Steve Smith's catch
Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
- Ernie Cooksey
- Star Player
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:33 am
- Jim's Alterego
- Boot Polisher
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:53 am
Re: Steve Smith's catch
That's more or less what I wrote on GIAE's facebook thread on the same topic.
Franchises available
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Steve Smith's catch
The law of switch hitting has been adjusted. I understand the law around fielders moving is going to be changed as well.
Fox reckons that it has already changed (about 2 weeks ago).
Fox reckons that it has already changed (about 2 weeks ago).
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Steve Smith's catch
According to a friend who is a qualified umpire the ODI regs allowed this catch to stand.
Re: Steve Smith's catch
Pretty sure this catch would have been illegal 3 weeks ago but the law changed lol
- Keeping It Real
- Ball Boy
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:52 pm
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Steve Smith's catch
Bomber wrote:Brilliant work either way.
Under the "old" law, it would have been a no ball and cost his side a run. How would that be "brilliant work"?
Re: Steve Smith's catch
but it didn'tGod is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Brilliant work either way.
Under the "old" law, it would have been a no ball and cost his side a run. How would that be "brilliant work"?
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Steve Smith's catch
"either way"PDog wrote:but it didn'tGod is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Brilliant work either way.
Under the "old" law, it would have been a no ball and cost his side a run. How would that be "brilliant work"?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60425
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Steve Smith's catch
Purely on anticipation and guile. For example, you could take a diving outfield catch in your cap - its illegal, but it could still be a thing of beauty to witness.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Steve Smith's catch
You would cost your team 5 runs by doing that, do I wouldn't call that brilliant work either.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60425
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Steve Smith's catch
Against some teams, particularly ones you can beat 5-0, you can afford to be generous sometimes.God is an Englishman wrote:You would cost your team 5 runs by doing that, do I wouldn't call that brilliant work either.
Ignore this signature
- Ernie Cooksey
- Star Player
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:33 am
Re: Steve Smith's catch
I've seen fielders walk in about the same distance Smith moved. If they end up taking a catch on their belly, which obviously wouldn't have been possible if they'd remained still, should these also be disallowed?
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Steve Smith's catch
without looking up the actual law, I believe the movement allowed is less the closer to the bat.
Re: Steve Smith's catch
you could also say its masterful adaption to the new ruleGod is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Brilliant work either way.
Under the "old" law, it would have been a no ball and cost his side a run. How would that be "brilliant work"?
- Keeping It Real
- Ball Boy
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:52 pm
Re: Steve Smith's catch
[quote="ruud"you could also say its masterful adaption to the new rule[/quote]
You do realize that is exactly what he would have said if it had been an English cricketer who took that catch (or anyone playing against Australia for that matter)?
You do realize that is exactly what he would have said if it had been an English cricketer who took that catch (or anyone playing against Australia for that matter)?
It's just not cricket
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Steve Smith's catch
When have I said it wasn't a good catch? I would actually agree with Ruud's comment. Very good quick thinking by smith. Amazing to think not that long a go he was dropped as an a grade player in my local league
- Kitagawa Keiko
- Ball Boy
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:50 pm
Re: Steve Smith's catch
[quote="Kitagawa Keiko"]Why is it so hard for some people to use the quote function?
huh?
huh?
- Kitagawa Keiko
- Ball Boy
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:50 pm