Group C - Australia, Sri Lanka, West Indies

[ret]

The fielding effort by Matthews was great but I don't fancy that rule

Imagine a situation like this:

One fielder goes over the ropes when the ball looks like it's going to sail over the ropes, a second fielder stays inside the ropes and when the ball sails over the ropes, the fielder who has crossed the ropes jumps and throws the ball to the guy inside the ropes, so instead of a '6', it's a wicket!!

I know something like that^ is rarely going to happen but I guess that would be out too!

 

[Athlai]

It would be amazing and a deserved wicket IMO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Personally, don't really like it. Always thought that the rule was a la basketball, your last contact with the ground had to be from inside the rope. You're technically out of play if you're outside of the rope, hence why you can't start outside there before the ball is bowled.

 

[shivfan]

Stupid Gayle. Feigning injury. Ooooh I got knock on the knee....waaah. Typical attitude. "I just made alotta runs, hit alotta sixes against Australia and I need a rest and should get one coz I'm Henry Gayle. Definately"

Now do you see why it was a good idea to rest Gayle?

By resting Gayle, Simmons came into the side, and out-performed Marshall. As a result, when Gayle came back into the team, Marshall was the one to make way, not Simmons. That then led to Simmons having a match-winning performance with the bat and in the field.

Simmons would not be in the side if Gayle had played against the Sri Lankans....

 

[JimmyGS]

Personally, don't really like it. Always thought that the rule was a la basketball, your last contact with the ground had to be from inside the rope. You're technically out of play if you're outside of the rope, hence why you can't start outside there before the ball is bowled.

Completely agree, and that is the rule as I always interpreted it.

If the rule is the same in club cricket, for example, that's ridiculous. The batsman could hit a six 10 metres over the rope, and only end up with 3 because the boundary fielder simply runs back, jumps and throws it back in.

It's ludicrous and stupid. I'm all for entertaining cricket but this is ridiculous.

 

[Mahindinho]

Completely agree, and that is the rule as I always interpreted it.

If the rule is the same in club cricket, for example, that's ridiculous. The batsman could hit a six 10 metres over the rope, and only end up with 3 because the boundary fielder simply runs back, jumps and throws it back in.

It's ludicrous and stupid. I'm all for entertaining cricket but this is ridiculous.

Simply. Seriously?

For a start, it would take immense athleticism to get to that ball, do the jumping stuff, then get back inside the ropes quickly enough. Even with a second fielder handling the pick-up, it'd not going to be easy.

Secondly, we're also talking seriously good co-ordination here. You've got to leap for the ball, make a clean catch, and throw it instantaneously in the opposite direction to both its initial travel and yours. At speed. Oh, and you're not going to be able to "bat" a cricket ball with your hand more than a metre or two...without breaking some bones, anyway.

 

[Afridi102o45]

Simply. Seriously?

For a start, it would take immense athleticism to get to that ball, do the jumping stuff, then get back inside the ropes quickly enough. Even with a second fielder handling the pick-up, it'd not going to be easy.

Secondly, we're also talking seriously good co-ordination here. You've got to leap for the ball, make a clean catch, and throw it instantaneously in the opposite direction to both its initial travel and yours. At speed. Oh, and you're not going to be able to "bat" a cricket ball with your hand more than a metre or two...without breaking some bones, anyway.

dear, Mahindinho, didnt u see mathews doing such a gr8 athleticism, without being sure dat it would be legal. nd now when it is dawn to be legal, every one would be trying to master dat kind of athleticism,... adding a new fun to da game of cricket.

 

[Afridi102o45]

Completely agree, and that is the rule as I always interpreted it.

If the rule is the same in club cricket, for example, that's ridiculous. The batsman could hit a six 10 metres over the rope, and only end up with 3 because the boundary fielder simply runs back, jumps and throws it back in.

It's ludicrous and stupid. I'm all for entertaining cricket but this is ridiculous.

imagine how amazing it would be 2 see players waiting4 umpires' decision whether there is a wicket or a six hahahaha.... quite a new fun atleast 2 me