Print

[Buzz]

Below is the explanation why it is out. For those who don't want to read, its all about first contact with the ball.

Law 19.4 (specially written for these boundary catches) stipulates the following
A ball may be caught, subject to the provisions of Law 32, or fielded after it has crossed the boundary, provided that
(i) the first contact with the ball is by a fielder either with some part of his person grounded within the boundary, or whose final contact with the ground before touching the ball was within the boundary.

urm
clearly not out
if you run outside the boundary, jump and throw it back it is a six, because your last step was over the line.

the law was changed to ensure that is the case.

[mini998]

If you read the law to the letter then it is not out ,

In this case they need to rephrase this law correctly , they need to use the word 'and' instead of 'or' .

[tim2000s]

Clearly not out. His last contact with the ground was outside the boundary.

Law 19.4 (specially written for these boundary catches) stipulates the following
A ball may be caught, subject to the provisions of Law 32, or fielded after it has crossed the boundary, provided that
(i) the first contact with the ball is by a fielder either with some part of his person grounded within the boundary, or whose final contact with the ground before touching the ball was within the boundary.

They don't need to reword the law. As it stands the law means that the fielder is either grounded inside the boundary or can jump from inside the boundary to stop the ball going over the line. If the Or is replaced with And, you cannot jump to stop the ball going over for six.

[Nickauger]

But............ he doesn't make contact with the ball at any point from outside the boundary, the ball doesn't go over the boundary. Surely if that is the case then any ball stopped inside the boundary, and then left there while the fielder touches the rope, is also 4?

[Buzz]

no, that isn't the same - the law is to prevent people running outside the boundary and then jumping to make a "catch" and throwing the ball back.

I can't see how in your example the fielder wouldn't touch the ground inside the boundary before picking the ball up again - if he picks the ball up touching the rope it is 4 anyway.

[Kulli]

My thoughts were that it was out, mainly because it's too good not to be and the rules are not very clear in this instance.

[mini998]

Clearly not out. His last contact with the ground was outside the boundary.

Law 19.4 (specially written for these boundary catches) stipulates the following
A ball may be caught, subject to the provisions of Law 32, or fielded after it has crossed the boundary, provided that
(i) the first contact with the ball is by a fielder either with some part of his person grounded within the boundary, or whose final contact with the ground before touching the ball was within the boundary.

They don't need to reword the law. As it stands the law means that the fielder is either grounded inside the boundary or can jump from inside the boundary to stop the ball going over the line. If the Or is replaced with And, you cannot jump to stop the ball going over for six.

Isn't the law is about first contact? his last contact with the ground before touching the ball for the first time was within the boundary

So it's out.

[Kulli]

Isn't the law is about first contact? his last contact with the ground before touching the ball for the first time was within the boundary

So it's out.

That was my final opinoon, but the laws are pretty wooly.

[Giraffe208]

I remember watching this live and thought not out due to jumping from outside the playing area. Couldn't believe nothing was said at the time so assumed I was in the wrong

[tim2000s]

Isn't the law is about first contact? his last contact with the ground before touching the ball for the first time was within the boundary

So it's out.

Having watched it again, I'm moving into the "It's woolly" territory. On some of the points:

1. He wasn't fully in control when he let the ball go, as if he was, he wouldn't have thrown it in a way which took it toward the boundary rope.

2. The ball appears to have never crossed the boundary, in which case the points being made relating to 19.4 are irrelevant.

On this basis, I change my verdict and go with "Out".

In addition, law 19.4 relates to the first fielder to touch the ball. Any subsequent fielder is not bound by this, so the question if law 19.4 was in play is, having knocked it back in, would he then be considered under the subsequent fielder rule or the first fielder rule...?

[WillyorWonty]

Deffo out, remember all the quoted rules refer to the ball having crossed the boundary, seen a few of these catches in T20 and fair play to those involved with such feats of skill I'd always want a reward for the efforts put in.

[TangoWhiskey]

It's absolutely out. The ball never crosses the boundary nor is it ever in contact with him whilst he is the other side of the rope.

My understanding of the recent change in the rule is that the fielder must not touch outside the boundary before he takes the catch, i.e. To stop players standing in the crowd and parrying the ball back into the field.