I think that's actually not him showing up anyone, but simply doing the "how's that" to the ump, which is a typical way cricket handles out calls and such. The ump doesn't just call outs, you have to actually say "how's that" and then the ump will give their decision. So I think that's what he was doing there rather than showboating or anything. It's called an appeal in cricket
No. You got it right with the whole explanation. If you catch the ball inside the play field and then went out but the ball never has a path to the ground as your feet are in the air, it means the ball was never "grounded" and hence it is a catch. it's the same as catching it with your hands over the boundary ropes with the ball having crossed beyond the play field. The ICC got it right and it was a catch and he was out. No need to change this at all.
Also, if you DO want a rule change, then it should be that as long as the fielder NEVER steps out of bounds and does whatever he needs to, it is a catch. The moment he puts a foot out of bounds, he cannot touch the ball again
As long as the fielder that caught the ball has made foot contact with the ground within the boundary line the batsman is still out weather the fielder steps over the boundary or not. The only difference is that if he does cross the boundary line with the ball the batsman gets 6 runs but is still technically out.🇦🇺
Not out all day when I was a kid. Playing 1st XI thru high school saw this countless times. I can see the problem though when this happened and batter was given not out, was it 4 or 6 he scored, it becomes a do over add one more to the bowler. Stifled the game. Batter loses on 4 or 6 on his record, team loses those potential runs and bowler has to bowl extra ball in over. Bowler loses that out on his record, potentially could get him out with extra ball in over or potentially and usually what happens the batter scores a 4 a 6 anyway.
My view was that law 33.2.1 requires a fielder to not be grounded beyond the boundary before the catch is completed for a fair catch, and 19.5.1 says "a fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is in contact with ... the ground beyond the boundary". Once he lands out of bounds then he's grounded and nothing in the rest of the laws allows a "reset" of grounded status just because you jump in the air, therefore his second catch took place after he was grounded, therefore it's not out, 6 runs. The law needs to change anyway because of players doing stupid full sprint dives over the boundary just so they can chuck it back in and getting destroyed when they hit the ground, this only makes it more necessary. I would make it that if you touch the boundary or the ground beyond it having touched the ball to field it then it's a four run boundary for touching the boundary, or 6 runs if you grounded over the boundary, regardless of what happens with the ball. There, done. No more clownshow juggling nonsense like this. Boundary ropes started being used from the late 90's after a spate of injuries to ankles & legs from players diving into the fence and now players have adapted and are getting injured all over again doing basically the same thing.
Note "IS in contact with the ground beyond the boundary" and not "HAS BEEN in contact with the boundary:. This says you are only grounded WHILE in contact with the ground outside the boundary and the rule was interpreted correctly and no reset is required. Players are NOT getting destroyed when they hit the ground since they know how to slide. They are not getting injured now, with the exception of the odd isolated incident. And if you do this you would have to ban ALL diving while fielding. You would have to add a clause that would award penalty runs if a fielder leaves their feet for any reason. And ban batters diving to avoid being run out.
@@amireallythatgrumpy6508 Yeah like I said, "A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if". The player was grounded the moment he touched the ground outside the boundary (then took another 6 steps after) and nowhere in the laws does it allow resetting a grounded status during the play. Player touches ground outside boundary means he's grounded which means touching the ball makes the catch is no longer fair = 6 runs, not out. Why would you need to penalise jumping? You just make contact with the boundary after touching the ball count as ball touching the boundary even if the ball was deflected/thrown before the contact with the boundary was made. So you have to stay in the field of play after the dive for it to count. This catch being allowed is ludicrous, what next, you can go sit in the stands and claim you aren't "grounded" because your actually on the concrete which isn't "the ground". Dumb dumb dumb.
@@bigpoppa1234 Your interpretation of the rule is STILL incorrect. The obvious interpretation of the rule is the following. You are ONLY grounded WHILE you are touching the ground over the boundary and therefore you are not grounded while you are in the air. It says nothing about remaining grounded beyond the boundary after touching the ground. You are only grounded WHILE touching the ground and not once you have left the ground. Therefore no "reset" is required. You obviously didn't actually read my initial reply. Or maybe you're just too thick to understand it. Yeah that's probably it ... He was not touching the ball and the ground at the same time. When he was touching the ball, he was not touching the ground at that time. Therefore he was not grounded at the instant he touched the ball. You also clearly missed the part where the first touch needs to be within the field of play, so you can't sit in the stands. Also concrete IS grounded and only an idiot would even think of such an argument, since this is clearly covered by the other part of the law that you didn't quote. The concrete itself is touching the ground so it would be considered " any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary"
Ball never made contact with the ground inside the field of play (doesn't matter whether a fielder touched it while touching the ground inside of play) so it would be six.
