catches -grounded or not

[rhunter]

Recent events again hilight the limitations of current technology in determining whether a legal catch has been made, but perhaps there is also a case for further clarification in Law, for all our sakes (or at least for mine).

In the context of Law 32 I have always considered the ground to be exactly that - the top of the soil upon which the game takes place, as opposed to the grass that grows up from it. Consequently, if a ball touches the tips of the grass but the fielder's hands are completely under the ball, thus preventing the ball making contact with the ground itself, I judge that to be a fair catch. Would others agree or not? (I fully accept that it may not always be possible to make that fine distinction, and if in doubt - Not Out)

I ask because in nearly all of the much-televised controversial occasions, the slow motion reveals that the ball is always in contact with grass at least, and that alone seems to be cause for the decision to go the way of the batsman, without undue further consideration of whether the fielder's hands are under the ball or not.

Is the ground the ground, or is it the grass that grows from it?

[missingleg]

In my view the grass is part of the ground. If you're trying to make a distinction between a quarter of an inch though, chances are you'll have enough doubt to rule not out (this is the only law that talks about any doubt going in favour of the batsman).

I wouldn't try to overcomplicate things by saying the grass isn't the ground.

[sillypoint]

As usual, the Laws of Cricket have the answer. Law 19.3.c states that "grounded beyond the boundary" includes contact with "any object in contact with the ground beyond the boundary". It makes sense therefore, to apply this same principle to the grass within the boundary when judging a catch; if the ball is in contact with the tips of the grass, then it is grounded.