The Angelo Matthews Fielding

[The Outsider]

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

You're ignoring perhaps the most important point here - the rule making body actually reviewed the incident and found it to be fine and in accordance with the spirit of the game. And they have made changes to the laws when they have found in the past that the spirit of the game was being violated like in the underarm incident or Lillee's Aluminum bat. That for me should end the discussion - it might violate your idea of the spirit of the game but it is fine with the organization which has managed to get a lot of rules right for over a century. If anything, the switch hit is more of a violation of the spirit than this.

[The Outsider]

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.

Yeah and in the meanwhile batsmen would be running and scoring runs, wouldn't that be smart? That ways the fielding side can always keep the ball in play indefinetly by constantly misflieding and overthrowing on the field deliberately - they don't need some jumping jack outside the boundary to do that.

[yoda]

Yeah and in the meanwhile batsmen would be running and scoring runs' date=' wouldn't that be smart? That ways the fielding side can always keep the ball in play indefinetly by constantly misflieding and overthrowing on the field deliberately - they don't need some jumping jack outside the boundary to do that.[/quote'] you are again missing the point. i don't know and don't care what is happening elsewhere. just concerned about this act of fielding. to me it doesn't make sense to allow a fielder to legally field a ball FROM out of bounds.

[Ram]

You're ignoring perhaps the most important point here - the rule making body actually reviewed the incident and found it to be fine and in accordance with the spirit of the game. And they have made changes to the laws when they have found in the past that the spirit of the game was being violated like in the underarm incident or Lillee's Aluminum bat. That for me should end the discussion - it might violate your idea of the spirit of the game but it is fine with the organization which has managed to get a lot of rules right for over a century. If anything' date=' the switch hit is more of a violation of the spirit than this.[/quote'] Just because a group of officials holding the relevant office deem something to be within the spirit of the sport, it does not make it one. I'd like to challenge ANYONE who thinks that fielding act was within both the rules and the spirit of the game. And I am not going by my own individual perceptions and definitions of what consitutes spirit of cricket here, I am going by established rules in other sports.

[Ram]

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

Its massively different. The fielder re-established himself within the field of play, before he committed his 'act' of catching the ball. That is a perfectly legal catch.

[fineleg]

Its massively different. The fielder re-established himself within the field of play' date=' before he committed his 'act' of catching the ball. That is a perfectly legal catch.[/quote'] yes, very different scenario

[The Outsider]

^ I guess some of you guys are way too opinionated based on "other sports" to see the logic behind the rule and how it was perfectly within the spirit of the game. Personally, I am happy about the way MCC adjudicated it.

[Ram]

^ I guess some of you guys are way too opinionated based on "other sports" to see the logic behind the rule and how it was perfectly within the spirit of the game. Personally' date=' I am happy about the way MCC adjudicated it.[/quote'] Lol Shwetabh, it doesnt matter what sport we use to cite precedents or relevant examples. All that matters is whether the example that is cited is valid or not. Given that you find this piece of 'fielding' within both the rules and the spirit of the game, will you also then consider the scenario I had cited (fielder running in from beyond the boundary, leaping to catch the ball and landing inside the boundary) as a legal piece of fielding within the rules and spirit of the game?

[The Outsider]

Lol Shwetabh, it doesnt matter what sport we use to cite precedents or relevant examples. All that matters is whether the example that is cited is valid or not. Given that you find this piece of 'fielding' within both the rules and the spirit of the game, will you also then consider the scenario I had cited (fielder running in from beyond the boundary, leaping to catch the ball and landing inside the boundary) as a legal piece of fielding within the rules and spirit of the game?

Yeah, I would consider it a superb and legal piece of thinking and fielding if someone manages to pull it off. All I've heard from opponents to this kind of fielding is citation of other sports - that is not a good enough argument to convince me. Oh yeah, also a couple of weird examples like yours above of yoda's about the fielded jumping and parrying the ball which batsmen keep scoring runs.

[devla]

My opinion its a six but I can see why it's argued to be legal fielding as well. Here, the difference was only 3 runs (assuming they ran 3). What if this was a catch? Better yet, what if you were a batsman whose catch was taken like that. Would you call it a fair catch? I wouldn't.