Is there anything in the rules

[NasserFan207]

-against having the wicketkeeper (while wearing gloves) standing anywhere you want?

Say a 20/20 scenario where a boundary is needed of the final ball, and the wicketkeeper stands right on the boundary in the backstop position for the scoop shot. Is this illegal? Is there a rule preventing moving the keeper around?

[zaremba]

Law 40.1:

The wicket-keeper is the only member of the fielding side permitted to wear gloves and external leg guards. If he does so, these are to be regarded as part of his person for the purposes of Law 41.2 (Fielding the ball). If by his actions and positioning it is apparent to the umpires that he will not be able to discharge his duties as a wicket-keeper, he shall forfeit this right and also the right to be recognised as a wicket-keeper for the purposes of Laws 32.3 (A fair catch), 39 (Stumped), 41.1 (Protective equipment), 41.5 (Limitation of on side fielders) and 41.6 (Fielders not to encroach on the pitch).

[NasserFan207]

So its the umpire's call basically? Sounds like something you could find loopholes in. I could see them messing around with it in 20/20s at some stage.

[andyc]

-against having the wicketkeeper (while wearing gloves) standing anywhere you want?

Say a 20/20 scenario where a boundary is needed of the final ball, and the wicketkeeper stands right on the boundary in the backstop position for the scoop shot. Is this illegal? Is there a rule preventing moving the keeper around?

If the keeper's going to be standing at say, silly mid off wearing his gloves, there might be a bit of an issue, but if he's just standing all the way back on the boundary I can't see much wrong with it. Maybe he's just expecting the bowler to bowl a really, really quick one.

[zaremba]

If the keeper's going to be standing at say, silly mid off wearing his gloves, there might be a bit of an issue, but if he's just standing all the way back on the boundary I can't see much wrong with it. Maybe he's just expecting the bowler to bowl a really, really quick one.

Whatever you might describe as "the duties of the wicketkeeper", I doubt they can be discharged by a chap standing on the boundary.

[NasserFan207]

But like he says, theoretically the bowler could just be really, really fast. The keeper has no fixed position behind the stumps from what I see. Obviously he isn't there for a traditional caught behind, but with things so heavily weighted in favour of the bat, it could be an interesting x-factor in 20/20s. I can't imagine any other format where you'd use it.

[wfdu_ben91]

That was actually a pretty good question, lol.

[zaremba]

But like he says, theoretically the bowler could just be really, really fast. The keeper has no fixed position behind the stumps from what I see. Obviously he isn't there for a traditional caught behind, but with things so heavily weighted in favour of the bat, it could be an interesting x-factor in 20/20s. I can't imagine any other format where you'd use it.

I suppose the first requirement is that he's standing in line with the pitch.

If the bowler were exceptionally quick and the boundary exceptionally small then you could just about imagine him standing near the boundary. But that would be exceptional and the umpire's call in light of the particular circumstances.

Seems to me though that as a bare minimum, in order to discharge your duties as a keeper, you have to be positioned so as to have a reasonable chance of catching an edge and of saving a single if the batsman leaves the ball.

[NUFAN]

Z, that last sentence of yours is interesting, I don't see why it's considered reasonable to save a single when in T20 cricket a run a ball is not considered good for the batting team. I think that as long as the keeper is wearing pads and he is behind the stumps the keeper should be allowed to stand as far back as he likes.

[zaremba]

Yeah that's true. What I'm grappling with is the expression in Law 40.1 "discharge his duties as a wicket-keeper". I'm not sure if that's defined anywhere else in the Laws. But it surely can't be enough for the skipper to say "I want his duties to be to patrol the boundary and/or save the 2". Ultimately I suppose if I were the umpire I'd be inclined to say that if you're a wicket keeper, your job title suggests that your duties require that you be reasonably close to the wicket.

I should add that Law 40.3 provides:

3. Position of wicket-keeper
The wicket-keeper shall remain wholly behind the wicket at the striker's end from the moment the ball comes into play until
(a) a ball delivered by the bowler
either (i) touches the bat or person of the striker
or (ii) passes the wicket at the striker's end
or (b) the striker attempts a run.
In the event of the wicket-keeper contravening this Law, the umpire at the striker's end shall call and signal No ball as soon as possible after the delivery of the ball.

It is arguable that this wouldn't in itself prevent you from standing at deep square leg, 6 inches behind square. But if you're fielding there you're not able to discharge your duties as wicket-keeper and therefore by Law 40.1 you can't have the special rights afforded to keepers (including wearing gloves).

[zaremba]

And remember, if you're a keeper standing on the boundary, you can't walk in.

Law 40.4 provides:

4. Movement by wicket-keeper
It is unfair if the wicket-keeper standing back makes a significant movement towards the wicket after the ball comes into play and before it reaches the striker. In the event of such unfair movement by the wicket-keeper, either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball. It will not be considered a significant movement if the wicket-keeper moves a few paces forward for a slower delivery.

[Goughy]

So its the umpire's call basically? Sounds like something you could find loopholes in. I could see them messing around with it in 20/20s at some stage.

One way to do it is not to have a keeper. Ive done it in sixes tournaments. Have noone with the gloves or pads and 5 fielders.

[NUFAN]

It is arguable that this wouldn't in itself prevent you from standing at deep square leg, 6 inches behind square. But if you're fielding there you're not able to discharge your duties as wicket-keeper and therefore by Law 40.1 you can't have the special rights afforded to keepers (including wearing gloves).

Yep. I wouldn't accept it if I were an umpire if the keeper was an inch behind square leg. If he's on the boundary behind the stumps or even a fraction leg or offside in a stationary position (rule 40.4) and you have someone like Dilshan on strike needing 3 runs off the last ball to win the match, it's a valid tactic by the fielding team IMO.

All sorts of mayhem could happen with a fielder having to run to the stumps and try and get a run out though.

[stumpski]

It sounds as if you could have an ungloved, unpadded 'keeper on the boundary then, as long as you still had the four fielders in the circle, or whatever limit applies. Of course, the fielding circle only came in because of an England match in Australia when everyone, including the late David Bairstow, was 'on the ropes.'

[zaremba]

It sounds as if you could have an ungloved, unpadded 'keeper on the boundary then, as long as you still had the four fielders in the circle, or whatever limit applies. Of course, the fielding circle only came in because of an England match in Australia when everyone, including the late David Bairstow, was 'on the ropes.'

Not sure if the fielding restrictions include the keeper. But an ungloved, unpadded keeper on the boundary basically isn't a keeper and as Goughy points out there's nothing in the Laws (as far as I know) that requires you to have a keeper.