The Angelo Matthews Fielding

[umpire]

you guys are crazy about changing rules. How many times have you seen this happen? this was my first time in last 30 years.

[cowboysfan]

^^this was people's argument against kp's switch hit as well and we havent seen those in while.this would not happen in tests matches in most grounds as the ropes are next to the fences.this is an exciting play and we should reward the athleticism and there is no need to change the rules.

[coffee_rules]

MCC declares the umps decision correct. If he was touching the ground beyond the boundary line with the ball in hand it was a 6. But he was airborne and that's legal. There is no rule that the player should not be beyond the boundary line to field a ball. He should be in when the ball was delivered, but not while fielding. Correct ruling imo. I have seen a SAan Andrew Hall being outside the boundary when the bowler took the runup and was stepping in when the ball being delivered and that;s legal too.

[coffee_rules]

How is this any different than ..the catch at 1:20... JELpSNgOT34

[cowboysfan]

^^a little different-he had both feet back in the field of play when he caught the ball.mathews was outside the ropes but both are legal.

[coffee_rules]

No, the fact that a fielder can be out of boundary in the process of fielding a ball. It's not illegal.

[cowboysfan]

are baba-that's what i said-it is defintely NOT illegal.

[Ram]

Sometimes, you cannot go by strictly what the rule book says because the rule book cannot possibly enivsage every possible circumstance that can occur on a cricket field. He was out of the field of play (totally) and made that save (palming the ball back into the field), while he was out of the field of play. That save does not count and that should have been awarded a six.

[The Outsider]

Sometimes, you cannot go by strictly what the rule book says because the rule book cannot possibly enivsage every possible circumstance that can occur on a cricket field. He was out of the field of play (totally) and made that save (palming the ball back into the field), while he was out of the field of play. That save does not count and that should have been awarded a six.

But in this case the rule book is unambiguous - the ball has to hit the turf across or on the boundary rope to be considered a four or a six.

[cowboysfan]

Sometimes, you cannot go by strictly what the rule book says because the rule book cannot possibly enivsage every possible circumstance that can occur on a cricket field. He was out of the field of play (totally) and made that save (palming the ball back into the field), while he was out of the field of play. That save does not count and that should have been awarded a six.

the guys who wrote the rule book are ok with it.

[Ram]

But in this case the rule book is unambiguous - the ball has to hit the turf across or on the boundary rope to be considered a four or a six.

Sure, but the actual ACT of preventing the ball from landing beyond the boundary rope was done by someone who was beyond the field of play. So by default, that should have been awarded a six. I suppose I can use a basketball analogy to explain what I am getting to. Assume play is going on and one of the players from a team trips and goes out of bounds. While he is still out of bounds and is getting up, if say a pass goes awry and the ball comes his way, he cannot simply jump up in the air (while still being out of bounds), catch the ball, pass it back to his team-mate and then claim he made a valid pass because his feet were not touching the ground. As Kablooee had mentioned in his post, once a player goes out of play, he has to re-establish himself within the field of play before he do anything that impacts the game. And I say that a six should be awarded by default because, once again, using the basketball analogy, once a defender blocks a shot on its way down towards the basket, he is penalized immediately with a call of goal-tending and two points awarded to the opponent team, irrespective of whether the ball would have gone into the basket or not. Similarly, irrespective of whether the cricket would have landed beyond the boundary or not, it should have been awarded a six because the fielder's act was contravening the rules of the game.

[Ram]

And as Fineleg had mentioned earlier, if this legal, then I can imagine the following situation also being legal; A batsman hoicks the ball towards the boundary. The fielder on the boundary edge feels that the ball will land just beyond the boundary rope. So, he crosses boundary, backs away for 10-12 yards, measures his-run-up and just as the ball is about to cross the rope (even while still being in the air), he starts running in, leaps just before the boundary rope, catches the ball in mid-air and lands inside the playing field and claims the catch. I dont think the rule-makers inteded this to be a legal act of catching, even though, by current rules, it may look like one.

[The Outsider]

^ Which cricket rule did the fielder's act contravene? And why should basketball rules be some kind of a holy grail? The organization which wrote the rules reviewed the incident and is happy with how the rules were interpreted and implemented. It does not get more transparent than that.

[The Outsider]

And as Fineleg had mentioned earlier, if this legal, then I can imagine the following situation also being legal; A batsman hoicks the ball towards the boundary. The fielder on the boundary edge feels that the ball will land just beyond the boundary rope. So, he crosses boundary, backs away for 10-12 yards, measures his-run-up and just as the ball is about to cross the rope (even while still being in the air), he starts running in, leaps just before the boundary rope, catches the ball in mid-air and lands inside the playing field and claims the catch. I dont think the rule-makers inteded this to be a legal act of catching, even though, by current rules, it may look like one.

I say all power to the fielder who can pull off something like that.

[cowboysfan]

I say all power to the fielder who can pull off something like that.

i would like to see more of that-it would make for some awesome fielding display.i suspect that's the reason MCC has no problem with it either.

[yoda]

There is one weird thing about this stop though. He touched the ball and then went out of bounds and touched it again. If this rule were to be examined theoretically, one could endlessly tap the ball, get back on his feet, jump tap the ball, get back on his feet and keep doing this forever and keep the ball still in play all the while being out of bounds.

[The Outsider]

There is one weird thing about this stop though. He touched the ball and then went out of bounds and touched it again. If this rule were to be examined theoretically' date=' one could endlessly tap the ball, get back on his feet, jump tap the ball, get back on his feet and keep doing this forever and keep the ball still in play all the while being out of bounds.[/quote'] And why would anyone be dumb enough to keep on doing that? What will it achieve besides evoking laughter from the crowd, not to mention he will tire out in some time anyways of the jumping and jacking.

[Ram]

^ Which cricket rule did the fielder's act contravene? And why should basketball rules be some kind of a holy grail? The organization which wrote the rules reviewed the incident and is happy with how the rules were interpreted and implemented. It does not get more transparent than that.

My bad, the fielder's act does not contravene any current cricket rule, but it does contravene the spirit of the laws of catching/fielding on the boundary rope. And its the spirit that we should be concerned about, not what a piece of paper with alphabets and numbers say, because, the law CANNOT possibly cover every possible circumstance on a cricket field. Bowling under-arm was legal, but just one instance of that delivery forced the MCC to re-write the laws. And I drew the basketball analogy not because it is holy-grail or anything, but because I think it makes sense.

I say all power to the fielder who can pull off something like that.

Sure, but I would not consider it as an legal act of fielding. Its a wonderful piece of athleticism, but not fielding.

[yoda]

And why would anyone be dumb enough to keep on doing that? What will it achieve besides evoking laughter from the crowd' date=' not to mention he will tire out in some time anyways of the jumping and jacking.[/quote'] that's not the point. the point is you can legally keep a ball in play being totally out of bounds when out of bounds means you are outside of the playing area.

[Ram]

that's not the point. the point is you can legally keep a ball in play being totally out of bounds when out of bounds means you are outside of the playing area.

Exactly. The point is about whether anyone is going to do such a thing or not, its about whether it constitutes a legal fielding act.