INCIDENT IN CRICKET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20115, 28 November 1928, Page 16

INCIDENT IN CRICKET.

UMPIRE'S WRONG DECISION. .\ correspondent forwards the following query from Ongarue, King Country:— "Might I trespass on your time to "decide what appear? to me a rather interesting point which arose in a cricket match at Tauniarunui recently ? A batsman hit a ball which was caught by a fieldsman standing within the boundary, but the one hand with which tho catch was taken was beyond ilic boundary, i.e., the ball itself was over the boundary line when caught. Was it a six or out ? The umpire gave not-out. ho you consider his decision collect? Personally, I think it, was, but there seemed to be a considerable Opinion against. Ihe argument against was that the fieldsman was '"within ihe field of play," admitting his hand was beyond the boundary when the catch was taken, the contention being "there aro no boundaries in the air." The umpire erred in his decision. The batsman was clearly out, as there is no provision in the. rules regarding boundaries in the air. .So long as the fieldsman was inside the boundary when lie '>!< the ball the catch was a fair one. .\ case occurred at Hagley Park, in C hi istclitirch, some years ago, by which 1). lieese was dismissed, only in this instance the fieldman leaned bai k over the picket feneo which supported him and held the ball. There was an element of unfairness in this case, however, as the fieldsman should not be allowed to have support ( of such nature.—Athletic Editor.