@usmal7862 - The piece of fielding by Angelo Mathews, although spectacular, should have been awarded as 6 runs as he had crossed the boundary and thus been outside the playing area. Then he played the ball in mid-air without regaining the playing area, therefore the ball had crossed the boundary because it was sent back into the playing area by a person or object who was beyond the boundary. The rule here clarifies the situation.
Law 19.4-Ball Beyond the Boundary is complete rubbish. If someone were to take a catch like Angelo Mathews it should be legal. The Law should have stayed because it takes real athleticism to do that and the chances of pulling it off are slim.
The broken bat rule is just pathetic. How can anyone predict that their bat is going to break, moreover, where the piece that breaks up will end up? Absolutely pathetic, and just another example of pompous twits interfering, and making a simple game un nescessarily confusing. As if there weren't enough stupid rules in cricket already. I am sure the peasant people who first developed the game never envisaged this sort of pompousness when the "Landed Gentry" first took 'ownership' of the game.
@usmal7862 - The piece of fielding by Angelo Mathews, although spectacular, should have been awarded as 6 runs as he had crossed the boundary and thus been outside the playing area. Then he played the ball in mid-air without regaining the playing area, therefore the ball had crossed the boundary because it was sent back into the playing area by a person or object who was beyond the boundary. The rule here clarifies the situation.
Paul66Rutter 1 month ago
Law 19.4-Ball Beyond the Boundary is complete rubbish. If someone were to take a catch like Angelo Mathews it should be legal. The Law should have stayed because it takes real athleticism to do that and the chances of pulling it off are slim.
usmal7862 6 months ago
The broken bat rule is just pathetic. How can anyone predict that their bat is going to break, moreover, where the piece that breaks up will end up? Absolutely pathetic, and just another example of pompous twits interfering, and making a simple game un nescessarily confusing. As if there weren't enough stupid rules in cricket already. I am sure the peasant people who first developed the game never envisaged this sort of pompousness when the "Landed Gentry" first took 'ownership' of the game.
nomoreliblabcon 9 months ago 2