The India captain’s dismissal in the second innings, on Day Four, is a short cricket story. Just picture it. The left leg way forward in stride. Nathan Lyon pitching it in line of the middle stump. Bounce. Whizzes away.
Has it grazed the bat? No.
Is it hitting the stumps? The off, yes.
Rohit Sharma, leg before wicket, bowled Nathan Lyon.
IND vs AUS, World Test Championship HIGHLIGHTS: DAY 4
Wait. That the sweep itself was avoidable is not the story. That’s possibly what the Indian attack too could’ve had in their armoury, when bowling, had R Ashwin been around.
End of story.
Moving forward, India were 164-3 at stumps on Day Four, requiring another 280, with Rohit (43), Shubman Gill (18) and Cheteshwar Pujara (27) back in the dressing room. Barring Sharma’s dismissal, because if was a shot he could’ve avoided since he was well set and looking so good, Gill and Pujara’s wickets were also a result of a bit of poor luck.
Gill’s catch, picked by Cameron Green when he plunged very low to his left in the second slip, was a great effort but inconclusive. Gill stood until TV umpire Richard Kettleborough confirmed the catch, despite the age-old- line of benefit lying with the batter when in doubt. Pujara was caught behind while trying to uppercut Pat Cummins, a shot he often plays well, and realised the day again wasn’t his to survive.
Virat Kohli and Ajinkya Rahane were at the crease, negotiating Cummins and Starc, picking some runs in the process, seeing past a spell from Boland, and defying Lyon.
If not for Gill’s inconclusive dismissal, this script would’ve certainly read different.
Which brings us to the most discussed moment of the day – Gill c Green b Boland.
The very premise of Kettleborough’s assessment is that when it’s such a low catch, the important bit is to ascertain a) whether or not was the fielder in control of the ball and his body; b) whether or not the ball touched a blade of grass post.
Kettleborough’s assessment is based on the finding that Green was in control of both.
What does the rule say?
Here’s ICC rule 33.2 that determines ‘A fair catch’
33.2.1 A catch will be fair only if,
in every case
… either — the ball, at any time
… or — any fielder in contact with the ball,
is not grounded beyond the boundary before the catch is completed.
Rule 33.2.2 and more further compliment what determines a ‘fair catch’. What the rule book doesn’t talk about though is what do you do when the cameras can’t grab the ball? The visual evidence itself is bleak and therefore the confusion, which makes you want to question the entire process.
There was a time in cricket when different rules would’ve applied. There was a time when the umpire would’ve walked up to the fielder himself and ask and if the fielder said the catch was ‘clean’, his word would be taken. In the later years, the benefit of doubt stayed with the batter. When in doubt, the umpire would ask the batter to stay and not leave.
Today, in the world of soft-signals and umpires’ calls – that make cricket such an incomprehensibly difficult sport to understand – this merely adds to the confusion.
“What if Gill had stayed?” is a thought that’ll stay for a while given his form and the nature of the batter he is. His dismissal, followed by two more quick wickets made the mountain of a chase the size of an Everest on Saturday.
Rahane on a cautious 20 and Kohli on a prospering 44 were batting at stumps and will walk out yet again on Sunday morning. What happens from there will determine India’s fate, apropos the expectation.