CRICKET BBL|12

[Sproj]

Not in the spirit of the rule? Did you hear them read it out? It is literally the rule. They put the provision in there about as long as the player isn’t grounded for that reason. It’s fine to not like the rule but that doesn’t make it not in the spirit.

Because you could honestly have some bloke running around doing little jumps in the outfield the whole way around the game and it would be out, it makes the ropes effectively pointless. And no, I was watching on mute, so don't hear the rule.

 

[broncos4life]

Because you could honestly have some bloke running around doing little jumps in the outfield the whole way around the game and it would be out, it makes the ropes effectively pointless. And no, I was watching on mute, so don't hear the rule.

Yes you could technically have that but how hard would that be? So they would have to have the ball caught originally like Neser did and then time the jump and landing each time. As I said there is a reason we have only seen this now.

 

[BroncosFever]

No it’s not. To ‘exploit’ it you have to have both a huge amount of luck and skill which is the reason we haven’t seen it before. Most times the player wouldn’t get both feet off the ground before throwing it back in so it is a non issue. You can’t change rules because something looks weird.

It shouldn't be out if you ground yourself outside the field of play and then make a play at the ball

 

[Sproj]

Yes you could technically have that but how hard would that be? So they would have to have the ball caught originally like Neser did and then time the jump and landing each time. As I said there is a reason we have only seen this now.

It shouldn't be out if you ground yourself outside the field of play and then make a play at the ball

This is the point. A player who hits the ball that well shouldn't be out if the fielder has stepped out of the field of play or jumped from out of the field of play at any point.

Imagine in league if some guy passed to the winger who caught it threw it up ran along outside the field of play bumping it up to himself again and running along in row 12 and then coming back in the field of play. I am exaggerating but the point is, as soon as Neser stepped out and jumped from outside, that should never be a wicket.

 

[broncos4life]

It shouldn't be out if you ground yourself outside the field of play and then make a play at the ball

That’s not what the rule says. Like I don’t get what we are arguing here? The rule is the rule. I could say I don’t think it should be a four when you have a big dopey bowler swing with his eyes closed and it takes a thick each and he lucks a boundary, but it’s the rules so it is what it is.

 

[Sproj]

That’s not what the rule says. Like I don’t get what we are arguing here? The rule is the rule. I could say I don’t think it should be a four when you have a big dopey bowler swing with his eyes closed and it takes a thick each and he lucks a boundary, but it’s the rules so it is what it is.

It is obvious what we are saying here, the rule is not in the spirit of the game. The rule should not be there, ergo it should be changed.

 

[broncos4life]

This is the point. A player who hits the ball that well shouldn't be out if the fielder has stepped out of the field of play or jumped from out of the field of play at any point.

Imagine in league if some guy passed to the winger who caught it threw it up ran along outside the field of play bumping it up to himself again and running along in row 12 and then coming back in the field of play. I am exaggerating but the point is, as soon as Neser stepped out and jumped from outside, that should never be a wicket.

When you exaggerate the point that much the discussion loses all meaning but fair play to you. In any case I am done discussing this, it is in the rule book so that’s it as far as I am concerned.

 

[BroncosFever]

That’s not what the rule says. Like I don’t get what we are arguing here? The rule is the rule. I could say I don’t think it should be a four when you have a big dopey bowler swing with his eyes closed and it takes a thick each and he lucks a boundary, but it’s the rules so it is what it is.

I know what the rule says after having heard it, even having not known the rule I just looked at it and thought "that cannot possibly be out", we're all Heat fans here so there's no bias or agenda, we won the game and I am really happy that we did.

However, that should not be out and I guarantee you they'll be implementing a rule so that in the future that isn't out. I am fine with it when the catch it made in-field then they throw it up before leaving the field of play only to them step foot back in the field of play and take the catch, that's great skill. Not so sure about catching it and juggling it outside the field of play, I can't think of any other sport where that would be a thing.

