Group C - Australia, Sri Lanka, West Indies

[Mahindinho]

Originally Posted by jondavluc

Chris Giffard is furious with the Bravo 'not-a-six' ruling: "Of course that was a 6. What a stupid interpretation of the rules by the umpires. NOw we can have fielders in the stands, and as long as their feet are in the air, they can catch it and throw it back. What a lack of wisdom by the umpires."

x 2

Found it!

So, who wants to argue with umpire Holder?

[Adamc]

Originally Posted by Mahindinho

x 2

Found it!

So, who wants to argue with umpire Holder?

Haha. Could theoretically station fielders outside the boundary if the opponent needed six off the last ball. Should allow it IMO, would take a fair bit of skill to catch it and throw it back in mid-air, would be rather amusing also.

[Mahindinho]

171/5 with a free hit coming up then three legitimate balls remaining. I'm very impressed that the WIndies have managed to stay in there right 'til the end!

[roseboy64]

The fielding was horrible I guess? If we could sort that out in quick time we'd be a lock for qualifying.

[Smith]

Originally Posted by aussie

So you are going to pick players in test cricket, based on T20 form now?. No way

All 3 formats have a clear future in the game.

FC cricket exists for a reason imho. And whatever F50 can do, T20 can also do imho.

[Nnanden]

Haha, RAGING at the commentators on Matthews' fielding. It is definately not a six. Learn the rules of the sport you commentate on professionals. Reckon most of my Under 13 boys would know that. [/rant]

[shankar]

Great effort! I've often wondered about exactly this scenario. I think the ruling was right. We don't check whether a fielder's hands are over the rope when taking a catch. Is there a specification on which part of a fielder's body can be outside the ropes?

[roseboy64]

Seen something:
The ball shall be regarded as pitching beyond the boundary and 6 runs shall be scored if a fielder
(i) has any part of his person touching the boundary or grounded beyond the boundary when he catches the ball.
(ii) catches the ball and subsequently touches the boundary or grounds some part of his person beyond the boundary while carrying the ball


source:Law 19 (Boundaries) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's

[Adamc]

Originally Posted by shankar

Great effort! I've often wondered about exactly this scenario. I think the ruling was right. We don't check whether a fielder's hands are over the rope when taking a catch. Is there a specification on which part of a fielder's body can be outside the ropes?

Have no problem with the fielder's body being outside the boundary, thought the issue might be that the fielder had already made contact with the ground outside the field of play before knocking the ball back in. It's somewhat analogous to a fielder saving a four by knocking the ball away from the rope, then stepping outside the rope before returning to retrieve the ball (which happens all the time and is unquestionably legal). The only difference between the two situations is that in the former the fielder makes second contact with the ball in mid-air (which isn't illegal) and has all or part of their body outside the field of play (which isn't illegal).

So yeah, it's perfectly legal I suppose.

[Athlai]

Yeah as long as you are in the air it is all gravy. Of course the people whinging about how this would mean you could have a player in the stands to ward off sixes are ****ing ridiculous because that would be a stupid field placing.

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by roseboy64

The fielding was horrible I guess? If we could sort that out in quick time we'd be a lock for qualifying.

Yes, the fielding was poor again, and the guys need to sort that out....

That said, it was good to see the guys making 177 against a potent SL attack, even without Gayle.

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by scorpiogal

I would give the ring finger on my left hand for that!

That'll get to certain other non-Trini West Indians! :P

Why? Are you a Trini first, and a West Indian second?

I'm not a Trini, but I've been one of Simmons' greatest advocates. Unlike some WI fans, I'm happy to see BOTH Gayle and Simmons in the side.

[Dissector]

Didn't watch the game but it looks like a poor effort from Sarwan: 28 from 26 with no boundaries. With a smaller target it might have been a good move for Sarwan to make sure he was there at the end but in the circumstances the West Indies just let the RRR climb till it was out of reach.

[Beleg]

Originally Posted by Dissector

Didn't watch the game but it looks like a poor effort from Sarwan: 28 from 26 with no boundaries. With a smaller target it might have been a good move for Sarwan to make sure he was there at the end but in the circumstances the West Indies just let the RRR climb till it was out of reach.

Sarwan's innings was the difference between a win and a loss for the WI. I wonder if he was trying to play himself in or something...he choose the wrong format.

And he's a fella who can hit 'em as well.

WI batting is alright. I certainly reckon they have a fair chance of reaching the semis.

[scorpiogal]

Originally Posted by shivfan

Why? Are you a Trini first, and a West Indian second?

I'm not a Trini, but I've been one of Simmons' greatest advocates. Unlike some WI fans, I'm happy to see BOTH Gayle and Simmons in the side.

I am a Trini first, actually, and always back the Trini boys before any other. We back our boys as much as the Jamaicans back theirs.