The ashes 2023

[trabuch]

I didn't see that, but Glen McGrath is fuming on TMS. So for that alone I am happy.

[st albans fox]

They keep comparing it to smith’s catch 

I assume that in post day review, the umpires decided that this was an error so can you compare ?

 

fwiw, he had decent control of the ball for some time - however, judged not to have control of his body for long enough 

Edited 1 July 2023 by st albans fox

[Super_horns]

1 minute ago, trabuch said:

I didn't see that, but Glen McGrath is fuming on TMS. So for that alone I am happy.

Yes he is :

 

 

“That is the biggest load of rubbish that I've ever seen. If that's not out, every catch I've ever seen taken should not be out. That is a disgrace. I've seen everything. That is ridiculous”

 

[coolhandfox]

I heard it all, trying to justify a dodgy catch by harking back to another dodge catch.

 

[HighPeakFox]

Glenn McGrath struggling to understand the laws of cricket, and indulging in weapons grade false equivalence. 

[Super_horns]

Yes clearly touched the ground .

Maybe not intentionally but was on the grass .

https://twitter.com/SkyCricket/status/1675204117814292480/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1675204117814292480&currentTweetUser=SkyCricket

[StanSP]

Nah it's proper pissed me off how the Aussies are trying to defend it. I'm livid

 

[ealingfox]

If they gave the Smith catch though I can see why Australia are pissed off that the Starc one wasn't. Unless the 3rd umpire knows they fvcked up with the Smith one and have evened it up?

Edited 1 July 2023 by ealingfox

[purpleronnie]

Watching the womens team messing up pretty much sums up the day so far.

[RowlattsFox]

I can see why the aussies would be annoyed to be honest, but its still not out. You can argue he's already caught the ball, and he's touched the ground after it's caught. Smith one was different. 

 

 

[Raj]

That was out. 

He had the ball in control in his hand.

It's like when they catch a ball and within milliseconds celebrate by chucking the ball in the air onto the ground?

Edited 1 July 2023 by Raj

[StanSP]

Official catching rules state:

 

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

 

 

How is he in control of his movement when he's had to use the catching hand to balance himself as he's caught it? 

 

This to me, is the main question, and also the main reason why there shouldn't really be any debate, or defence of it. 

 

Starc satisfies the first part (start of the catch) 

Starc satisfies the second part (control of the ball) 

Starc doesn't satisfy the third part (control of his own movement). 

[ealingfox]

15 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Official catching rules state:

 

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

 

 

How is he in control of his movement when he's had to use the catching hand to balance himself as he's caught it? 

 

This to me, is the main question, and also the main reason why there shouldn't really be any debate, or defence of it. 

 

Starc satisfies the first part (start of the catch) 

Starc satisfies the second part (control of the ball) 

Starc doesn't satisfy the third part (control of his own movement). 

 

Just makes the Smith decision even weirder as surely he had satisfied neither?

[Sparrowhawk]

25 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Just makes the Smith decision even weirder as surely he had satisfied neither?

The Smith one looked to me like he actually had a finger under the ball. So a catch.

The Starc one he didn't and it wasn't.

[Lionator]

Did Pietersen really say that the Aussies sent Lyon out there in the hope he’d get concussed so they could replace him?? 

[FrankieADZ]

amazing how the mcgarth moaning about that, probably say that Smith catch was alright too, even tho it clearly hit the ground as well

the aussies always try and play the victim card, yeah they are one of the worse ones

Edited 1 July 2023 by FrankieADZ

[StanSP]

59 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Did Pietersen really say that the Aussies sent Lyon out there in the hope he’d get concussed so they could replace him?? 

Haven't heard this but wouldn't surprise me. 

 

That head of his makes it seem like he's been concussed for years. 

[tom27111]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Did Pietersen really say that the Aussies sent Lyon out there in the hope he’d get concussed so they could replace him?? 

He threw the idea out there.

 

Listening to the Sky commentary and watching it live, I think Ricky Ponting came up with the idea before KP.

 

Basically, had Lyon took a short ball to the head, he could be replaced by an equal player, which would be a poor batsmen, but still a world class spinner. 

 

It would be first class shithousery, but legal.

 

Thankfully, it didn't come to fruition and there were no suggestions it would.

 

But it shows in extremely rare circumstances that rules can be exploited.

 

I'm a bit disappointed that 2 England players didn't get either side of Lyon and basically help him off the pitch.

 

The guy can't stand up and they would have been a great gesture.

[leicsmac]

I don't think anyone should be surprised. The Aussies are there to win - not play with any kind of honour, that's pretty much been their guiding star since whenever. Play to win, do whatever it takes within the laws of the game - and occasionally, beyond them.

 

I hope England are prepared to be likewise ruthless.

 

As for the game itself, well, either it's all done by lunchtime (or shortly thereafter) or it's going to be a miracle grandstand finale IMO.

[Sparrowhawk]

7 hours ago, tom27111 said:

Thankfully, it didn't come to fruition and there were no suggestions it would.

Dontcha reckon this bit is key really, before everyone has an attack of the vapours over Australia doing something they didn't do and probs had no intention of doing.

And it looks like they don't even need Lyon to bowl England out...

[winteriscoming]

Anyone seen the Botham vs Chappell feud? They both still hate each other even after all these years. I do think there was slightly more willingness from Botham but Chappell wasn’t having any of it. 

[st albans fox]

I reckon the Aussies don’t want to stoop to our level of short pitch bowling to get the job done. They will mix it up way more than we did. But if we get to 200-5 then expect them to switch to the short stuff as we did (>90%) 

 

this pitch is offering so much uneven bounce that short pitch stuff aimed at the batsman is effectively unplayable on enough occasions to bring the wickets that they need. 
 

if they want it done and dusted quickly then they just bang it in from the get go but I think that comes with some risk in the first hour when the pitch may well play that bit truer - I assume it will be rolled pre play 

[Sparrowhawk]

54 minutes ago, winteriscoming said:

Anyone seen the Botham vs Chappell feud? They both still hate each other even after all these years. I do think there was slightly more willingness from Botham but Chappell wasn’t having any of it. 

tbf to Chappell it has become very clear over the years that Botham, amazing cricketer as he was, is an absolute cnut.

[Lako42]

I might have to start supporting Australia seeing as they are the only side trying to play cricket 

[winteriscoming]

19 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

tbf to Chappell it has become very clear over the years that Botham, amazing cricketer as he was, is an absolute cnut.

And Chappell isn’t??