Anil Kumble agrees with the legality of the catch while Dilip Vengsarkar thinks otherwise.
Australian Steve Smith’s movement from slip to leg slip — after left-arm spinner Xavier Doherty delivered the ball — to hold Pakistan’s Fawad Alam in the recent ODI at Abu Dhabi has become a subject of much discussion.
The key here is that Doherty had already released the sphere and batsman Alam, who top-edged a paddle sweep, had not yet made contact with the ball when Smith shifted from his position.
Law 41.7 of the MCC says, “Any significant movement by any fielder after the ball comes into play, and before the ball reaches the striker, is unfair. In the event of such unfair movement, either umpire shall call and signal a dead ball.”
For fielders close to the wicket, significant movement is defined as “anything other than minor adjustments to stance or position in relation to the striker.”
The ICC, however, clarified after the catch was successfully claimed in the match: “Given the recent trend of fielders moving in anticipation after a batsman had moved to play a shot, the ICC consulted with the MCC and advised the umpires to use the following interpretation: “As long as the movement of a close catching fielder is in response to the striker's actions (the shot he is about to play or shaping to play), the movement is permitted before the ball reaches the striker.”
The game’s governing body added a caveat, though: “On the day, if umpires believe any form of significant movement is unfair (in an attempt to deceive the batsman), then the Law still applies.”
Kumble said to The Hindu : “As long as the ball has been delivered, it is alright. I mean, the fielder does not really have the time for any major movement.
“In any case, a fielder often takes a catch quite some distance away from where he was originally stationed. Will you say someone fielding at short cover cannot take a catch at silly point?”
The leg-spinning great said the tendency of the batsmen these days to play the reverse sweep or the switch hit makes it harder for the bowlers.
“The game already favours the batsmen. Now, when they play the switch hit, which means they alter their stance, they gain a major advantage over the bowler.”
Another former India captain, Vengsarkar, thought differently about Smith’s catch.
“It is not fair on the batsman. He might have a particular stroke in mind after surveying the field. If the fielder takes off after he settles in his stance, it changes things.”
Vengsarkar also believed the fielder moving from his position — if he is not behind the wickets — distracted the batsman.
“Javed Miandad often moved from his position at silly mid-on after I had taken stance in a Test during the 1979 series in India. I had to complain to the umpire to stop him.”
He added: “In the 1982 series in England, Phil Edmonds kept shifting from his position at short-leg after Bob Willis had started his run-up. Again, I had to take up the issue with the umpire.”
After ICC’s latest interpretation of the rule, issues like three on-side fielders behind square could come up. Umpire K. Hariharan said, “It depends on whether the fielder, say, at slip had not crossed the wicket-keeper when the bat made contact with the ball.
“If he had done so and he becomes the third fielder behind square, the umpire will signal a no-ball.”
Hariharan said fielders should be allowed greater leeway during times when the batsmen are trying different strokes.
“A batsman’s stance begins from the time a bowler starts his run-up. You see, when a switch hit is played and the stance is changed, the bowler really suffers.”
Ask Vengsarkar, and he replies: “The switch hit is not an easy shot. It carries with it an element of risk and the bowler, too, has a chance.”
The debate rages on.
