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

    'Like a ballet dancer'

My XI: Martin Crowe on Mark Waugh's lazy elegance and batsmanship that was easy on eye

    Sea, sun, scandal

Diary: Our correspondent takes in the sights and sounds of Galle and Colombo, and reports on a tampering controversy

    Worst keepers, and honours at Lord's

Ask Steven: Also, most keeping dismissals on debut, seven-for at HQ, and youngest ODI centurions

    From swinging London to Maco country

Diary: Our correspondent walks and buses the streets of the English capital, and then heads for the coast

Cook's Brearley lesson

Jon Hotten: Mike Brearley was an outstanding captain despite his repeated failures with the bat

News | Features Last 7 days

Vijay rediscovers the old Monk

The leave outside off stump has been critical to M Vijay's success since his India comeback last year. Contrary to popular opinion, such patience and self-denial comes naturally to him

Bhuvneshwar on course for super series

Only 15 times in Test history has a player achieved the double of 300 runs and 20 wickets in a Test series. Going on current form, Bhuvneshwar could well be the 16th

Ugly runs but still they swoon

Alastair Cook did not bat like a leading man but the crowd applauded him for simply not failing

India come full circle

India's wretched run away from home began at Lord's in 2011. A young team full of self-belief may have brought it to an end with their victory at the same venue three years later

Ishant's fourth-innings heroics in rare company

In India's win at Lord's, Ishant Sharma took the best bowling figures by an Indian in the fourth innings of a Test outside Asia. Here are five other best bowling efforts by Indians in the fourth innings of Tests outside Asia

News | Features Last 7 days
Sponsored Links

Why not you? Read and learn how!