Boots beyond the boundary
By Hubert Williams
Guyana Chronicle
March 16, 2007
BRIDGETOWN, Barbados - The West Indies opening World Cup 2007 match at Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica, on Tuesday, March 13, was distinguished by both the capacity attendance and the efficient and professional manner in which the home team dispatched Pakistan. Great start, Guys!
It also has highlighted another difficult issue with which the cricket authorities must contend; and as I have had previously to do, I have sent a letter asking the International Cricket Council (ICC) to seriously examine its rules where there are areas of obvious contradiction.
What is the current issue? Is the body an extension of the ball … and if so, then what is a catch?
During Tuesday’s match, Chris Gayle made a brilliant save on the boundary line and to all observers seemed to have prevented a ‘four’. However, several television replays showed clearly that while he had managed to keep the ball well ‘in play’, the toe of his right boot had touched the rope.
That having been made clear, the Third Umpire communicated to the Standing Umpire that it was a boundary, and he so signalled.
Which is to say that in those circumstances, the body, or any extension thereof (meaning a boot or a glove) becomes, under the current rules, part of the ball, so that if a boot touches the boundary rope when the fielder has the ball in hand, it is as though the ball had touched the rope.
The premier West Indian cricket commentator Tony Cozier, who was presenting the television commentary at the time, immediately expressed his disagreement with the ruling, declaring it to be unfair and should be amended.
I have long had great respect for the depth of Mr. Cozier’s knowledge of this remarkable international game and the lucidity of the opinions he expresses, and I agree there should be a serious examination of the rule. There are other features of the rules on which it impacts which I believe need to be seriously reviewed.
The principle on which the rule seems to be based, i.e. the body’s extension to the ball, would relate also to wicketkeeper’s catches off the glove, or similar catches by any of the other close-to-the-wicket fielders. The rule governing this determines that the glove is an extension of the hand (as distinct from the arm) which is an extension of the bat. So, such catches are legal under the rules.
Now to return to the Chris Gayle incident: If his boot becomes an extension of the ball, why then is a batsman ruled ‘out’ when a wicketkeeper takes a catch with his gloves touching the ground, or when a fielder’s hand is touching the ground while the ball is safely cupped? Is not the wicketkeeper’s glove and fielder’s hand also an extension of the ball?
When I was a youth playing pasture cricket, if ever the hand touched the ground in taking a catch, it was disallowed.
Mr. Cozier might well argue that if this seemingly unfair boundary rule (the body being an extension of the ball) were to be generally applied, then no catch at all should bring about the batsman’s dismissal, for extending through the body the ball has, under the rule, touched the ground; and that is ‘not out’.
I have seen batsmen given out when an athletic fielder stretches backward for a spectacular catch of a ball which perpendicularly had already crossed the boundary line, but he got the wicket because he had not stepped out of the field of play.
The purists might argue that once the ball had crossed the line at a height of two metres or so, even though caught it was already out of play, and therefore should be ‘not out’, but a ‘six’.
These are among the main issues emanating from Tuesday’s opening World Cup 2007 match:
* When is a four a four?
* When is a catch a catch?
* Is the batsman’s glove a part of the bat?
* Is the wicketkeeper’s glove a part of the ball?
* Is the fielder’s body a part of the turf?
This could be stretched to ridiculous extremes hence the easy solution for ICC would seem to be to amend the boundary rule so that when the ball is provably kept ‘in play’ though a part of the body extends across the rope, even though the fielder is touching the ball, it is not properly a boundary.
If not, the rules would have to be amended to disallow catches where the wicketkeeper’s gloves and fielder’s hands are touching the ground, though the ball is not.
Once again, it is over to you, ICC, even if it cannot be expected that change will come during Cricket World Cup 2007.