Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

Entertainment Cricket and Other Sports
2

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

That was so funny ,the guy is so intelligent .Mark Waugh the one of the finest slip fielders in the history of cricket is showing how great it would be having a brain.

3

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

wow......great presence of mind!

4

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

If it were football, that would not be a catch... can't be the first one to touch a ball after you've been out of bounds.

5

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

I think even by cricket rules it is not out. I have read an answer to this same (hypothatical) question elsewhere. The fielder cannot go out of the boundary and then catch the ball without establishing his feet firmly in the field of play.

6

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh—Incredible

Nice catch, but fielder is not famous Mark Waugh instead he is Mark Wagh a Warwickshire opening batsman. :naraz:

Aaj Kiss Baat Par Gussa Aaya ??????
7

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

I vaguely remember reading something to that effect too. Can anyone confirm?

8

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh—Incredible

LOL…yeah, I was gonna say that he does not look like Mark Waugh at all :smiley:

The Random Thread
9

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

I got this long reply from a first class umpire.

I am not entirely clear, in looking at the YouTube video, exactly what
happened here. I am more comfortable clarifying the applicable Law
than making a ruling on this particular catch.

Law 32.3:

A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play.
See 4 below.
(ii) [not applicable here]
The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder
first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete
control both over the ball and over his own movement.

Law 32.4:

(a) A fielder is not within the field of play if he touches the
boundary or has any part of his person grounded beyond the boundary.
...
(b) 6 runs shall be scored if a fielder
(i) has any part of his person touching, or grounded beyond, the
boundary when he catches the ball.
(ii) catches the ball and subsequently touches the boundary or
grounds some part of his person over the boundary while carrying the
ball but before completing the catch. ...

Once these Laws are understood it really is not debatable: the catch
was a legal, fair catch. At no time during the act of making the
catch (beginning when Waugh first caught the ball and ending when he
finally caught it after leaving and then returning to the field of
play) was Waugh touching the boundary or having any part of his person
grounded beyond the boundary while he was in contact with the ball.

Having said that, I have to confess that I have a problem with these
Laws as worded, because under these Laws the following is also a fair
catch:

Batsman hits a 6 which is going to land 20 feet beyond the boundary
edge. Fielder runs 20 feet outside the boundary edge, jumps up in the
air and catches the ball while he is in the air and not at all
grounded beyond the boundary. While still in the air, he throws the
ball back onto the field of play, where it is fairly caught by another
fielder.

According to the Laws, this is a fair catch, and I don't think it
should be. I don't think the Lawgivers completely thought out the
implication of their wording.

Currently, if a fielder is touching the boundary edge, touching a
boundary marker, touching any obstacle or person on the field of play
who has been agreed to be a boundary, touching the ground outside the
boundary, or touching any object or person that is grounded outside
the boundary, he is off the field of play. If he is not touching any
of these things, he is within the field of play. This is the clear
meaning of Law 32.4(a) as read in context with other Laws bearing on
the subject. Therefore if he is in the air he is within the field of
play and can handle the ball as part of a fair catch.

The interesting question for me, which I could not quite tell from the
YouTube video, is whether Waugh, in crossing back over the rope onto
the field of play, had made contact with the ground before catching
the ball the second time. This is interesting only for me, since
according to the Laws this is not important. The only thing important
to the Laws is whether at any time Waugh was simultaneously touching
the ball and also touching the boundary or anything outside the
boundary. It is clear to me even from the evidence of this video that
this was never the case and therefore the catch was legal.

But to me, the definition of whether a fielder is on or outside of the
field of play has a serious hole in it, in that he is considered on
the field of play unless he is grounded outside the field. By that
logic I myself am on the field of play if I stop typing here, stand up
from my chair, and jump up into the air. Since while I am in the air
I am not grounded outside the field of play or touching anything
outside the field of play I am on the field.

The definition of whether a fielder is on or outside of the field of
play should be like the one in basketball, where you are within the
field of play (the basketball court) until you have grounded yourself
outside it, and then you are considered to be outside the field of
play until you have grounded yourself wholly within it. A person in
the air takes his status from where he was before he left the ground.

In the video, Waugh caught the ball on the field of play, realized
that he could not stop his backward momentum from carrying him off the
field of play (and realized that if he carried the ball off the field
of play it would be a 6), threw the ball into the air, stepped back
over the rope, gained control over his body's momentum, jumped back
onto the field of play, and caught the ball that he had thrown into
the air. The question of interest to me is whether he had grounded
himself onto the field of play before coming into contact with the
ball a second time. To me, if he had not, this should not be a fair
catch. However, to the Laws, this question is uninteresting: as the
Laws now stand there is no question that this catch was fair, because
Waugh was never outside of the field of play, according to the
definition in the Laws, at any time that he was in contact with the
ball.

