Shoudn't Trott's catch have been 4 and not 6?

[The Fonz]

If the 3rd umpire deemed that Trott touched the rope, then why wasn't it a four?
He caught the ball, made contact with the ground and the touched rope.
So why would it be a 6?

 

[Wallaby]

Problem:

I don't understand all the laws of Cricket.

Should I

a) Ask on internet forum and get an answer that I still might not be happy with or understand?

or

b) Read Laws of Cricket (which takes less effort than logging onto a forum and asking a question and waiting several hours for an answer).

You have 40 secs....................which is exactly how long it took me to find the answer starting with 'Laws of Cricket' in Google.


Sorry for sounding snarky, but this is pretty easy to do. Maybe we should have a 'Laws of Cricket' link as a sticky on the board.

 

[J Selwood14]

if a fielder catches the ball then runs over the rope its 6, as the ball hasn't touched the ground
same situation as this i would say

 

[FunkyFreo2]

Gee Wallaby, if we all followed that logic there would be about 2 new posts a day on bigfooty.

 

[FunkyFreo2]

Someones asked a simple question on bigfooty

1) should I give them the answer

or

2) should I make a long winded example of them, taking about 5 times longer than just posting the answer.

 

[The Fonz]

I get it now.
In my mind, I didn't equate him trying to get his shoulder to avoid touching the boundary with a guy whose momentum/balance causes him to walk over the boundary.

Anyhow so less confusing when there were fences....

 

[red+black]

I was wanting it to be a big King Kong Bundy FIVE.