I’m Australian and this is an absolute DISGRACE. I’ve got no problem with catching the ball inside the boundary throwing it up the player then leaves the field of play but should have his feet grounded back inside the field of play before finishing the catch.
Love your videos, as an Australian I really appreciate how well you are explaining the rules of the game to your audience who would probably have no idea what is going on most of the time.
Getting Americans into global sports is always fun IMO. Like how much they're getting into rugby these days. And cricket is the 2nd most popular sport on earth and actually has a history of being played in the US (until baseball took over), so yeah it'd be fun to have a good US cricket team in the world cup or something. They'd probably be good at it.
I'm sure a video like this plays to me as an American like explaining what is (and isn't) a catch in American football might be to an Aussie. It's always fun learning about the nuances of other sports. One could do a whole video comparing how the sidelines work in every sport, and I'm sure it could be entertaining.
Without obscure rules, cricket just wouldn’t be cricket. This player spent time learning the rule and took advantage of it. Also, this was a technically difficult play that required both excellent coordination and forethought. Good for him.
Whatever coordination or technicality was employed, the FACT remains, the ball travelled beyond a set boundary and so cannot be allowed as a catch. Also the fielder didn't hover around in the air but actually stepped outside the boundary and then returned to take catch.
@@2244khan Exactly 💯 This is illegal. ICC needs to modify this rule. Otherwise more area outside of the boundary should be cleared so that a player can run outside of the boundary to push the ball inside just as he did.
Excellent breakdown... you've nailed it. Awesome to see an American who has such a rich knowledge of non-US sports and is so entertaining. Here in Australia we love watching your baseball and American football - much respect :)
Baseball is all about hitting full tosses.. catching with gloves..no involvement of pitches or weather..so basically a rudimentary not too skillful sport..
@@whois_dev9314 American, but I will admit as a cricket fan that it is hard. The balls might be full toss but I've seen baseball matches where the ball just seems to do crazy amount of movement, making it equally as hard for the batsman to hit.
This rule was changed a few years back because these catches often go semi-viral and are good for promoting the game. I always thought they took it too far. If you're out of bounds before and after a jump, you're out of bounds. But we all know the REAL crime here is the boundary being like 20 fucken metres in from the crowd
Yeah what happens if there are obstructions just beyond the boundary? Do those stewards who were sat nearby have a duty to get out of the way of a fielder attempting this? If not, can I station the other batsmen "warming up" in the vicinity to catch the ball while grounded and score the 6/4 runs?
@@DanielHarveyDyer In the good old days, the boundary was the crowd fence, same as baseball, and once it's in the crowd it's in the crowd. I can understand why they changed to bringing it a couple of metres in for safety reasons but this is taking the piss.
@@danielhay3772 and fielders kept injuring themselves sliding into the fence. Plus fielders were too close to the crowd and had things thrown at them. Having the boundary rope about 2-3 metres is the best.
Cool play, but I think I’d rather the rule be that once he touches his feet out of bounds, he is considered OB or grounded or whatever until he to touches his feet back in bounds. So tossing it up, falling out, coming back in, then catching it, if that makes sense
Agreed. It would still make for acrobatic plays, arguably more so since you have to throw it higher, get your footing, and return back in bounds. I’d equate it to being out of bound in basketball. When you’re already out you can’t just jump up and be considered in bounds, but you can jump FROM in bounds to save a ball
Well when he caught the ball then threw it back while out of bounds he wasn't touching the ground when he threw the ball back in bounds! He and the other example jumped as they contacted the ball back in bounds!
I like this rule. As long as first contact is within the boundary it is alway interesting to watch players juggle ball outside the boundary without touching the ground when they touch ball. This isn’t easy and certainly this doesn’t necessarily give batsman disadvantage as the first contact is inside.
I listened to an announcer on this and he said that with the current rule, the fielder could technically throw the ball up 300 times and it would still count so long as the feet were never on the ground with the toss up and the final catch was inbounds.
