Boundary rule in cricket

[ankitj]

I think Jadeja.

PS. Oh, sorry.

 

[SteveNZ]

Is this rule broken? I feel like it isn't.

 

[Red]

Is this rule broken? I feel like it isn't.

It's not necessarily broken, it just doesn't make sense to me. The ball should need to cross the line for a boundary, not the player as an extension of the ball.

 

[TheJediBrah]

All run 5s at adelaide? Isn't adelaide quite small? i feel like all run 5s would be more of an MCG thing

All run 5s happened in Adelaide all the time, and rarely at other grounds. I miss when all the grounds were unique. Like top-edges at Perth always going for 6 lol

 

[mr_mister]

Why is that? MCG is still bigger than Adelaide straight I assume

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Only if you don't know what you're talking about.



(I did have to estimate this as the southern stand overlaps the playing surface)

They do tend to bring the ropes in further at Adelaide to compensate, because heaven forbid we have long boundaries, but I suspect that Adelaide is still substantially longer than Melbourne even after the application of ropes.

 

[SteveNZ]

It's not necessarily broken, it just doesn't make sense to me. The ball should need to cross the line for a boundary, not the player as an extension of the ball.

By that token, is this line extendable vertically as well? That's going to be a bloody hard one to police, or as I assume you only mean when the ball is on the ground?

I like the rule just fine as it is. Body contacts the rope, easy to adjudge it to be 4 (or 6). The player is only an extension of the ball when they touch it, which again to me feels right.

 

[Chewie]

is the player an extension of the ball or an extension of the part of the ground they are touching at the time ???

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why is that? MCG is still bigger than Adelaide straight I assume

MCG is relatively short straight. Adelaide was enormous. Far bigger straight than MCG ever has been.

 

[jimmy101]

Up until the introduction of ropes in the mid 90's the Adelaide Oval had the longest straight boundary in the world.

 

[Daemon]

Only if you don't know what you're talking about.

View attachment 27066
View attachment 27067
(I did have to estimate this as the southern stand overlaps the playing surface)

They do tend to bring the ropes in further at Adelaide to compensate, because heaven forbid we have long boundaries, but I suspect that Adelaide is still substantially longer than Melbourne even after the application of ropes.

Wow you could fit three Eden Parks in there

 

[Smudge]

#AdelaideOvalSoBig

 

[_00_deathscar]

It's not necessarily broken, it just doesn't make sense to me. The ball should need to cross the line for a boundary, not the player as an extension of the ball.

Okay, but how? How do you figure out if the ball was over the line in the case of that ridiculous Pooran save in the IPL (and similar)?

You're going to end up with those offside lines off armpits and toenails you see in football's VAR, except it'll be even tougher here with the missing frames, ball in hand/covered (in the case of the Pooran save) etc etc.

 

[Starfighter]

I'd like that the fielder needs to be grounded over the boundary. Not sure how it would work with the ones sliding into the rope though.

 

[ankitj]

If a fielder stops a ball while airborne, it should be a boundary if they landed outside the boundary just before or after the contact with the ball. So all those jump, throw the ball back, land outside boundary kind of stops should be boundaries. They seem like great spectacle to everyone, completely ridiculous to me that they are not ruled boundaries.

 

[Red]

Okay, but how? How do you figure out if the ball was over the line in the case of that ridiculous Pooran save in the IPL (and similar)?

You're going to end up with those offside lines off armpits and toenails you see in football's VAR, except it'll be even tougher here with the missing frames, ball in hand/covered (in the case of the Pooran save) etc etc.

just rely on the fielder's honesty

 

[Senile Sentry]

If a fielder stops a ball while airborne, it should be a boundary if they landed outside the boundary just before or after the contact with the ball. So all those jump, throw the ball back, land outside boundary kind of stops should be boundaries. They seem like great spectacle to everyone, completely ridiculous to me that they are not ruled boundaries.

I dont have a problem if the last contact with the ground was inside the boundary before the first contact with the ball. But what irks me is that you could go outside the boundary and then push back for a second time the ball inside as long as you land thereafter inside the boundary. That although is very rare, just doesn't make sense.

 

[cnerd123]

just rely on the fielder's honesty

You thought Pant was faking an injury so he wouldn't have to keep wicket ffs

 

[Victor Ian]

If a fielder stops a ball while airborne, it should be a boundary if they landed outside the boundary just before or after the contact with the ball. So all those jump, throw the ball back, land outside boundary kind of stops should be boundaries. They seem like great spectacle to everyone, completely ridiculous to me that they are not ruled boundaries.

I think it's interesting to ponder the shape of the playing volume. You are suggesting the game is played in a cylinder where a boundary wall extends vertically upwards from the boundary rope. Whereas, really the boundary projects horizontally outwards from the rope.
It's worth considering where do we draw the line...literally. how many times have we seen a boundary scored, or not, because it hit a crooked line, previously disturbed? Should we stop using a rope and instead mark the limit with chalk/paint like a football field?

 

[Coronis]

If a fielder stops a ball while airborne, it should be a boundary if they landed outside the boundary just before or after the contact with the ball. So all those jump, throw the ball back, land outside boundary kind of stops should be boundaries. They seem like great spectacle to everyone, completely ridiculous to me that they are not ruled boundaries.

Yes they are a great spectacle and thats a great part of the reason the rule should be kept the way it is. I mean this is similar to the rules in other major ball sports I borrow like Basketball and Rugby League.

Can you imagine if this wasn’t a try because Inglis landed out of bounds?

Similarly it would reduce the opportunities to see amazing fielding saves showing off remarkable athleticism.