New perspective on Suryakumar Yadav’s match-changing catch settles T20 World Cup 2024 argument

Team India, the 2024 T20 World Cup victors, triumphed upon returning from Barbados. The summit matchup with South Africa turned out to be an absolute drama. But in the very last over, Suryakumar Yadav produced a contentious moment by dismissing David Miller with an amazing catch.

In the next five deliveries, South Africa would have required 10 runs to win if the ball had gone for a six. But the catch engaged India fully in the contest. A tan line appeared to indicate that the boundary cushion was not in its original location, raising doubts about the validity of Yadav’s catch. It was also suggested that Suryakumar Yadav made contact with the rope using his feet. As a result of contrasting viewpoints, a fresh interpretation of the catch has emerged, demonstrating that his feet were not in contact with the rope.

Fans in the stadium recorded the video with a brand-new slow-motion smartphone camera. In the video, Surya’s feet are seen to be well away from the boundary rope when he makes the grab.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by SportsGully (@sportsgully)

Suryakumar Yadav discussed the moment he made the catch and shared his thoughts on Rohit Sharma’s prolonged stay.

“Rohit bhai rarely stands at long-on, but he was there when the ball was approaching. For a little moment, I looked at him and he looked at me. My goal as I ran was to catch the ball. I would have flung the ball in Rohit’s direction if he had been closer. However, he was far from it. Whatever occurred in those four to five seconds, I cannot understand,” Suryakumar told the IndianExpress.

Also Read: Softly probing Rohit Sharma about the flavour of Barbados soil, PM Modi

I knew I hadn’t touched the rope when I put the ball [up and within the playing area] and made the catch. My main concern was making sure my feet didn’t touch the rope when I pushed the ball back inside. I was aware of the fair catch. In retrospect, a lot could have gone wrong. The formula would have been five balls, 10 runs if the ball had gone for six. Even with a narrower margin, we could have still prevailed,” he continued.