Ian Bishop Criticizes Jason Holder's Controversial Catch in IPL

Former West Indies cricketer Ian Bishop has criticized the controversial catch taken by Jason Holder to dismiss RCB captain Rajat Patidar during the IPL match against Gujarat Titans. Bishop stated that there was sufficient evidence for the catch to be ruled not out, as the fielder lacked control over his body and the ball. The third umpire cleared the catch despite inconclusive replays, leading to visible frustration from RCB players including Virat Kohli. Patidar's dismissal proved costly for RCB, who lost three more wickets in quick succession.

Key Points: Ian Bishop on Holder's Controversial Catch in IPL

  • Ian Bishop questions Jason Holder's catch decision
  • Patidar dismissed on 19 after controversial catch
  • Bishop cites lack of control over ball and body
  • RCB camp unhappy with umpire's decision
3 min read

'There was sufficient evidence for that to be not out': Bishop on Holder's controversial catch

Ian Bishop says there was sufficient evidence for Jason Holder's catch to be ruled not out in the RCB vs GT IPL match, raising doubts about the umpire's decision.

"I think there was sufficient evidence in my mind for that to be (not out) - Ian Bishop"

Ahmedabad, May 1

Former West Indies cricketer Ian Bishop has given his take on Jason Holder's controversial catch in the dismissal of Royal Challengers Bengaluru captain Rajat Patidar during the IPL clash against Gujarat Titans, saying that there was sufficient evidence to rule it not out and the umpire must have taken a second look before making the final decision.

During the first innings when RCB were trying to build a solid platform, in the eighth over, Patidar, who was batting on 19, attempted to play a pull shot to increase the scoring rate. Holder stationed at deep backward square leg charged to his right and took a fine low catch. Rabada too was charging across to take it, but Holder managed to ignore that.

RCB players, who thought Holder wasn't in control of the catch and had touched the turf, were having an argument with the umpires. But the umpires reckon otherwise, as replays appeared inconclusive on whether the ball had touched the ground. Despite the concern, the third umpire cleared the catch after a review, and Patidar was adjudged out.

When asked for a clear verdict, Bishop made his stance evident, stating that the available visuals did not convincingly support the decision given on the field.

"First he caught the ball, no problems with that. And then with the sliding of the hand initially, that deserved a second look. And then you talk about control of the ball but also control of the body. So when you're looking to get yourself up having slid along the ground, are they determining that his fingers was under the ball.

"Because the back of the hand was to the sky, which means the ball was facing the grass. And so there was to me doubt there about ball and ground, because you're not in control of your body until you stop sliding and you stand up if you're going to do that. So out or not out? I think there was sufficient evidence in my mind for that to be (not out)," Bishop said on ESPncricinfo.

As per the MCC's laws of cricket, a catch is considered fair if the fielder has "complete control over the ball and their own movement before it the ball touches the ground."

The umpire's decision left Kohli and the RCB camp visibly unhappy. The former captain, who had earlier provided a quick start with 28 runs off just 13 balls, was later seen near the boundary rope engaging in a lengthy conversation with the umpire.

Patidar's wicket came as a major setback for RCB, especially given his recent form and importance in the middle order. After the captain's wicket, RCB lost three more wickets in a span of just four overs.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
I was watching live and it looked clean to me. The replays showed the ball was in his fingers when he hit the ground. But Bishop's point about control of the body is valid. In today's IPL, every small margin matters, and these close calls always spark debates. 🤔
S
Sarah B
Look, I'm an RCB fan and biased, but Bishop is right. If the back of his hand was facing up and the ball was facing the grass, how can you be 100% sure it didn't touch? The rule says "complete control" - that wasn't complete control. Third umpire needs to be more careful with such crucial decisions.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50