True, but it would be physically difficult to time this right multiple times. In the frame by frame slow motion replay, he was literally a single frame away from touching the ground and ball at the start of his jump and just before his landing. So if he is a fraction of a second out with his timing, then he would end up grounded with the ball.
I would prefer that the rule be that once you make contact with the ground outside the boundary, you are officially out of bounds too. Its much clearer. You can still do a leaping catch over the boundary, or just bat it back inside for someone to scoop up. But when you go outside of the field of play in almost every other sport, you have to come back inside before you can interact with the game again. It just makes sense.
I concur. If you leave the ground from out of bounds the play is dead when you touch it because you are now ineligible. It'd be different if he had touched inbound batted it up, came back inbound and they touch the ball.
I adore this rule, because it's so hilarious to watch people attempt the rule, that when they do, they deserve it.....but I'm also a Brisbane Heat fan, so I'll take any small win I can get.
@@jjcrump74 Yeah I think it should be like basketball or football where, after you step out of bounds, you are out of bounds, and any ball you touch is out of bounds until you "reestablish" by putting a foot down in bounds.
@@leavemanycredits agree with you. Not least because you could go hot potatoing on indefinitely, jump and bat, all the way up the stairs, out of the stadium, onto the plane to Cape Canaveral and into space if you wanted.
For the people saying the boundary is too far in. The grounds in Australia are absolutely massive!!! If that rope goes back where it should technically be that would be like around 92-97 meters out.
Once he's grounded once out of bounds, he shouldn't be allowed to "reset" or "unground" out of bounds. You should get only one jumping/ungrounded opportunity to deliver the ball back into the field of play. That seems like the "spirit" of the rule.
I’m inclined to agree. The wording of the original rule seems to technically allow for this interpretation, but I doubt it was the intention. I feel like a lot of cricketers will have watched this play and said, “wait… we’re allowed to do that??”
@@nichj487 the MCC have confirmed that the current interpretation is correct and intended. They reworded the law when a similar one was incorrectly given not out.
No, the rule should be changed. If you catch the ball within the boundary, and are controlling the ball and grounded within the boundary, it should be out even if you run out of the boundary. thus eliminating stuff like this.
@@SeenGod do you mean in general? That would make it a very different game - catches are quite often juggled. I also think the comparison with volleyball is interesting because there the position of the players doesn't matter. They can run out of bounds as far as they like before touching the ball
I only understand cricket rules from what you've explained in past videos, and my first instinct was catch. I like the rule, and I actually think it's pretty clear. He was last grounded in bounds when he first touched the ball, and never grounded on or outside the boundary, so it's a catch. I like the rule. Juggling is hard. Juggling while jumping is harder. That's sports, baby!
Provided your feet were in the field of play before you caught the ball ok. If you were out of bounds and jumped in the like this, should not be out. But it’s ok by the current rules.
I thought it'd be given, but being able to run out of play, turn, jump to knock it back over the boundary, then run in and catch it makes a mockery of fielding catches. The rule needs changing so the fielder has to knock it towards a team mate on the field if he cannot catch within the boundary.
In several sports, that involve an "Out of Bounds" line, the rule is similar: if your last contact was OOB, you cannot touch the ball. It makes it interesting to disregard this (assuming you first touched it in bounds), but it doesn't feel correct for some reason.
Since I’m a fan of football and baseball, I think it’s a catch. Even if you catch the ball in the field to play and still go out of bounds or over the wall or end up in the stands like a baseball player because your momentum is carrying you so much, it still counts as a catch as long as he made the catch within the field to play first. You don’t have to stop in the field of play for it to count. Your momentum taking you out doesn’t cancel it. Catch catch catch, all day long.
I like the rule as is, but would add one modification: I would put a touch limit of two deliberate touches beyond the boundary. It allows for athletic, creative play while disallowing the play to get ridiculous. Additionally, I'd like to add that Peter Moylan is the best Australian voice artist that I've ever heard working for Jomboy Media, and also the best former Braves member to work for JM.
I think you're saying that the player can touch the ball twice while the ball is beyond the boundary. If that's not exactly what you mean then this is moot. But the problem with a rule like that would be the 'beyond the boundary' part. Like if he jumps in the air and touches it a third time as he's crossing back over you would need something like soccer's goal line/offside technology to determine where the ball is while in mid-air. It adds a whole extra level of complication.
