snicker
Junior Contributor
Posts: 6
|
Post by snicker on Jul 8, 2014 10:52:06 GMT
In the recent West Indies v new Zealand game Trent Boult took a catch on the boundary. He caught the ball inside the boundary but his momentum was going to take him over it so he quickly threw the ball in the air, step over the boundary and then dived back in to take the catch. However is last connection with the ground was outside the boundary before diving in to take the catch. As he had left the field of play should the dismissal be allowed, as it was in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jul 8, 2014 11:22:00 GMT
According to the laws as we teach them, not only was he not out, he should have been awarded a boundary six.
Let's face it, he didn't catch the ball in the first instance, all he did was prevent the ball from touching the ground, and since he was last grounded outside the boundary, it's considered the same as catching the ball with both feet outside the field of play.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jul 8, 2014 12:05:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Jul 8, 2014 13:24:32 GMT
According to the laws as we teach them, not only was he not out, he should have been awarded a boundary six. Let's face it, he didn't catch the ball in the first instance, all he did was prevent the ball from touching the ground, and since he was last grounded outside the boundary, it's considered the same as catching the ball with both feet outside the field of play. Law 19.4 (i) makes it clear that the restriction on being last grounded inside the boundary only applies to the first touch of the ball by a fielder: " ANY [my emphasis] fielder subsequently touching the ball is not subject to this restriction". As long as the first touch came from someone who was inside (or jumped from inside) the boundary, then almost any type of circus act, solo or involving teamwork, is legal; as long as the ball never touches anything (including a fielder) which is touching the ground outside the boundary. |
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Jul 9, 2014 7:53:35 GMT
The answer given by gooders was correct once, but was altered in at least the 2010 code, and further clarified in the current 2013 edition. tippex2 is spot on. In addition to the Law he cites, there is also Law 32.3.e. This change was made to the Laws in response to increasingly athletic feats by players, such as that cited in the original post by snicker.
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jul 9, 2014 12:46:01 GMT
The point of argument here is when is the catch made? In my opinion, the first contact you seem to be referring to is, in my opinion, not part of the catch, it is just a fielder preventing the ball crossing the boundary. It is my considered opinion that the catch is when the fielder leaps back athletically into the field of play and grasps the ball in his outstretched hands, which means that he was last in contact with the ground outside the boundary. Result = Boundary six and batsman not out.
You will note that when two fielders are involved, it is the fielder who finally catches the ball who is credited with the catch, not the fielder who first fields the ball, which tells me that it is not part of the catch, otherwise both players would be credited in the scorebook with the catch.
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Jul 9, 2014 13:15:46 GMT
In my opinion, the first contact you seem to be referring to is, in my opinion, not part of the catch, it is just a fielder preventing the ball crossing the boundary. It is my considered opinion that the catch is when the fielder leaps back athletically into the field of play and grasps the ball in his outstretched hands, which means that he was last in contact with the ground outside the boundary. Result = Boundary six and batsman not out. But that's not what the Laws say. 19.4 (ii) "The act of making the catch, or of fielding the ball, shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with some part of a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement." Note that it refers to "a fielder", rather than "the fielder" in each case, fairly clearly implying that there's no requirement that everything happens with the same fielder. |
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Jul 10, 2014 0:06:31 GMT
Sorry, gooders, but you are wrong: "…the first contact you seem to be referring to is, in my opinion, not part of the catch…" As pointed out by tippex2, Law 19.4 defines a catch as commencing from "when the ball first comes into contact with some part of a fielder’s person". So, the first contact IS part of the catch, whether you agree with this or not. Law 19.4.i further spells out that this FIRST contact with the ball must be by "a" fielder "…not touching or grounded beyond the boundary, who has some part of his person grounded within the boundary or whose final contact with the ground before touching the ball was entirely within the boundary." Thus, as described in the original post, Boult's first contact with the ball met this requirement. Law 19.4.i further states: "Any fielder subsequently touching the ball is not subject to this restriction". Note the word, ANY. In other words, either Boult or any other fielder who makes contact with the ball can leap into the air from a position on or beyond the boundary and make contact with the ball, provided that he is not "grounded beyond the boundary" (ref 19.3.c) AT THE SAME TIME as he is "in contact with the ball" (ref 32.3).
Although in understanding the detail of this situation you have to cross reference between Laws 19 and 32, if you do study and understand them you will realise that there are two key provisions which must be met:
1. The FIRST contact with the ball must be by a fielder who either is within the boundary at the time, or if airborne when contact is mad has jumped up from a position "entirely within the boundary"
2. ANY fielder (including the original one) must not be "grounded beyond the boundary" while in contact with the ball.
|
|
