Magneto 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. And in Gayle's case, the fielder can be standing ten rows away from the boundary only.
SLICKR392 Posted May 9, 2012 Posted May 9, 2012 A decent rule. Everytime a players hits a flat six, the fielder can go beyond the boundary line and push it and claim the catch.
Sidhoni Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 A decent rule. Everytime a players hits a flat six' date=' the fielder can go beyond the boundary line and push it and claim the catch.[/quote'] Its not that easy
bulbul Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 to take such a catch just imagine a scenario where ball just going over the rope in a height...its very easy to go back to rope and push the ball back into feild and catch it again..really its not difficult.. watch the match where Smith saved four runs by saved a six..he drops a catch which goes over to six...i am thinking that time why shouldnt went back and tried to push the ball back into play..really its not that difficult the way ball coming [he is not able to catch mainly because of his hieght]
dibyabttb Posted May 10, 2012 Author Posted May 10, 2012 just imagine a scenario where ball just going over the rope in a height...its very easy to go back to rope and push the ball back into feild and catch it again..really its not difficult.. That is why the rule was changed in october 2010. the rule says the ball can be caught beyond the boundary ropes if the first touch happened inside the ground. In the absence of such clarification, fielders would have used the Matthews and Voges instances to go outside the boundary, jump and throw the ball back into play to catch or save a six. If this was the law, then what Smith did looks perfectly fine. So either Watson was out or I'm missing something
bulbul Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 That is why the rule was changed in october 2010. the rule says the ball can be caught beyond the boundary ropes if the first touch happened inside the ground. In the absence of such clarification' date=' fielders would have used the Matthews and Voges instances to go outside the boundary, jump and throw the ball back into play to catch or save a six. If this was the law, then what Smith did looks perfectly fine. So either Watson was out or I'm missing something[/quote'] even in some scenarios you can easily have first touch of a ball from inside feild when the ball is falling to ground outside the rope then go out and push the ball back and catch...so its better to have this rule for not allowing a catch once player crossed rope
bulbul Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 i already posted but one more time [From cricnfo] 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 11, 2012 Author Posted May 11, 2012 MCC responds to my post on this issue and notes that "the umpires got it wrong and that it should have been given out." Here's the full response from MCC: I have had a chance to review the video footage and discuss it with some of the Laws sub-committee. We are all in agreement that, sadly, the umpires got it wrong and that it should have been given out. It is the fielder’s first contact with the ball in the passage of play that is the key moment. As long as the first contact with the ball made by a fielder is done when he is either grounded within the boundary, or, if he is airborne, that he took off from inside the boundary, then it does not matter if he subsequently steps over the boundary, as long as at no point he is in contact with both the ball and the ground beyond the boundary. In the Smith example, he was never in contact with both the ball and the ground beyond the boundary at the same time. The Law was written so that the fielder cannot retreat beyond the boundary to make the first contact with the ball.