Keep in mind, their first touch has to be inside the boundary. They can’t just take the ball from super far outside of the country back in, as they have to touch it inside the boundary first.
I would say if youd want to do that, then probably have him at least need to get a foot inbounds running... I mean touch the inbounds and you can make a jump like he did whole out of bounds. Or if that's too easy, make it so he'd have to redive for the ball(in this situation) in order to throw it up (or back inbounds to a teammate) again. When teammates are prepared to help as well, it could really lead to sick plays
@@nolanmcleod2619 As long as both feet are inside the field of play when they jump, the first touch can be made in the air outside the field of play. And the ball is released before they land.
I like how you momentarily used "points" instead of "runs" to make it easier to understand for the US audience, when "runs" is one of the only terms used in both baseball and cricket 🤣
@@sambl1ncoe this one is fun because baseball uses "inning" for a single inning, or "innings" for multiple, yet cricket is just plain "innings" for both.
I like the weird boundary rules in Cricket, they make for some different acrobatics and hand-eye coordination, and the other benefit is that you avoid Baseball's weird park-construction shenanigans like the Green Monster at Fenway Park. Also, wall collisions are dangerous, and the boundary system makes Cricket much safer.
Actually in early 90s the fence used to be the boundary. Over the fence it's a six. They brought boundary line because of the exact reason u mentioned. Players were getting hurt while fielding
They shouldn't change it. It's just an example of a high iq player bending the rules to the absolute maximum and i like it when people come up with such solutions. More power to em imo
I appreciate his knowledge of the existing rules and his athleticism in pulling it off. In my personal opinion, securing a catch near the boundary should be very much like securing a catch in the NFL. Secure the catch in the field of play with two feet in bounds, and if your momentum takes you "out" or over the line as it were after securing the catch- which you must maintain control of, obviously- then that's a catch. That's how I would write the rule.
Australian Rules footys the same, you can jump up in bounds, mark (grab, catch) the ball & fall out of bounds. As long as youve controlled the ball, not juggled it etc it's a legal mark.
Troy Johnson of the Wellington Firebirds did this twice last week against the Northern Brave. He actually flubbed the first catch by stepping over the boundary for 6, but then the exact same thing happened a few overs later and he made the catch for the wicket.
Lived in aus for 2 years. Playing cricket stopping for tea and BBQ and finishing next weekend was eye opening. There are literal out door stainless steel kitchens by the pitch. Great times.
Not a catch because his feet came from out of bounds when he jumped up to catch/throw the second time. Wouldn’t he be out already because he’s coming from out of bounds? That’s what I would figure. Edit: ok, welp, based on the rule at 2:00 it’s definitely a catch! And honestly, it’s pretty fun. Why not? It’s freaking cricket! 🤣
Out all day long. The UMPIRES don't need to go upstairs to know the ruling. They know what the rules say on the matter. They checked with the TV umpire to see if the fielder was grounded at any point during the catch. ps we don't care if you don't like the rule. lol
I think if you step out of bounds you can smack it/hit it once, but you are now considered "out of bounds" so like Renshaw, need a teammate to get it. I'm only imagining a guy running around the entire field while jumping and bouncing the ball over and over again without that rule.
No, that would be allowed. The first contact with the ball must be inside the boundary, or 'from' inside the boundary. Any subsequent touch must be either inside the boundary or off the ground - but can start from 'beyond the boundary'. A catch must finally be completed inside the boundary - but you could still prevent a boundary by throwing it back in from the air outside the boundary after multiple touches. So if you really wanted to you could juggle and jump around outside the boundary. But you'll look like an idiot when you eventually get one jump wrong and it's a 6.
@@richjhart That's exactly what they said, they know it's allowed. They're just saying there's an absurd possibility of continual jump throwing, without a rule being put in place. The first sentence is them saying what they think it should be.
Except there's no difference between what Neser and Renshaw did in that regard. Once outside the boundary they both jump and/throw the ball once. Only difference is Neser regathers his own throw.
I think it’s pretty cool, kinda goofy but I like it. I would say no catch because he had already touched out of bounds but if it’s allowed good on him.
This is a domestic league so they can kind of experiment around technicality of a rule but in a international tournament the stakes being higher they should make the legality about this absolutely clear.
