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.Is this rule broken? I feel like it isn't.
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 lolAll run 5s at adelaide? Isn't adelaide quite small? i feel like all run 5s would be more of an MCG thing
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?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.
MCG is relatively short straight. Adelaide was enormous. Far bigger straight than MCG ever has been.Why is that? MCG is still bigger than Adelaide straight I assume
Wow you could fit three Eden Parks in thereOnly 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.
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)?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.
just rely on the fielder's honestyOkay, 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.
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.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.
You thought Pant was faking an injury so he wouldn't have to keep wicket ffsjust rely on the fielder's honesty
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.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.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.