Changes to the laws

[ankush94]

Obliged if members could confirm or debate my interpretation of the applicable law in the following scenarios concerning boundary line catches :

1. Fielder on ground inside boundary line parries the ball up into the air beyond the boundary, then runs back, jumps, slaps it back into the field of play and runs back inside to complete the catch : Out caught.

2. Fielder waiting outside boundary line jumps up into the air, slaps the ball back into the field of play, his colleague inside the field of play or fielder himself catches it. : Not out, ball in play.

3. Fielder on ground inside boundary line jumps up, parries the ball up into the air beyond the boundary, then runs back beyond the boundary line, jumps, slaps it back into the field of play and dives back inside to complete the catch : Out caught.

[Reggie Duff]

That seems to be spot on to me ankush - I'm not sure why they decided that this change had more to do with law 19 than law 32. I'm sure there's a very good reason though.

[missingleg]

Wouldn't scenario 2 be dead ball, six runs? I thought the idea of the Law change was to stop fielding from starting outside the boundary. I'll need to read these Laws closely when they come out - otherwise the situation WILL happen!

[abhi]

missingleg, u r wright.
Scenario 2 would be Boundary 6.

[ankush94]

That's right missingleg : Dead ball + Boundary 6. But what I'm trying is to establish a link between Law 19.3 (UNCHANGED) and the new Law 19.4.

Law 19.4 continues to use the term "grounded, ground". I see no reference in this 19.4 to include a player jumping in the air outside the boundary line in the meaning of "grounded, ground."

Based on this, I would conclude that scenario 2 is simply "No Catch, No Boundary, Ball in Play."

[missingleg]

www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/mcc-announce-eight-law-changes,1735,NS.html%29

There's a video from the MCC giving examples to the Law changes.

[daveh]

The ref you're looking for is in new 19.4 (i) - the act of catching/fielding must start from a grounded position within the boundary. Thus a fielder starting from a grounded position outside the boundary is clearly disqualified - result "not caught" and "boundary 6 scored".

[ankush94]

Daveh, I agree he can't make a valid catch by jumping off from outside the boundary and parrying the ball back inside.

But the definition of Boundary scored in 19.3 has not changed by a single word, full stop or comma.

Hence for a boundary 6 to be scored, the ball should have landed beyond the line or a fielder in contact with the ball should have been in contact with the ground beyond the boundary line.

Therefore, No Catch, Ball in Play and No Boundary 6. Exactly as in the case of a catch off a fielder's helmet. No Catch, Ball in Play.

[daveh]

Ankush94, not only is he prevented from making a catch - but also he may not legally field the ball and may thus be seen as having prevented the ball from grounding beyond the boundary. Certainly I agree that, in respect of 19.3, the ball has never contacted anything/body grounded beyond the boundary should the fielder leap to parry from such a position - however you may consider that since this does not meet the condition set by 19.4(i) his status remains "grounded" even though the only contact was whilst he was airborne. Nevertheless whatever drafting failures may exist in the new phrasing of law 19 the MCC's intention here was to outlaw the possibility of fielding/catching the ball from a starting position outside the boundary. I for one will happily grant a boundary in such circumstances - but am more concerned with effectively policing the situation without the aid of television and/or the goodwill of the players.

[ankush94]

Well put. That settles all my doubts.

[Acumen]

ankush94 asked the following question (moved from the wrong thread by administrator with minor edits)

I am still unclear about the new "Boundary Line Catch" Law and would appreciate your clarifications on the following situations : Caught or Boundary 6?

a) Fielder A, seeing the ball lofted, goes outside the boundary, jumps up, knocks it back into the field of play, runs back and catches the ball inside the boundary.

b) Fielder A, seeing the ball lofted, goes outside the boundary, jumps up, knocks it back into the field of play where Fielder B catches it.

c) Fielder A, inside the boundary, jumps up, palms the ball up into the air beyond the boundary. He then runs outside the boundary, jumps up, palms the ball back, runs back inside the boundary and catches it inside the boundary.

[johnfgolding]

Dec 18, 2010 18:07:34 GMT Acumen said:

ankush94 asked the following question (moved from the wrong thread by administrator with minor edits)

I am still unclear about the new "Boundary Line Catch" Law and would appreciate your clarifications on the following situations : Caught or Boundary 6?

a) Fielder A, seeing the ball lofted, goes outside the boundary, jumps up, knocks it back into the field of play, runs back and catches the ball inside the boundary.

b) Fielder A, seeing the ball lofted, goes outside the boundary, jumps up, knocks it back into the field of play where Fielder B catches it.

c) Fielder A, inside the boundary, jumps up, palms the ball up into the air beyond the boundary. He then runs outside the boundary, jumps up, palms the ball back, runs back inside the boundary and catches it inside the boundary.

Suggest you look at the explanations described either:
Presentation Slide Handouts
or
The Law Changes Explained

here www.berkscoa.co.uk/documents.html

The answer to a & c (6 runs). Be very careful as there is a video example used where a very similar incident happens although resulting in a boundary being saved rather than a catch made. It is not entirley clear on the comnmentry that this would be different following the law changes.

Also I suggest the answer to b is the same as if the ball hit an object across the boundary and rebounded back in (6 runs).

[lofters]

In my opinion, all three cases would be answered by awarding a boundary 6. In each example the ball at some point comes into contact with a fielder whose latest grounding before touching the ball was outside the field of play.

Agreed it couldnt have been an easy task for the MCC lawmakers to come up with an all-encompassing form of words for this piece of Law.

[daveh]

The answers are perfectly clear - since in each case a fielder is grounded at some time outside the boundary during the execution of the catch - "not out" & "boundary 6" for a), b) & c). As I said in the earlier discussions of this point, last Oct, the only point not completely covered in the revised laws is in 19.3 "scoring a boundary" where no recognisance of the ball never having come into contact with a "grounded" object outside the boundary is made even though a catch is clearly ruled out in 19.4

[daveh]

As stated in my earlier posts re Law 19 I fear a perceived inadequacy in 19.3 – i.e. a failure to observe the letter of the law in the case of temporarily airborne agencies returning the ball into the field of play. In looking for a form of words to remedy this situation the following scenario came to mind. A ball destined for a boundary 6 cleared a fielder near the boundary – a spectator attempting to catch the ball leaps into the air but only succeeds in knocking the ball back into the field of play, where it is caught by the fielder. Since 19.3 c) iii has not strictly been complied with a boundary 6 has not resulted, and the ball remains live; the fielder in catching the ball has not transgressed any provisions of 19.4 – How would you deal with any appeal? Personally I would go for the spirit of the law – “not out” & “boundary 6” but would be much happier if the actual law precisely supported this.

Daveh