New Delhi
New Zealand opener Tom Latham was on 47 when he played a sweep shot onto his pads, which popped into KL Rahul’s hands at short leg.
Bowler Ravindra Jadeja appealed for the catch and the umpire, unsure, referred it to the TV umpire to check whether the ball had bounced off the ground or Latham’s pads.
Replays showed it was a clean catch and Rahul, before completing the dismissal, had fumbled a little, letting the ball touch his helmet’s strap.
The TV umpire gave Latham not out while Rahul was shocked to learn that because the ball had touched his helmet, the batsman survived. Like Rahul, many viewers must have been shocked to know about the rule which states that such a mode of dismissal is ruled not out.
{{/usCountry}}The TV umpire gave Latham not out while Rahul was shocked to learn that because the ball had touched his helmet, the batsman survived. Like Rahul, many viewers must have been shocked to know about the rule which states that such a mode of dismissal is ruled not out.
{{/usCountry}}Law 32.3 of cricket explains, “It is not a fair catch if at any time after having been struck by the bat and before a catch is completed the ball has touched a protective helmet worn by a fielder.”
On the contrary, a rebound off the protective pads worn by fielders at short-leg/silly point can lead to a dismissal. The law states that once the fielder wears them inside his trousers, any ball ricocheting from the leg of the fielder can be claimed as a catch.