

[Champagnepapi]

I don't mean it like that. I mean that a fielder like slip moving shouldn't be that much of an issue. ICC say it's legal and so do I. And plus the striker changed his stance into a shot, and Smith saw that coming, even if he came after the batsman had made contact, he would've got there, he is one of the best in athletics on field when it comes to cricket.

 

[PokerAce]

I don't mean it like that. I mean that a fielder like slip moving shouldn't be that much of an issue. ICC say it's legal and so do I. And plus the striker changed his stance into a shot, and Smith saw that coming, even if he came after the batsman had made contact, he would've got there, he is one of the best in athletics on field when it comes to cricket.

Well whether Smith would have got there or not is irrelevant here.

All I am saying is that as rule 41(7) and 41(8) stands, I fail to see how even ICC could justify declaring the catch as legal. Right now the law clearly bars, a close fielder from making any movement apart from minor adjustments to his stance, till the ball reaches the striker.

Smith clearly makes the move to leg slip with the ball still mid-pitch and before the ball got to the striker. If that is the way ICC wants to go from here on and allow such catches, they first need to change the law.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Playing conditions overrule the laws so although it was against the laws, the playing conditions clarified stuff and it was legal in relation to those. It wouldn't surprise me if the MCC change the laws to fit in with this interpretation, especially since the ICC consulted them before they instituted the condition.

 

[_Sam_]

Playing conditions overrule the laws so although it was against the laws, the playing conditions clarified stuff and it was legal in relation to those. It wouldn't surprise me if the MCC change the laws to fit in with this interpretation, especially since the ICC consulted them before they instituted the condition.

This.

I wouldn't be happy if he was moving before that ball was bowled but seeming as he started moving after the ball was released I don't see what's wrong with it. It still takes skill to anticipate and judge where the ball's going to be hit.

Almost a direct repeat bar first to leg.

 

[shravi]

tbh Danny Morrison already cleared it up in the video...

 

[_Sam_]

I assume the ICC playing condition is actually intended for the safety of short leg fielders so they can jump back and shield if the batsman's shaping up to absolutely smash it at them, however it also makes this legal.