So rarely any point checking those.
The problem is similar as the one with football’s offside laws. They work fine in analogue where the official just makes a split-second judgement, but look to closely and no-one actually knows what the laws mean.
“The ground” consists of bendy blades of grass of various lengths. The ball could conceivably have a hand underneath it but still be in contact with “the ground”. Is that a catch?
If the soft signal is out, any finger under the ball = out. If the soft signal is not out, any grass in contact with the ball = not out. Same set of facts could play out in opposite ways based on the soft signal.
Needs a new protocol about what "catch" does and doesn't mean, and what evidence is required to rule a catch hasn't been taken. Upward movement of the ball, for example.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