Yes I know what the rule says but thing happen in sport which just don't look right, like in the NRL where the dummy half was intentionally throwing into the bloke in the ruck leaving the refs with no choice but to give a penalty, then it looked just wrong, so they changed it.

 

[BroncsFan]

I don’t get all the outrage over the catch, it is literally the rule. No-one is robbed when the rule book clearly says that is a catch.

It's a shit rule because your feet should have to be within the boundary rope for a catch to be legal.

Any touch that starts with a foot outside the rope should be a six.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Boundary catches explained: Why is that not a six? | cricket.com.au

It's the fielding act that sends the cricket world abuzz whenever it happens, but just what is the…

t.co

 

[broncos4life]

It's a shit rule because your feet should have to be within the boundary rope for a catch to be legal.

Any touch that starts with a foot outside the rope should be a six.

The catch started from within the boundary rope and at no time did he contact the ball when his feet were touching the ground outside the boundary rope, that’s why it’s a catch.

Why is it such a shit rule? Especially in a format that so favours the batters I don’t get the outrage over a rule that rewards a fielder for being able to complete a very atheletic and skilful act to deny a six and get a wicket.

 

[broncos4life]

I know what the rule says after having heard it, even having not known the rule I just looked at it and thought "that cannot possibly be out", we're all Heat fans here so there's no bias or agenda, we won the game and I am really happy that we did.

However, that should not be out and I guarantee you they'll be implementing a rule so that in the future that isn't out. I am fine with it when the catch it made in-field then they throw it up before leaving the field of play only to them step foot back in the field of play and take the catch, that's great skill. Not so sure about catching it and juggling it outside the field of play, I can't think of any other sport where that would be a thing.

Yes I know what the rule says but thing happen in sport which just don't look right, like in the NRL where the dummy half was intentionally throwing into the bloke in the ruck leaving the refs with no choice but to give a penalty, then it looked just wrong, so they changed it.

I get what you are saying but I have seen many things in sport that don’t look right but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a rule. You bring the NRL into it and for instance when I first saw someone standing with a foot into touch and simply batting the ball put the ball out I thought that didn’t look right, I thought you had to catch it and thought that looks like a knock on. It isn’t and I never thought they should change it.

The rules are the rules and should only be changed if there is an unexpected consequence that arises and is exploited often like the dummy half example you gave, which is why that rule was changed.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

“Did I hear someone say rule change? Hold my beer”.
PVL probably.

 

[BroncosFever]

I get what you are saying but I have seen many things in sport that don’t look right but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a rule. You bring the NRL into it and for instance when I first saw someone standing with a foot into touch and simply batting the ball put the ball out I thought that didn’t look right, I thought you had to catch it and thought that looks like a knock on. It isn’t and I never thought they should change it.

The rules are the rules and should only be changed if there is an unexpected consequence that arises and is exploited often like the dummy half example you gave, which is why that rule was changed.

I reckon the rule was created when the boundary was a fence, not a rope. Let's see what they do with it anyway.

 

[broncos4life]

I reckon the rule was created when the boundary was a fence, not a rope. Let's see what they do with it anyway.

That makes no sense. If the boundary was still a fence you couldn’t effect that rule. The rule is there and it won’t be changing regardless of how incredulous Mark Howard is.

 

[1910]

I reckon the rule was created when the boundary was a fence, not a rope. Let's see what they do with it anyway.

You could lean over the fence to catch but if you touched the fence it was a boundary.

2013 the rule changed. Renshaw did it last season too.

 

[Unbreakable]

The rule obviously just needs a minor tweak. If you jump from outside the rope and contact the ball before re-planting your feet inside the rope, it's a six. It's pretty obvious that has to change.

 

[Dash]

The rule obviously just needs a minor tweak. If you jump from outside the rope and contact the ball before re-planting your feet inside the rope, it's a six. It's pretty obvious that has to change.

This was the rule until it was changed to the current interpretation in 2013.