|South Africa||209||Cape Town||19-Mar-09|
|South Africa||284||Cape Town||9-Nov-11|
|South Africa||47||Cape Town||10-Nov-11|
|South Africa||246||Port Elizabeth||21-Feb-14|
|South Africa||216||Port Elizabeth||23-Feb-14|
Remember that catch by Martin Van Jaarsveld?
AUSTRALIA’S Steve Smith pulled off a spectacular and highly unusual catch to dismiss Pakistan’s batsman Fawad Alam during Sunday’s one-day clash in Abu Dhabi.
Why bother speculating wildly... I mean, deciding, when you can come straight to cricket's foremost organ of record:
Yes, I had seen that catch and it does raise a question or two. It is MCC’s opinion that the catch is legal for 2 reasons.
Firstly, although the fielder starts moving before the ball reaches the striker, it is arguable that the movement is not significant. In a (brilliant) act of anticipation, he is readying himself to move to his left which actually starts with him moving his left leg slightly to the right, ie in the opposite direction to that which he eventually runs. This is to give him the “springboard” to set off to his left. If you freeze the clip at the right moment at 16 seconds, there is a frame where the ball has clearly already been played by the batsman but the fielder’s left boot is visible at the top of the screen still in line with the white line that has been painted as a guide for wides for the umpire. If you then check back to his original position, it is only about a foot or two different.
Secondly, the movement by the fielder is purely as a result of the shot selected by the striker. He only decides to move once it is clear that a sweep shot is being attempted. It would probably be wrong for such anticipation to be outlawed. A similar act of anticipation, although for a different reason, is when the silly point turns away when the striker is shaping up for a square cut. Both of these are very different from, for example, square leg moving back 20 paces as the bowler runs in, or moving from in front of square to behind square. This is the main intention of the Law although you are also correct that the movement should not distract the striker (also covered by Law 42.4)
Nobody could deny that it was a wonderful piece of anticipation and skill by the fielder and the Laws should not seek to forbid such acts.
I hope that this clarifies the Laws for you
Laws & Universities Manager
Marylebone Cricket Club
Both catches are similar, although Van Jaarsveld's comes quicker off the bat. It would have been interesting if the umpires had ruled Steve Smith's catch illegal.
My very first post on chucking from almost 12 years ago:
During todays' lunch break in the cricket Ashley Mallett was giving a spot of coaching to an Under 17 hopeful:
"Just reach high and chuck it up there like Muralitharan"
Don't forget to bend your arm.
At the time, given Cricket Australia's and Nine's determination to shy away from anything remotely resembling controversy (and indeed Tawny's determination to preserve his commentary work on the subcontinent), it was possible to misconstrue Ashley Mallett's comment as a mere faux pas. Not any more:
Now that the ICC seems determined to stamp out the cancer of throwing on the international stage, it is perfect timing for Cricket Australia to call in Darrell Hair to advise our umpires.
Allow me to verbal... I mean, paraphrase Rowdy.
Hair's umpiring colleagues were squibbs.
Murali was a no-go zone.
Barry Jarman, like Hair, was railroaded.
Ranatunga played the race card to keep his trump card playing.
Saeed Ajmal has always been a huge chucker, who should be stripped of his wickets.
If you can bat against the world's worst chucker, you should be able to bat against the world's second worst chucker.
Jo Bow Botha wants to be allowed to chuck.
Let the umpires call chuckers.
Elbow bending is thowing.
Chuckers are coached to pass the Rubber Stamp, even though the Rubber Stamp does not care if you chuck.
Botha, surprise, surprise, Rubber Stamp.
When in-match testing arrives, the so-called elite off-spinners will run away.
If only the authorities had listened to the AGB:
World cricket's delayed action to enforce the law against throwing has given rise to a generation of spinners who can't bowl legally, according to a leading Australian spin coach, John Davison.
"I was in Sri Lanka a couple of months ago and 90 per cent of the bowlers over there bowl spin. I reckon 90 per cent of kids coming through would have what I would call an illegal action."
Davison accompanied Nathan Lyon and a national performance squad to Colombo to work with Muthiah Muralidaran in June.
I take it Davison has had an ironectomy. Who is the biggest spin hero on the subcontinent? Who is the spinner most emulated? The bloke he is working with. Surely at least 90% of the 90% of kids coming through with illegal action have copied Murali?