Ask the Laws Department XXVIII: (Breaking the boundary)

MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with The Wisden Cricketer. This edition discusses fieldsmen breaking the boundary.

In many televised games it is not uncommon to hear the commentators bemoan the time that is wasted using replays to decide whether or not a ball has crossed the boundary.

Increased athleticism in cricket means diving boundary saves have become commonplace Obviously, in many games, an extra run or two to the total can be crucial but it is often suggested that the Law could be simpler and easier to apply in such circumstances.

The most common proposition is that the ball should not be deemed to have crossed the boundary if it has remained within the boundary - regardless of any contact with the fielder and his contact with the boundary.

While the simplicity of this argument may seem appealing at first sight, it would be unworkable - and particularly so in matches that are not televised.

Law 19.3(a) states: "A boundary shall be scored and signalled by the bowler’s end umpire whenever, while the ball is in play, in his opinion:

(i) the ball touches the boundary or is grounded beyond the boundary

(ii) a fielder with some part of his person in contact with the ball, touches the boundary or has some part of his person grounded beyond the boundary."

A key point to stress is that in the vast majority of cricket the umpire will often have to rely on the word of the fielder. The marking of boundaries is varied from one ground to the next - ropes, fences, painted lines and flags are all used. On some grounds there are flags but no line, so the fielder or umpire must try to imagine a straight line joining the nearest two flags.

The umpire can be a long way from a particular point on the boundary and he cannot be expected to see exactly what has happened. If there is a rope, it is often easier for the umpire to judge.

Four... or was it? The problem with defining a boundary is that, whatever the definition is, there will always be examples where it is extremely close as to whether or not the ball has crossed it. Changing the definition may simply be a case of shifting the problem.

The alternative suggested by some, about it not being a boundary if the ball remains within the field of play, becomes much more difficult to judge if the ball is airborne, as the fielder or umpire would be forced to make a call on whether the ball has crossed an imaginary vertical line rising from the boundary edge.

This is the reason why a fielder’s position when he is in contact with the ball is so important. A sharpsighted umpire might be able to see that a fielder has trodden on, or over, the rope while in contact with the ball - it is more difficult with a painted line - but he would struggle to see if the ball had crossed the vertical line rising from the boundary.

Also, the same definition of a boundary must be used for all scenarios, whether judging fours or sixes or the taking of catches. So, if the 'ball remaining within the field of play' suggestion was followed, then a fielder would be able to stand outside the boundary and take a catch, as long as his arms were out-stretched in front of him and the ball never crossed this imaginary vertical line.

This would be impossible to judge in non-televised games and would still cause huge problems to a TV third umpire. MCC is happy with the Law as it is written, as it is the fairest and most practical way of judging boundaries at all levels of the game. To change the Law to cater for television replays would be wrong and would still create as many problems as it solved.

Ask the umpire - with MCC Laws sub-committee

In the 6th One Day International between Australia and England at Sydney, Jonathan Trott was allowed a runner when he had cramp. I recall Graeme Smith was not allowed a runner when he had cramp a couple of years ago. Whose decision is it to allow a runner and is one allowed for cramp?

- Justin Wigley, Barnes

MCC says:

Law 2.1 gives the umpires sole discretion on whether or not to allow a runner. The captain of the fielding side has no say.

The ICC recently received medical advice that cramp should indeed be treated as an injury or illness and it issued a directive in September 2010 that a runner should be allowed for a batsman suffering from cramp.

While MCC will not add anything so specific to its Laws, the club is content for this interpretation to be adopted at any level of the game.