dibyabttb Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 Watson and Rajasthan got six runs but Smith got nothing despite his extra ordinary efforts. Expected commentators to check laws and clear the air. So decided to check the laws myself and past instances. Stunned when I found out that Watson should have been given out according to the laws. Here's my post with detailed explanation What do you think?
bulbul Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 It was a moment that showcased incredible athleticism and an outstanding presence of mind, but Smith had nothing to show for his efforts as it was adjudged, according to the rules, as a six. The laws had been changed in October 2010 to deem an effort invalid if the fielder touches the ball after crossing the rope and before coming back into the field of play. That meant SmithÃÔ second touch made the Watson shot a six.
dibyabttb Posted May 9, 2012 Author Posted May 9, 2012 was changed in 2010. And the changed law is in Smith's favor (at least to me)
bulbul Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 I think rule regarding this was changed recently. SmithÃÔ Warriors team-mate Angelo Mathews had first triggered a debate over the legality of these sorts of fielding during the 2009 World Twenty20 with a similarly breathtaking outfield effort. this may be the primary reason
rkt.india Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 was changed in 2010. And the changed law is in Smith's favor (at least to me) :hmmm:
dibyabttb Posted May 9, 2012 Author Posted May 9, 2012 As far as I understood the change, a fielder can't go outside the boundary and jump to throw the ball back into play. The first contact has to be inside the ground. I mentioned this in the article.
dibyabttb Posted May 9, 2012 Author Posted May 9, 2012 MCC video explaining the rule change tkq_kBUi13c&feature=player_embedded
Executioner Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 Da fuq? It shud be given out!! I dont like this rules, maybe that fatty sharaP POWER changed it all
Magneto Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 I think this explains pretty clearly why Watson was NOT OUT. http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/iplwatcher/archives/2012/05/an_expensive_rule_tweak.php
dibyabttb Posted May 9, 2012 Author Posted May 9, 2012 I think this explains pretty clearly why Watson was NOT OUT. http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/iplwatcher/archives/2012/05/an_expensive_rule_tweak.php I read that post before writing. It has not taken the crucial aspect of first contact into the consideration. The law 19.4 says that the ball can be caught or fielded if the first contact with the ball happened inside the ground. This was the change. In smith's case, first contact happened inside the ground
dibyabttb Posted May 9, 2012 Author Posted May 9, 2012 i think the rule change in october 2010 was merely a safeguard so that no fielder misuses the previous instances of matthews and voges catches by standing behind boundary line and then jump to throw the ball back
rkt.india Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 I think once fielder touched the ball after crossing the boundary line, it wont be a legal catch then.
dibyabttb Posted May 9, 2012 Author Posted May 9, 2012 Arey, the rules say the ball can be caught or fielded even if it goes beyond the rope as long as it didn't touch the ground beyond the ropes
Sidhoni Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 I know the rules have been changed, but still, that should have been given out. The changes shud be reverted.
bulbul Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 Arey' date=' the rules say the ball can be caught or fielded even if it goes beyond the rope as long as[b'] it didn't touch the ground beyond the ropes you dont need any rule for that
Magneto Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 I read that post before writing. It has not taken the crucial aspect of first contact into the consideration. The law 19.4 says that the ball can be caught or fielded if the first contact with the ball happened inside the ground. This was the change. In smith's case' date=' first contact happened inside the ground[/quote'] I think your interpretation of 'first contact' and the umpire's interpretation of 'first contact' is different here. For you, it's when he caught the ball and ran across the rope; but for the umpire, the first contact is when he lobbed the ball back onto the ground (from outside the field of play).
velu Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 IMHO the law is fine and perfect. Consider a case when the ball is clearly going for a six , fielder can go outside the boundary line and can throw the ball back .The new law is to avoid that case.
Stuge Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 You're pretty much promoting your link i.e your blog, which is too against rules of ICF .
Recommended Posts