Magneto Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 MCC responds to my post on this issue and notes that "the umpires got it wrong and that it should have been given out." Here's the full response from MCC: I have had a chance to review the video footage and discuss it with some of the Laws sub-committee. We are all in agreement that, sadly, the umpires got it wrong and that it should have been given out. It is the fielder’s first contact with the ball in the passage of play that is the key moment. As long as the first contact with the ball made by a fielder is done when he is either grounded within the boundary, or, if he is airborne, that he took off from inside the boundary, then it does not matter if he subsequently steps over the boundary, as long as at no point he is in contact with both the ball and the ground beyond the boundary. In the Smith example, he was never in contact with both the ball and the ground beyond the boundary at the same time. The Law was written so that the fielder cannot retreat beyond the boundary to make the first contact with the ball. Where have they exactly published this? Good job, btw :good:
Lord Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 MCC responds to my post on this issue and notes that "the umpires got it wrong and that it should have been given out." Here's the full response from MCC: I have had a chance to review the video footage and discuss it with some of the Laws sub-committee. We are all in agreement that, sadly, the umpires got it wrong and that it should have been given out. It is the fielderÃÔ first contact with the ball in the passage of play that is the key moment. As long as the first contact with the ball made by a fielder is done when he is either grounded within the boundary, or, if he is airborne, that he took off from inside the boundary, then it does not matter if he subsequently steps over the boundary, as long as at no point he is in contact with both the ball and the ground beyond the boundary. In the Smith example, he was never in contact with both the ball and the ground beyond the boundary at the same time. The Law was written so that the fielder cannot retreat beyond the boundary to make the first contact with the ball. ++ change the result of that game:hitler:
flamy Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 MCC responds to my post on this issue and notes that "the umpires got it wrong and that it should have been given out." Here's the full response from MCC: I have had a chance to review the video footage and discuss it with some of the Laws sub-committee. We are all in agreement that, sadly, the umpires got it wrong and that it should have been given out. It is the fielderÃÔ first contact with the ball in the passage of play that is the key moment. As long as the first contact with the ball made by a fielder is done when he is either grounded within the boundary, or, if he is airborne, that he took off from inside the boundary, then it does not matter if he subsequently steps over the boundary, as long as at no point he is in contact with both the ball and the ground beyond the boundary. In the Smith example, he was never in contact with both the ball and the ground beyond the boundary at the same time. The Law was written so that the fielder cannot retreat beyond the boundary to make the first contact with the ball. Logical. Good job. :sherlock:
asterix Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 MCC got it wrong.. Smith's foot was touching the ground outside the boundary when he was trying to lob the ball. On that basis only the Umpires gave a Six.. The commentators confirmed that today..
Magneto Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 MCC got it wrong.. Smith's foot was touching the ground outside the boundary when he was trying to lob the ball. On that basis only the Umpires gave a Six.. The commentators confirmed that today.. Where did they confirm it? :hmmmm: I was checking the video yesterday posted on some site, and at 00.03 he throws the ball out of his hands and his feet wasn't grounded. In fact, in the stadium it seemed his feet was grounded with the naked eye, but in slo-mo it's pretty much clear that none of his feet were grounded when he threw the ball up. And he's completely in air when he lobs the ball back in.
vvvslaxman Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 He threw the ball when he was inside the boundary. Then he landed outside boundary His next contact with ball should have been made after he landed inside the boundary not from mid air outside the boundary. He is considered throwing the ball from the outside until he lands inside.
asterix Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 He threw the ball when he was inside the boundary. Then he landed outside boundary His next contact with ball should have been made after he landed inside the boundary not from mid air outside the boundary. He is considered throwing the ball from the outside until he lands inside. Yes.. The moment ball crossed the boundary, even if you try to lob it back inside, taking the help of the ground outside the boundary to become airbourne, the catch becomes invalid and Six declared.. If you check other similar catches, the ball was lobbed inside when the fielder jumped from INSIDE the boundary..
Magneto Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 He threw the ball when he was inside the boundary. Then he landed outside boundary His next contact with ball should have been made after he landed inside the boundary not from mid air outside the boundary. He is considered throwing the ball from the outside until he lands inside. http://crickettadka.com/cricket-laws-steven-smith-catch-watson/ Check the video. At 00.03 he throws the ball out of his hand outside the boundary.
vvvslaxman Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 http://crickettadka.com/cricket-laws-steven-smith-catch-watson/ Check the video. At 00.03 he throws the ball out of his hand outside the boundary. I dont disagree with that . His second contact with the ball was made after he landed outside the boundary. Technically he was still outside the boundary. Let me tell the event in sequence 1) Caught the ball 2) Throw the ball from inside boundary 3) Lands outside 4) Mid air he catches again and throws it 5) Lands outside again 6) Then comes in again 7) then catches it. Bolded part is where the catch becomes illegal.
flamy Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 I dont disagree with that . His second contact with the ball was made after he landed outside the boundary. Technically he was still outside the boundary. Let me tell the event in sequence 1) Caught the ball 2) Throw the ball from inside boundary 3) Lands outside 4) Mid air he catches again and throws it 5) Lands outside again 6) Then comes in again 7) then catches it. Bolded part is where the catch becomes illegal. ah, ok. I guess that is fair then. He should've stepped in and jumped.
Recommended Posts