A controversial decision in the game between West Indies and Sri Lanka on Wednesday has ignited a fresh debate in cricket that could have great significance in the context of a T20 match. It is about defining the boundary line, a gray area in the rule book for quite a while now, and also a gray that can no longer be afforded, given that a lot of games in Twenty20 cricket are decided in the last over.
The Incident
The incident in question happened with West Indies needing 59 from 24 balls. Ramnaresh Sarwan was on strike. He carted the first ball of the 17th over towards long-on. Angelo Mathews positioned himself under the ball in the deep, and an anxious moment followed as everyone wondered whether it would tip past his fingers for six. That did not happen, though. He got his outstretched hands to it, caught it but then lost his balance. He realized that his momentum was carrying him past the boundary rope, so he threw the ball into the air before touching the turf on the other side of the line. Unfortunately for him, though, he didn’t have enough time to throw the ball back. He simply threw it up, and now the ball was three to four feet behind the line, in the air, and dropping down rapidly for six. Mathews, also well beyond the boundary line, recovered his balance, ran three steps and displaying superb presence of mind, jumped into the air and flicked the ball back into play, airborne. He got up, went back into the field of play and threw it back. The batsmen ran three in the meanwhile, but hardly anyone noticed that. Everyone was still dazed by this crazy and previously unseen sequence of events that had unfolded in about a second and a half. All the attention and anticipation was now devoted to the TV replay.
Why Not A Six?
Everyone watched it again carefully, and the reaction of the commentators that followed was exactly the same as mine and that of my friends: it was a six. And the reason appeared simple – the ball had visibly cleared the boundary and been handled beyond it. Yes, the fielder hadn’t handled it with his feet touching the ground on the other side of the rope, and yes it hadn’t bounced, but no one could dispute that it had, in fact, gone beyond the line that was made on the field demarcating the area of play. It was strange, actually, watching a player perform the act of fielding the ball, including recovering his balance, running towards it, diving and then falling, all four to five feet beyond the boundary rope. It defied logic.
The Umpire’s Decision And The Other Argument
Finally, the third umpire decided that it wasn’t six. It was the logic of the rule book, by which a six is only acknowledged once the ball has landed outside the field of play, or the player catching the ball has some part of his body in contact with the boundary line or the field outside it while he is handling the ball. Angelo Mathews was within the law on both these counts during his entire effort. The dual fact that he was completely outside the field of play, albeit in the air, and that he had gained leverage (or sprung up) from a point that was also outside the field of play, in order to field the ball, did not seem to matter. The result was the visual absurdity that this legitimately fielded ball presented.
What’s More Logical
Fortunately or unfortunately, no noise was made about it, it wasn’t discussed too much in the studio afterwards and the game just went on. Finally MCC, custodian of the laws of cricket, defended the third umpire’s decision. However, had it been the last over or worse still, the last ball of a close game, the whole cricketing world would have been talking about this, without exception. And I can’t help but feel that amongst all the neutral supporters, the people disputing this decision would have been a healthy majority. Imagine if a football goalkeeper were allowed to do the same, i.e., jump up and thrash the ball back out from behind the goal-line, while still airborne and before the ball actually hits the net! The crowd watching would probably bring the stadium down.
For MCC, it might make a lot more sense to amend this law and follow the example of football. If the ball has irrefutably crossed the boundary line, whether it has actually bounced behind or not been allowed to do so by the fielder, it should be given six. This means that if a fielder is falling back and has actually carried the ball behind the line, even if he then throws it back in play before landing outside, it should be given six. Wherever it is too close to call, the benefit of the doubt can lie with the fielding side.
However, one doubts that any decision of this kind will be mulled by the MCC till such an incident actually swings the fate of a game. Then the debate might just resurface with furious venom…