There's rule that "before taking the final catch fielder must've landed inside boundary." And i think this rule needs to change by "catch" to "contact"
As an Aussie who is a big cricket fan, 100% should have not been out, the way the rule is currently makes for some interesting catches, but in my mind is unintuitive and doesn't make a lot of sense. The player should have to re-enter the field of play or else he should be considered out of the field of play and this should be a 6. Weird that the rule changes based on where the player first makes contact with the ball.
As an Aussie trying to make sense of some of the stupid rules of out great game. I would take the NFL rule the catch is complete when the ball is touched with both feet inside the boundary and the control of the is maintained to the ground or the player takes 2 steps with the ball secured. A player as outside the boundary is considered out of play. If a ball touches a player out of play player the ball is considered over the boundary. A player must have both feet grounded inside the boundary to be considered in play. As for the 6 runs the ball is considered grounded with a completed catch, if the player then runs outside the boundary with the ball 4 runs shall be awared.
I don't think that should be a catch because he manipulated the ball after his feet were out of bounds. I think if you start any phase in an out of bounds (feet actually touching the ground) position to manipulate the ball back onto the pitch we probably shouldn't call it a catch. Nifty work though.
i think a big reason for this is the boundaries are relatively new in the game of cricket. It use to be the fence was the boundary until a fielder slid into one and got injured. So for the majority of crickets life time, this was never an issue
I think in some leagues you are consider grounded out if you touch out until such time as you touch back in. Which means you need to re-establish in bounds before you touch the ball that second time.
I think if when you touch the ball, if that last part of the ground you’ve touched was beyond the boundary, the ball should be ruled over the boundary. It still allows players to continue with the play after they step out of bounds, but first they have get back in bounds.
The ball needs to contact ground either physically or through an objects ie. Human extension to be counted as "out of boundary". If the ball is still in the air, it hasnt touched ground yet, and if the player touches the ball while not touching the ground, the ball is still technically in the air. This kind of play can only work a few meters from boundary. You cant be a player waiting outside boundary and then jump, touch, and catch inside boundary. The player needs to be INSIDE the boundary when the ball leaves the bowlers hand. So this kind of play is certainly acceptable as its linited to only a few meters beyond boundary. Not only that but most if not all cricket pitches have a fence within 5m of boundary so you cannt really play this way much further out.
I agree based on Law 19.5.1. Laws19.5.1 and 19.5.2 appear to contradict each other in what is regarded grounded beyond the boundary. In practical sense this would be a nightmare for umpires without a third umpire to administer. Determining from at least 50 meters away if made first contact within the boundary any subsequent contact beyond the boundary was in air is ludicrous. IMO It should only count while on a back of a kanagroo and juggling a cold beer (unless it's a XXXX) without spilling a drop as well. 🤣
Nobody cares what you 'think'. The rules are specifically worded and defined. Either you follow them, or change them afterwards... but that was an OUT as per the rules at that time.
I think the rule should be changed to say that you need to be grounded in the field of play before you can contact the ball again after you’ve tossed the ball in the air. You need to have your bat grounded behind the crease to avoid a run out. If you’re out of the playing area and you’ve grounded your feet you couldn’t catch the ball if it’s still above the field of play.
That's a terrible decision/ law, but I guess for T20's it adds for entertainment. The fact that he was out of bound on the second touch should have resulted in 6 runs.
Obscure rules/rulings are fun and knowing them should help you if you are athletic and heads up enough to take advantage. I love that this is a thing and I hope there won't ever be any sort of over clarification that imparts new limitations thereby robbing us of these moments.
Jomboy, the situation you’re talking about at 4:27 actually happened in the BBL a couple of years ago. Ben Laughlin threw the ball to Jake Weatherald to complete one of the best catches of all time! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s6nbXzamsXM.html
You should only get the first chance. Can't hot potato on the outside. Otherwise fielders would be stading out of bounds, in the crowd and throw it back in.
A match in New Zealand (Northern Brave v Wellington Firebirds) not too long ago had the same fielder attempt a catch like this twice, perhaps a couple overs apart. First one he had the ball while a foot was on the ground past the rope, but the second was good.
Starting in bounds, jumping out of bounds, catching in bounds = YES. Starting out of bounds, jumping out of bounds, catching in bounds = NO. That's my gut instinct.
