boundary six or catch?

[Acumen]

marc has posed the following question


Two players running for a boundary catch. They clash and tumble to the ground. One catches the ball and his body remains inside the boundary but he is in contact with the other player who is over the boundary. Is this a six as there is a link from the catcher to the fielder over the boundary or is it "out" as the catcher never crossed the boundary?

what are your views?

[tippex2]

Law 19.3 (c) iii implies that it has to be a boundary - 6 in this case.

Were it otherwise, you'd have the potential of fielders doing rugby line-out style lifts to catch the ball, and then carrying their teammate back inside the boundary.

[sillypoint]

The mind boggles at the rugby analogy, but, yes, the player who has caught the ball is, by definition, "grounded beyond the boundary" because he is in contact with an "object (in this case his teammate) in contact with the ground beyond the boundary edge" (Law 19.3.c.iii, already cited by tippex2).

[gooders]

Surely it depends upon whether the catch was classed as complete before contact was made, unless they were holding hands all the time.

[sillypoint]

Re: "Surely it depends upon whether the catch was classed as complete before contact was made"

The original post doesn't read that way to me. I stand by my earlier response.

[gooders]

So if a catch is taken just inside the boundary by one fielder, and a second fielder who is grounded outside the boundary pats him on the back, then you would say that that is a boundary six, and not out caught then?

[sillypoint]

That is a completely different scenario from the one originally described, which, if you were there to see it as it happened, you may well judge to be after the completion of the catch. I agree with your point that actions after the completion of the catch would not negate the catch.