Cricket regulations that could do with a tweak

Don't penalise fielders for touching the rope

If the ball doesn't touch the rope, it shouldn't be a four

Devashish Fuloria

May 5, 2013

Comments: 43 | Text size: A | A

Chaminda Vaas dives in an attempt to save a boundary, India v Sri Lanka, CB Series, Brisbane, February 5, 2008
Saving a certain four is an act of athleticism that needs to be rewarded © AFP
Enlarge

Consider this. A batsman sends the ball hurtling towards the boundary but a fielder comes sliding across the turf and pulls it in just in time. Since the on-field umpire is 60-odd metres away from the action, he calls the third umpire to investigate if it's a four or not. The replays show the fielder managed to keep the ball in but his toe grazed the skirting while he was in contact with the ball. The umpire signals a four because, according to the current law, the circuit is complete - the ball is touching the fielder, the fielder is touching the rope - though the ball itself hasn't actually touched the boundary.

How often does this happen? In almost every other match, these days.

According to the current law, a boundary is scored if (i) the ball either touches the rope or is grounded after the boundary, or (ii) the fielder, while in contact with the ball, touches the boundary or has some part of his person grounded beyond the rope.

When the ball is hit along the ground, it is the second point above that is unfair to the fielder, and like most laws, indirectly benefits the batsman. If the ball has not physically touched the boundary, why award the batsman extra runs? Why not let the fielder take measurable credit for the effort?

For someone who is risking injury, the demands on a fielder in this case are harsh and too many - he is expected to be a bodysurfer and a limbo dancer while also being a cricketer. When he slides on one leg, he has to keep an eye on the ball and his extended leg; when he dives headlong, one side of his body becomes a potential contact. It is hard enough to intercept a speeding ball, but worrying about contacts within a fraction of a second adds another level of difficulty. (On the other hand, a fielder is restricted to breaking the stumps with only his hands - not the whole body - to run out a batsman. Talk of the game favouring the batsman.)

The same logic can be extended to catches taken at the boundary. If a fielder's foot (or feet) brushes the inside of the boundary and is not well over the line, it's still a well-judged catch. So why penalise him?

In international cricket these days, a foam-triangle-encased rope with a paint marking underneath is standard as a boundary marker. The cameras spot the ball's position relative to the boundary better than ever before. Why not just focus on the ball rather than the fielder's errant limbs? The tweak to the law can make the third umpire's life easier too and save the time wasted in checking each camera angle and frame.

In the modern game, boundaries get pulled in - sometimes by a few yards - to favour batsmen. How about yielding an inch for fielders?

Devashish Fuloria is a sub-editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Devashish Fuloria

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (May 7, 2013, 1:57 GMT)

@Wealwayslosethecricket/others: Read/Comprehend/Comment. If in doubt, Read again. Author is talking about fielder touching the inside of the boundary.

Posted by Raja.Khurram on (May 6, 2013, 23:50 GMT)

One we were watching a match, and fielder touched the rope while the ball was inside boundary. My uncle made a remark that "Is this a boundary via conduction!?"

Means, just like electricity passes via conduction, the boundary was also given via conduction. This is indeed absurd and should be discarded. A boundary should be given ONLY if ball lands outside the boundary.

Posted by   on (May 6, 2013, 12:45 GMT)

no i nt agree it will only create confusion so its simple like if it touch any part of ur body it shud b four or six

Posted by   on (May 6, 2013, 11:45 GMT)

This guy wants to make another unecessary change to the game. The law is simple and uncomplicated; leave the game alone!

Posted by Wealwayslosethecricket on (May 6, 2013, 11:25 GMT)

There's nothing at all wrong with the current rule. There's no need to give the advantage to the fielder as long as the current rule is consistent. Besides, what would happen if a fielder takes a catch while standing over the boundary? Technically, the ball isn't grounded over the boundary, and if this law were implemented, the fielder could even take a catch standing in the crowd and it might still be legitimate.

Posted by BRUTALANALYST on (May 6, 2013, 10:51 GMT)

No this is what makes boundary fielding exciting watching fielder also have to navigate the rope this is ridiculous idea.

Posted by sanman12 on (May 6, 2013, 10:05 GMT)

The fierld of play is the field of play. If boths sides are playing by the same rules what seems the problem. When i fielder slides agains the ropes he moves the ropes what happens then how does one establish the previous boundry before it was moved by his or her body. It would be very contentious when that happens.

Posted by EdGreen on (May 6, 2013, 9:40 GMT)

Silly idea - soccer has got its knickers in a twist over off-side - and rugby union has too - the game and its player need simple rules that all understand and this is one.

Comments have now been closed for this article

FeedbackTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Devashish FuloriaClose

    'The guy you want to go to war with'

My XI: Martin Crowe on the gritty approach that turned Allan Border into a run-machine

    What good is a nightwatchman?

Rob Steen: In modern times, a few tailenders have thrived higher up the order, but the psychological advantage it gives the opposition can't be discounted

    Together they fall

Jarrod Kimber: England rose to No. 1 with a machine-like efficiency but the signs of an impending breakdown were quickly apparent

    Four in four, and stands by Nos. 10 and 11

Ask Steven: Also, most balls faced in a T20, highest limited-overs score at Lord's, and long lives after Test debut

A strange, brutal magic

Jon Hotten: As Ishant Sharma showed at Lord's, short-pitched bowling can open old wounds and create sudden uncertainty

News | Features Last 7 days

Ridiculed Ishant ridicules England

Ishant Sharma has often been the butt of jokes, and sometimes deservedly so. Today, however, the joke was on England

England seem to have forgotten about personality

They have to see a glass that is half-full, and play the game as if it is just that, a game; and an opportunity

Bigger concerns for England than Lord's pitch

While the pitch took most of the blame at Trent Bridge, at Lord's England will need to get more controlling overs from their spinners. The reality is there is no quick fix

Another battle, another defeat on Planet Al

Alastair Cook has got used to feeling of the axe hanging over him. Only his team-mates can save England now

'Even the bluddy Nawab!'

Pataudi Jr caught a young English fan's fancy for his princely ways and his heroic batting

News | Features Last 7 days