Sri Lanka defeated West Indies convincingly alright. But there was a debatable decision by umpires Simon Taufel and Billy Bowden. Sarwan hit a lofted shot and Angelo Mathews caught the ball within the boundary ropes. But he was not in complete control of his balance and went beyond the boundary ropes. But he had enough common sense to lob the ball into the air before he crossed over the boundary rope. After crossing the boundary ropes, he saw that the ball he had lobbed is about to fall beyond the boundary, which would mean that he had actually thrown the ball to give the batsman 6 runs. So what he did, he again jumped and while he was in air, flicked the ball back into the play area. It was amazing display of presence of mind, under those tense circumstances. Umpires consulted the 3rd umpire as well and came to the conclusion that since the fielder was not in the ground, which touching the ball, it was not a six, even though the boundary lines had been cleared. Hence only 3 runs were awarded, which the batsman had run.
To me, the umpires' decision just didn't make sense at all. If umpires decision can be taken as it is, then consider this scenario. The batsman hits a lofted shot. The fielder on the boundary knows that it is going to clear the boundary. So what he does is, crosses the boundary ropes and when the ball reaches him, he jumps in the air and lobs it back into the play area. Or Worst he jumps and lobs the ball to another player, while he is in air. How would the umpires deal with such a scenario?
The umpires didn't apply common sense in the case of Angelo Mathews' acrobatic fielding. Even though he had lobbed the ball while in air, he should have come back to the play area before lobbing the ball, which he didn't. That being the case, it should have been awarded six runs to the batsman. Had the West Indies, scored 2-3 runs less than Sri Lanka's score, this horrendous decision of Umpires would have deprived them of a victory.
Wish ICC amend such loop holes in the laws of the game, which are like our Constitution.
To me, the umpires' decision just didn't make sense at all. If umpires decision can be taken as it is, then consider this scenario. The batsman hits a lofted shot. The fielder on the boundary knows that it is going to clear the boundary. So what he does is, crosses the boundary ropes and when the ball reaches him, he jumps in the air and lobs it back into the play area. Or Worst he jumps and lobs the ball to another player, while he is in air. How would the umpires deal with such a scenario?
The umpires didn't apply common sense in the case of Angelo Mathews' acrobatic fielding. Even though he had lobbed the ball while in air, he should have come back to the play area before lobbing the ball, which he didn't. That being the case, it should have been awarded six runs to the batsman. Had the West Indies, scored 2-3 runs less than Sri Lanka's score, this horrendous decision of Umpires would have deprived them of a victory.
Wish ICC amend such loop holes in the laws of the game, which are like our Constitution.
3 comments:
if the bat is on air & if the keeper touches the stumps then it is out... So the umpires decision is valid...
Vijay,
I feel the decision by the umpires not to award a six is a correct & sensible one.
Even in a situation described by you, as long as the ball is confronted by the fielder in mid-air, though outside the play area, and ensures it does NOT fall outside the boundary ropes, the umpires will be right in awarding only as many runs as the batsmen have crossed over & not a four or six.
Yes na... they should have behaved with some common sense but still they have to follow whats in the rule
Post a Comment