I love how the two ball boys in both clips seem to be the same kids in the same position (definitely the same shirts), almost as much as I love that Jomboy is doing cricket breakdowns.
This doesn't happen all that often and it isn't how the boundary was marked until a couple of decades ago, so people didn't really invisage a situation like this. If it starts to happen too much, they'll probably change the rules because it does seem a bit ridiculous
Since I've been learning cricket through your rules explanations, I knew it was a catch because of the jump when he was out of bounds to toss it back in play so he could catch it.
I knew the rule, but it wasn't clear at full speed that he had executed the timing of his jump catch and re-throw all whilst he was in the air. It was only 100% clear from the frame by frame slow motion replay, as he was literally a single frame away from touching the ground and ball at the start of his jump and just before his landing. As he has demonstrated, it is clearly possible to do this, but I'd expect a lot of players to mess up the timing. I think it would be difficult for players to do this on a consistent basis, unless they specifically practiced it.
I feel like once you step out of bounds then you've established yourself out of bounds and shouldn't be able to touch the ball until you establish yourself in bounds again by stepping in bounds. My dad's actually John Cricket, I'll let him know to change the rule.
@@poulanthrope More propaganda like it came straight from the mouths of the "We're only getting 10 million each from the will" Cricket kids themselves. Keep pushing that narrative, you greedy literal bastards, see how much Uncle Jacob leaves behind when all the blow he's spent his money on seizes his heart during one of his frequent visits with Thai sex workers!
I think it's fun. In baseball there are similar rules where players can jump and reach over the barriers, and fumble with the ball on the way down and catch it and have it count. It takes athleticism to make this kind of catch and I think it's in the spirit of the sport, fun to watch, and so it should count and leave the rule it is.
The ones I have seen that are similar the catcher catches the ball throws it up before going out of bounds then gets back in bounds before it drops and re catches it while in bounds, which makes sense to me, this seems …
Love the cricket stuff. Okay I think they will say that since he actually "cupped" or "established full control of the ball" whilst beyond the boundary, they will rule it a 6. Perhaps if he had just swatted at it, or sort of volleyball'ed it back across the boundary, the call could have gone his way. Let's see what actually happened now!! xD If I'm right I want an interview with Jomboy Media!! xD
It was out because of two reasons: His FIRST touch of the ball was in the field of play AND he never touched the ball and the ground over the line at the same time - when he touched the ball outside of the field of play he was airborne.
It didn't look like his momentum was really going to carry him out of bounds. Seems riskier to have a catch with yourself than to just hit the ground and safely stay away from the barrier.
Which video are you watching? His momentum is definitely carrying him over. More than likely if he goes to ground he is still going to dive/slide/roll into the boundary rope which still results in a 6.
As someone who has never watched a single game of cricket or knows any rules besides the ones mentioned in this video and previous ones, I like this rule. I also like the idea that he can jump and throw it to a teammate, but can’t pass it back to himself once leaving the playing area similar to football rules.
"but can’t pass it back to himself once leaving the playing area similar to football rules" but..that's exactly what he did. He caught it, threw it in the air, stepped out of bounds, juggled it (legally), stepped back into bounds, and finished the catch.
@@tomb816 I'm saying, with further explanation, if he got one more touch out of bounds while jumping to throw it to a teammate in bounds that would allow for some interesting teamwork. So, initial touch in bounds, one touch where he throws it from out of bounds.
When you throw the ball in the air inside the boundary then it's okay, but he shouldn't be allowed to throw the ball in the air again after he's outside the boundary, no matter if the feet are touching the ground or not.
I think that is a fair play. A stroke of genius. Makes me think of baseball where outfielders jump over the fence and catch a potential home run mid air. When they land out of bounds, I feel the catch should not count.
This should be considered out.. it brings so much charm to spectacle value to cricket.. and tests presence of mind and very precise timing of players...
I feel like if this were a catch it's rife for potential abuse. You could hot potato it over and over. I feel like it should be similar to basketball in that if you are out of bounds and jumped to touch the ball, they would still call you out. You have to "establish" yourself in bounds before touching it again. Similar to football rules in a sense as well, not being the first person to touch the ball once you've stepped out of bounds. Different variations but the same principle.
If you are interested in this catch, there are plenty of great but simpler looking catches to look up where they throw it to a teammate before going out of bounds like described in the video later on, and some where they just throw it once then catch it themself inside bounds
