I just found it a bit against spirit of cricket tbh. The batsman is attempting to play the ball. He is not leaving the crease till the ball gets into the gloves of the keeper, and after that he's not moving out of the crease for a run. Most of these stumpings happen of wide deliveries wherein batsmen are rendered helpless because they committed themselves to playing the ball on the front foot. Getting stumped off a wide makes sense when the batsman has left the crease to narrow down the angles and hence a way to reward the bowler for still beating him, but I can't have the same sentiments about earning a wicket by bowling a non legit delivery to a batsman who tried to play it well within the crease and had to leave it for a fraction only because of involuntary body action. These days we can find the keeper waiting for the batsman to overbalance and then make the stumping which for me is not exactly reflects the sporting nature of cricket.Disagree with this. If you've overbalanced, you've messed up, and if that ends up with you leaving your crease and getting stumped, tough luck.
Speaking as a wicketkeeper, I can't think of anything more ridiculous. Batting is all about balance and if you can't keep some part of yourself grounded in this massive four-foot wide block, that's your own damn fault for being rubbish and you can get out.Would've loved to rectify that. It should be not out when the batsman is stumped trying to overbalance, provided he had his leg in the crease at the point of ball passing by the stumps and the subsequent leaving the crease was involuntary and not an attempt to take a run.
Would make it far too hard to judge on boundary catches similar to those being legislated by the second new change, surely.I thought they might change the rules (or perhaps they're playing conditions) to the ball itself having to cross the rope, rather than have all these replays to see if the fielder's big toe crossed the line as he slid to collect the pill.
I don't think they're going to introduce a change to the very rules of the game itself simply to stop the career of Stuart Broad mate....Meh @ 2. I mean there's no downside to closing off the loophole but I reckon there's bigger fish to fry than closing off a loophole for something which still happens so rarely. Strikes me as over-officious, rather than ridding the game of an insidious cancer.
I would accept that rule, if it were to happen over all the others mentioned n the OP.I don't think they're going to introduce a change to the very rules of the game itself simply to stop the career of Stuart Broad mate....
so basically you're saying you think that the keeper waiting for the batsmen to make a mistake (which is essentially what they're doing by overbalancing) is against the spirit of cricket? Isn't that part of what cricket is about, drawing mistakes from the opposition in a tactical battle?I just found it a bit against spirit of cricket tbh. The batsman is attempting to play the ball. He is not leaving the crease till the ball gets into the gloves of the keeper, and after that he's not moving out of the crease for a run. Most of these stumpings happen of wide deliveries wherein batsmen are rendered helpless because they committed themselves to playing the ball on the front foot. Getting stumped off a wide makes sense when the batsman has left the crease to narrow down the angles and hence a way to reward the bowler for still beating him, but I can't have the same sentiments about earning a wicket by bowling a non legit delivery to a batsman who tried to play it well within the crease and had to leave it for a fraction only because of involuntary body action. These days we can find the keeper waiting for the batsman to overbalance and then make the stumping which for me is not exactly reflects the sporting nature of cricket.
That said, there is merit in what you said also, as it could make the existing laws more complex, and that the batsman could've made better judgement etc. Fair enough.
That's not what the law's doing though, have an actual read of the proposed change. All it now says is that if a fielder is going to parry the ball back inside the ropes, he has to jump from inside the field, rather than being able to step a few metres outside the boundary and then jumping back into play. The catches that we've been seeing won't be affected at all.I don't like the change on mid-air boundary saves at all. Seeing a save or a catch from a fieldsman dealing with the boundary is one of the exciting things in cricket. Also, it will be an absolute nightmare trying to determine if a ball has crossed the boundary or not.
Hmmm not sure. He only stepped outside of the field of play at the end, and the only time he touched the ball after doing so, the ball was well and truly back inside the ropes. Would be iffy. Personally I'd say something like that should be out, since the contact made with the ball after stepping outside the boundary was done back inside the field.Does this mean that this catch would no longer be allowed?
Considering that the last step that he took before catching the ball was from outside the arena?
Personally, that's how I believe it should be policed, a la basketball. Makes it nice and simple.
Could make it only for non-catches though.Would make it far too hard to judge on boundary catches similar to those being legislated by the second new change, surely.
Yeah, that's the one that andy linked to. The principle is the same though, where the last contact with the ground was over the line.Cant open you tube so not sure of which catches Jack and Andy were talking about but I specifically remember an Angelo Matthews catch when he went outside the boundary, leaped up and then got the ball back into the field of play, which I felt was ridiculous.
And felt the same during the old days when Aussie grounds did not have a boundary and Agarkar leaned back on a wall and caught someone.. Felt it was ridiculous.