Woeful umpiring decision

[bowser]

Watching the game between Sri Lanka and the WI when the absolute worst umpiring decision I have ever seen was made. A ball gets hit over the boundary, a player juggles it in the field of play and realising he is going out throws it in the air. No problem there. He then takes several paces outside the rope, and while still out of play jumps in the air and knocks the ball back infield and then falls to the ground outside the ropes. The ball landed in the field of play and somehow the blind man with the authority (hopefully he has since been sacked) decides that this isn't a boundary. How in the heck could he come up with that? I can just accept a fieldsman juggling the ball and throwing it in the air before going over the rope, then running back infield to catch it or to pick it up but this guy was of the field, jumped in the air from of the field and landed of the field. It doesn't matter that he was in the air, he wasn't in the field when he jumped.

Theoretically this means that you can blast a six out of the ground, a super quick player can run through the gate, get under the ball, jump in the air and catch the ball and before landing throw it back into the ground to be caught by someone standing in the field of play and with this precedence you would have to give the batsman out. This scenario is rubbish but no more so then the rubbish decision.

We might have a new fielding position in this hit and giggle cricket, row 13. Sit in the stand at cow corner to throw sixes back into the field.

 

[Ollie_H]

It's Legal,

Hmm.... so what Mathews did indeed appears to be legal:

Originally Posted by MCC, Law 19
3. Scoring a boundary
(a) A boundary shall be scored and signalled by the umpire at the bowler’s end whenever, while the ball is in play, in his opinion
(i) the ball touches the boundary, or is grounded beyond the boundary.
(ii) a fielder, with some part of his person in contact with the ball, touches the boundary or has some part of his person grounded beyond the boundary.

(b) The phrases ‘touches the boundary’ and ‘touching the boundary’ shall mean contact with
either (i) the boundary edge as defined in 2 above
or (ii) any person or obstacle within the field of play which has been designated a boundary by the umpires before the toss.

(c) The phrase ‘grounded beyond the boundary’ shall mean contact with
either (i) any part of a line or a solid object marking the boundary, except its boundary edge
or (ii) the ground outside the boundary edge
or (iii) any object in contact with the ground outside the boundary edge.

4. Runs allowed for boundaries
(a) Before the toss, the umpires shall agree with both captains the runs to be allowed for boundaries. In deciding the allowances, the umpires and captains shall be guided by the prevailing custom of the ground.

(b) Unless agreed differently under (a) above, the allowances for boundaries shall be 6 runs if the ball having been struck by the bat pitches beyond the boundary, but otherwise 4 runs. These allowances shall still apply even though the ball has previously touched a fielder. See also (c) below.

(c) The ball shall be regarded as pitching beyond the boundary and 6 runs shall be scored if a fielder
(i) has any part of his person touching the boundary or grounded beyond the boundary when he catches the ball.
(ii) catches the ball and subsequently touches the boundary or grounds some part of his person beyond the boundary while carrying the ball but before completing the catch. See Law 32 (Caught).

Check the this thread to discuss what went on but from what I thought it was incredible piece of fielding and the decision was correct.

 

[bowser]

If the law is interpreted that way, then the law is an ass.

Any sane person will consider this to be a six. The player was not in the field of play and the play was outside the intentions of the rule. I am not commenting on the players intentions or his quick thinking, this is clearly a case of a lawyer making a decision, not a cricketer.

 

[Skater]

The MCC (law makers) contacted Sky Sports after the match and told them the decision made by the third umpire was absolutely correct.

 

[King Pietersen]

It should be applauded not moaned about. It was an exceptional show of athleticism and awareness. There aren't many who could have pulled that off. It was brilliant work. Although it does beg the question of whether someone could just stand over the boundary and leap in the air and push the ball back into play, to save 6 every time.

 

[Ollie_H]

It should be applauded not moaned about. It was an exceptional show of athleticism and awareness. There aren't many who could have pulled that off. It was brilliant work. Although it does beg the question of whether someone could just stand over the boundary and leap in the air and push the ball back into play, to save 6 every time.

