Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Durhamfootman wrote:I haven't seen it yet

https://twitter.com/mufaddal_vohra/stat ... 7395518464

If you dont mind entering the minefield of Twaddle for a minute..

there was a big X

for a moment, I thought the Russian's had hacked into it

that kind of sums up the series, for me

Rain, but should have enough time for a result. Maybe the Aussies could block out if they lose wickets.

Not sure if that's a catch or not. But anyway, it's gone. The instant posts on the BBC mostly say it's a drop, but then they rarely have much credibility. Captain Steel says it's a drop.

sussexpob wrote: The movement in catching the ball was terminated when he hit the ground, the ball was secure.... I think thats out

The rule itself is appallingly written, and needs to be clarified, as we had two of these instances this series. I am not really sure what having "control of his movement" is supposed to mean. He finished jumping and lands on his feet, so there is a split second he has control of both his body and the ball.

If we are going to say that everything needs to be "controlled" then what about skied catches? If a player is running full pelt at an aerial ball, takes it clean, and throws the ball up after 3-4 steps, like Bairstow did last test, is that not out now too? After all, if moving legs (in the case of Starc) is not controlled, then it cannot be. And if the rule requires perfectly still arms, then literally any catch made where there isnt a momentary pause where the fielder stands to attention arms at their side, then its not a catch because they will still be moving.

I think the rule is there to ensure that in the process of the action that leads to the catch (ie a jump, a slide, a sprint, whatever) the ball remains in control until that action has completely finished. For me, the "movement" in this case is his vertical jump, and he'd landed on the floor with the ball....

I'd give that out all day.

Have to say that the umpires are correct in disallowing that "catch". I do think Stokes had the ball under control as he came down with it ; but as his arm comes down (I suspect as the start of a celebratory toss but only he will know) it does catch his leg - and the ball pops out.

A lot of slip fielders toss a (simple) catch away quite casually almost as soon as they grab it ; and no one queries it. The difference here is that Stokes jumped ; came down with the ball ; but didn't really settle before it left his hand. So a bit unlucky ; but not out I'm afraid.

The annoying part is that had Wilson spotted the glove touch in the first place he would have called for an umpire's review of the catch completion ; and England would not have lost a review...

Though then again, they probably shouldn't have risked the review , knowing the likely result. Think they were getting a bit desperate.

Not going to matter anyway I think. More rain forecast for 1730 to 2000..... Unless England can take 7 wickets in half a session, it's going to be a draw

Oh hello

4 quick wickets….. still over 100 runs needed

They are playing and the Aussies are seven down!

Set the highlights to record.

11-4 in 3 overs.

New ball due very soon too, but maybe this one is doing enough to keep it

I think they will bounce Carey though. Maybe a new ball would help that. But obviously they'll hold onto this for a while.

Still feel sure this is going to be close. Or rained off.

What a series for Woakes.