There is a similar definition problem in Law 29.1:

A batsman shall be considered to be out of his ground unless his bat
or some part of his person is grounded behind the popping crease at
that end.

Under this definition a batsman who has made good his ground, who has
crossed the line of the popping crease and is several feet behind it,
and who is nowhere near leaving his ground can still be run out if his
wicket happens to be broken while he is in the air between bounds of
running past the crease.

Now you umpires out there may consider that Law 43 would apply here,
and in the runout case it would seem so. But I have heard from
well-qualified umpires on this newsboard that they would consider a
batsman to be out of his ground if he were in the air after crossing
his crease, and that in fact they had given batsmen out, run out,
under precisely these circumstances. Law 43 is the Law of common
sense, but not everybody's common sense is the same, as this example
makes clear.

Similarly, common sense tells me that if a fieldsman steps off the
field of play he should not be considered to be back on the field of
play until he has actually touched the field of play again. But that
is not what the Laws say now.

Of course the virtue of the Law as it stands now is that the catch in
question is undeniably legal. If the Law were changed to reflect my
concerns expressed here the third umpire would be faced with a more
difficult task, that of determining whether Waugh's foot touched the
field of play before his hand touched the ball.

Take it easy,
Ron Knight

10

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

Ajju, thanks for getting back with a very detailed reply.

Having read the complete rules as laid out by Ron Knight, my view is, on the regulations of dismissal via catching and the subject of whether the ball has been collected cleanly, that there is a major loophole in the laws regarding this affair and the video proves it. The main suspicion is raised over whether or not his feet were firmly placed on the ground, whether he is in complete control over his body while collecting the ball, or if he is in-limits and within the field of play after stepping outside, and the replays indicate that he hasn't done neither when bouncing the ball off for the second time after coming back in and catching it on the third attempt. When he touched the ball after coming back from the boundary, both his feet were in the air which should be a legal six. A fielder has to establish his complete self on the area which is set within limits, and any part over and beyond the boundary is only considered as 'within' if the fielder happens to be in the air. The moment he stepped back beyond the boundary, he tossed the ball in the air, which is legal on all counts. However, the moment he came back and touched the ball with his hands, effectively bouncing it off, both of his feet were still in the air, and this is when he is not considered to be in the field of play as he has left the premises and part of his person is not within the given playing field. The fielder did not make sufficient enough attempt to cover that ground for the second time; hence, he has not taken the catch cleanly, and therefore, it should be counted as maximum. I paused the video several times at different angles, and precisely at 0.49 seconds left to go, we are left with a visual of a part of person's body in contact with the ball after touching the ground behind the boundary and not returning back in time to cover any part of ground in front of the boundary.

Again, this ruling could have went either way since I am certain the above theory in itself have many loopholes in it as well. Please correct as you see fit.

11

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

In my opinion it should be a six because after stepping out of the boundary, he jumped up and palmed the ball in the air. So I agree with you. If this was not true then a fielder can stand outside the boundary and when ball gets close, jump up in the air and catch and throw the ball inside the boundary (without touching the ground back) and stop a six or even a catch if he the ball is caught by a second fielder or the same fielder.

12

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

The only concern, a major one at that, is the time "when a fielder is airborne" and "knowing exactly where he was before leaving his ground". This is worth noting because if a fielder has left the marked areas of the ground and has stepped outside the boundary, only then it is pertinent to have a part of your own self or your both feet firmly established on the ground inside the boundary before touching any part of the ball. If a fielder is within the circle, held the ball, scooped it up in the air, put his foot outside, and failed to come back in completely either by grounding both his feet on the ground or through establishing ground contact through any part of his body, I feel that it should not be acceptable. It is important to note where a fielder is before he is airborne to establish whether or not the catch has been taken cleanly. If he is outside the ropes, it is only legal if part of your body is marked back in before the ball is taken. If any part of your own self is not in contact with the ground inside the boundary, it is reasonable to give that as a six. Add your thoughts to it as you see fit.

Married to a non Pakistani person.
13

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

lol.. if hes a slip fielder whats he doing at the boundary? he's not the australian mark waugh lol..

But yeah, presence of mind. Something pakistanis will never ever ever ever have.

14

Re: Must Watch, Mark Waugh---Incredible

baRi dair kee meharbaaN aatay aatay, yehi baat 2 weeks pehlay bata dee gayee thee jo aaj aap bayan farma rahay. :)