SA Footy

Dmitri Mascarenhas has finished off the England comeback by hitting 5 sixes in a row. The first ball was a dot ball (pity) , so 30 runs came off of the Yuvraj Singh over. This is how the cricinfo commentators saw it:

114 in the last 10 overs
49.6 Yuvraj Singh to Mascarenhas, SIX, make that five sixes in the over! And the biggest of the lot, straight back over the bowler's head! Quite breathless cricket
Where will he bowl now?
49.5 Yuvraj Singh to Mascarenhas, SIX, he's done it again! And this has gone even further into the midwicket boundary
49.4 Yuvraj Singh to Mascarenhas, SIX, and another one! This is marvellous batting here. Another step outside leg; another six into midwicket
49.3 Yuvraj Singh to Mascarenhas, SIX, he takes a step outside leg and smites him for six into the midwicket fence! Bosh!
49.2 Yuvraj Singh to Mascarenhas, SIX, and he swings this over midwicket, high and handsome - but Piyush is lurking, and makes excellent ground to take a brilliant catch. However...such was his velocity that he slid into the boundary, and it's six! Tough luck.
49.1 Yuvraj Singh to Mascarenhas, no run, an ugly and not particularly effective mow


After another stupid dismissal involving Kevin Pietersen, debutant Luke Wright and Owais Shah brought England right back into the match, and Mascarenhas put the cherry on the innings cake.

Some very clean hitting at the end. The first six was pretty lucky but the other 4 were superbly struck. Must be said the bowling was pretty ordinary though. Having said that you can only play the hand you're dealt.

Amazing EG 316 after being 2/20 + 4/83
KP another failure 50 run out

The first 6 hit by MASSACREHAS perplexes me
He hit a top edge to deep mid on
The fielder caught the ball about a yard from the rope.
With the momentum he slid along the turf and his hand touched the rope
The cricket ball appeared not to go over the boundary.
Why is it 6 ?
I would have thought a 4
The law on this one is confusing.

mal wrote:Amazing EG 316 after being 2/20 + 4/83
KP another failure 50 run out

The first 6 hit by MASSACREHAS perplexes me
He hit a top edge to deep mid on
The fielder caught the ball about a yard from the rope.
With the momentum he slid along the turf and his hand touched the rope
The cricket ball appeared not to go over the boundary.
Why is it 6 ?
I would have thought a 4
The law on this one is confusing.

When Chawla touched the rope, the ball had not touched the ground at any stage before that, so that's why it is a six.

Although it was in the heat of the moment, saving runs was better at that stage than taking the catch, with only 4 balls to go, he should have saved 3 runs rather than trying to hold on to it.

I'm with mal here. I understand that by the rules it is six but it is a stupid rule. The ball should have to clear the fence/rope to be six. Same goes for 4's. If the ball doesn't touch the fence/rope it shouldn't be 4. Crazy stuff.

As for the Owais Shah innings, i said at the time KP got run out he should have sacrificed himself for the betterment of the team. Yes, KP was at fault but it is a team game and having realised there was no hope he should have got himself run out instead of KP. I said that only making a hundred now was acceptable for Shah. Well what a way to respond. Fantastic knock. Well played.

rod_rooster wrote:I'm with mal here. I understand that by the rules it is six but it is a stupid rule. The ball should have to clear the fence/rope to be six. Same goes for 4's. If the ball doesn't touch the fence/rope it shouldn't be 4. Crazy stuff.

As for the Owais Shah innings, i said at the time KP got run out he should have sacrificed himself for the betterment of the team. Yes, KP was at fault but it is a team game and having realised there was no hope he should have got himself run out instead of KP. I said that only making a hundred now was acceptable for Shah. Well what a way to respond. Fantastic knock. Well played.

The actual boundary is at the front edge of the rope, fence, triangular advert, so if the ball touches it on the full, its considered to have crossed that plane

pafc1870 wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:I'm with mal here. I understand that by the rules it is six but it is a stupid rule. The ball should have to clear the fence/rope to be six. Same goes for 4's. If the ball doesn't touch the fence/rope it shouldn't be 4. Crazy stuff.

As for the Owais Shah innings, i said at the time KP got run out he should have sacrificed himself for the betterment of the team. Yes, KP was at fault but it is a team game and having realised there was no hope he should have got himself run out instead of KP. I said that only making a hundred now was acceptable for Shah. Well what a way to respond. Fantastic knock. Well played.

The actual boundary is at the front edge of the rope, fence, triangular advert, so if the ball touches it on the full, its considered to have crossed that plane

The ball didnt hit the rope on the full
The ball never crossed the rope
The players feet and body were over the rope
The ball was in the fielders hand, the hand touched the rope
Should be a 4 morally
If the fielder catches the ball and steps over the rope with the ball past the rope thats a 6

morally, the guy was out.
legally (& pedantically), it was 6.
Justice was served in the end (India win)

Punk Rooster wrote:morally, the guy was out.
legally (& pedantically), it was 6.
Justice was served in the end (India win)

Agreed Punk. Rules are not always right. The ball should have to hit the boundary (whether it be rope or fence) to be 4 or clear the boundary to be 6.

I agree with both ROOSTERS
3 great minds think alike

I actually disagree.

I think the rule is accurate.
You need to dismiss a batsman in the field of play, and _complete_ the dismissal in the field of play.

None of this shoulda woulda morally crap.

Dissident wrote:I actually disagree.

I think the rule is accurate.
You need to dismiss a batsman in the field of play, and _complete_ the dismissal in the field of play.

None of this shoulda woulda morally crap.

There shouldn't be a rope on the field to start with...

Punk Rooster wrote:

Dissident wrote:I actually disagree.

I think the rule is accurate.
You need to dismiss a batsman in the field of play, and _complete_ the dismissal in the field of play.

None of this shoulda woulda morally crap.

There shouldn't be a rope on the field to start with...

Now you're changing the debate!

Punk Rooster wrote:

Dissident wrote:I actually disagree.

I think the rule is accurate.
You need to dismiss a batsman in the field of play, and _complete_ the dismissal in the field of play.

None of this shoulda woulda morally crap.

There shouldn't be a rope on the field to start with...

Once again i'm with Punk here.

Dissident wrote:I actually disagree.

I think the rule is accurate.
You need to dismiss a batsman in the field of play, and _complete_ the dismissal in the field of play.

None of this shoulda woulda morally crap.

When did the fieldsman leave the field of play? The no-ball rule says only some part of the foot must be behind the line. Why is it that any part touching the line is considered 4 or in this case six?