The question after that is then how many people would actually be to do that?

 

[Howsie]

I have no problem with it, when I saw it live I did not even think it would be a problem.

 

[Ollie_H]

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

Just in case anyone hasn't seen it and would like to, this should be legal as it was linked in a Cricinfo article.

 

[nz0003]

MCC sent out a press release earlier. . This is regarding the superb stop by Angelo Mathews..

John Stephenson, MCC Assistant Secretary, said:

"The MCC Laws sub-committee had recently discussed fielding such as this and felt that such brilliant and quick-thinking acts should not be out-lawed. MCC is happy with the Law as it is written and occurrences such as the one yesterday, while extremely rare, are good for the game of cricket as a whole. It is also pleasing that two of the committee's members were involved in making the correct decision on the field of play.

Law, 19.3, states:

Scoring a boundary

(a) A boundary shall be scored and signalled by the umpire at the bowler's end whenever, while the ball is in play, in his opinion

(i) the ball touches the boundary, or is grounded beyond the boundary.

(ii) a fielder, with some part of his person in contact with the ball, touches the boundary or has some part of his person grounded beyond the boundary.

(b) The phrases 'touches the boundary' and 'touching the boundary' shall mean contact with either (i) the boundary edge as defined in 2 above

or (ii) any person or obstacle within the field of play which has been designated a boundary by the umpires before the toss.

(c) The phrase 'grounded beyond the boundary' shall mean contact with

either (i) any part of a line or a solid object marking the boundary, except its boundary edge

or (ii) the ground outside the boundary edge

or (iii) any object in contact with the ground outside the boundary edge.

 

[ZexyZahid]

In simple words: it was not a six, because he wasn't grounded.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I don't like the possibility that a batsman could sky the ball, and the fielder realising that it might go for six, stations himself out of the boundary. When the ball begins to land, he jumps up, catches it, and tosses it back in, saving 6 runs. It just isn't right. And he might have another fielder come with him, waiting to catch the ball when he tosses it in...

 

[chaitanyaraghav]

I don't like the possibility that a batsman could sky the ball, and the fielder realising that it might go for six, stations himself out of the boundary. When the ball begins to land, he jumps up, catches it, and tosses it back in, saving 6 runs. It just isn't right. And he might have another fielder come with him, waiting to catch the ball when he tosses it in...

This would look real funny on TV but that said i believe its allowed to so!

 

[Gilly Fan]

Soon we'll have fielders standing in the crowd, jumping up and paddling it back in.

 

[sohum]

Relax guys. This is a pretty rare occurrence. There have been plenty of chances since that game for fielders to attempt what Mathews did, but none of them have. Because it's hard.

Also, the press release nz0003 quoted earlier seems to suggest that the MCC would take offense if it was done in a non-"quick thinking" manner. Meaning that if some bloke sees the opportunity, positions himself behind the rope and then catches and throws it back in whilst in the air, you may see the ICC's "spirit of cricket" being called into action.

This is just the way cricket has chosen to do it. In football, the ball is counted as out of the ground as soon as the entirety of it passes the line, whether in the air or along the ground. In basketball, it is considered out if it bounces outside the lines of play or if someone who has crossed the line touches the ball without crossing back again. I thought cricket would employ a similar rule, but they've chosen to go with a mix of baseball and basketball.

 

[mdoggie]

I don't like the possibility that a batsman could sky the ball, and the fielder realising that it might go for six, stations himself out of the boundary. When the ball begins to land, he jumps up, catches it, and tosses it back in, saving 6 runs. It just isn't right. And he might have another fielder come with him, waiting to catch the ball when he tosses it in...

Just imagine the force that the ball would come down with. The chances of being able to jump up while catching the ball and after the force of the ball pushing you down, to then be able to throw it back are slim. It would be a remarkable piece of fielding.

What Mathews did was special, he knew hos cricket well enough to understand that a six is only called if the ball is grounded. Well done to him.