WATCH: Confusion in T20 Blast final as players collide & one jumps over for boundary catch

An incident near the boundary ropes from Saturday (September 18) night’s T20 Blast final has divided the cricket world. The summit-clash between Somerset and Kent saw a contentious caught dismissal given not out on-field by the umpire when rules probably suggest on the contrary.

The incident is from the second ball of the 11th over in Somerset run-chase where right-hand batsman Will Smeed hit Kent’s part-time wristspinner Joe Denly towards the mid-wicket boundary.

Having hit the ball with toe-end, Smeed couldn’t have been sure of getting the maximum. The batter’s worst fear came out true as fieldsman Jordan Cox grabbed hold of the catch. And even though he had a collision with teammate Daniel Bell-Drummond, who was also coming towards the ball, it seemed a straightforward catch to everyone watching.

But, as it turned out, there was more to what met the eye as closed-in replays confirmed that while Cox grabbed hold of the ball, his legs were touching a collapsed Bell-Drummond, who was at the same time in contact with the ropes.

After having told Smeed to hold his ground, the two on-field umpires started discussing the matter among themselves and arrived at the decision of not out, allowing the batter to resume his innings, much to the despair of Cox, Bell-Drummond and the entire Kent fielding group.

Also Read: MCC Called Upon To Solve Batsman’s Unheard Of Dismissal In A Cricket Match Australia

But did the umpire err in his assessment of a caught dismissal in T20 Blast?

Usually, when a fielder is in contact with the ropes while also grabbing hold of the ball or touching it to protect the boundary, the decision goes in favour of the batting side. But there was something more complicated in play here, and it was not just about the presence of another fielder in close proximity of a fielder who held the ball in his hand.

The debate here is whether it is fair on Kent and Cox for Smeed to survive the caught dismissal here when the catch was evidently taken before Bell-Drummond collided with him on his way to hit the ropes?

The ICC-adopted law 19.5 pertaining to the ‘Fielder grounded beyond the boundary’ has some important pointers and resolutions to offer in this regard.

19.5.1 A fielder is grounded beyond the boundary if some part of his/her person is in contact with any of the following:

(a) the boundary or any part of an object used to mark the boundary;

(b) the ground beyond the boundary;

(c) any object that is in contact with the ground beyond the boundary;

(d) another fielder who is grounded beyond the boundary, if the umpire considers that it was the intention of either fielder that the contact should assist in the fielding of the ball.

19.5.2 A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball after it has been delivered by the bowler, was not entirely within the boundary

If is one to focus closely on the wording of the point (d) of the law 19.5.1 here, it seems the umpire made an incorrect interpretation of the “intention” of the two fielders. It was visually evident that at no stage of the incident did Bell-Drummond try to assist Cox with the catch and it was only an accidental collision of two fielders running in the same direction.

Law 33.3 of the ICC laws related to the catching of the ball only further reinforces this belief. Here is what the law states: the act of making a catch shall start from the time when the ball first comes into contact with a fielder’s person and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control over both the ball and his/her own movement.

It was, again, quite evident that Cox had obtained “complete control over the ball” just before Bell-Drummond made an unintentional contact with him. Going by the laws 19.5.1 and 33.3, there was a strong argument in favour of Kent in this incident.