Angelo Mathews, with a brilliant display of fielding and presence of mind in saving a certain six in the World T20 match against the West Indies at Lord’s, had the umpires in a quandary and posed a legal query for the MCC – the custodians of the Laws of cricket.

Mathews was fielding at deep backward square leg on the boundary as Dwane Bravo, the WI middle order batsman hit a powerful pull shot high towards the Grandstand with the boundary rope some five yards in from the fence. As the ball sailed over his head he jumped high in the air acrobatically and knocked the ball up over and across the boundary.

He got up from where he fell outside the field and with a surprising presence of mind and knowledge of the Laws, he jumped with both feet off the ground and "volleyed" the ball back into the field. He then ran in and threw the ball back to the bowler. The batsmen had run two runs. Therefore did Angelo Mathews save four runs or was a six scored?

The standing umpires were not sure and referred the decision "upstairs" to the TV umpire who after a short while ruled that it was not a six and that Angelo Mathews’ astounding piece of fielding was legal.

The commentators/ex-players made ill-considered opinions that it was not legal; that as the fielder had stepped outside the boundary and then touched the ball, it should be a six. The issue was subsequently sent upstairs (literally) to the technical committee of the MCC at Lord’s which ruled that the fielding was legal.

The objections are wrong twice over: wrong in Law and wrong in being based on moral grounds. The Laws of Cricket (Code 2000) are quite clear. Law 19.3(a) defines a boundary scored as when a fielder’s person is in contact with the ball when any part of the person is in contact with the boundary or ground/object beyond the boundary.

As Mathews had been airborne when he "volleyed" the ball back into the field, his person clearly was not grounded at the time he touched the ball. That is the Law. End of objections.

This flock of commentators did not know this basic Law. If one was given a well paid commentator job, one would have self-taught oneself (or taken tuition classes as most school children do). This is another example of ex-players/commentators who may well know the part of the game they played, who pretend to know well the other parts of the game, but in reality know little of the game of cricket even though they pontificate endlessly (and mainly to themselves) on cricket.

Objections on moral grounds are different. A fielder can volley the ball all around the park while being airborne as Mathews did. Mathews could even have volleyed the ball back to another fielder who catches it - a legal dismissal. Clearly, there is a value judgement here that is understandable. The Laws of cricket, although based on logical lines, have, underlying them the twin pillars of checks/ balances and fairness.

The Boundaries Law (19) was defined and evolved on rational lines to avoid and to dispel any misunderstandings and arguments. But it has seemingly obtuse elements: How else can we reconcile the "boundary edge" as being both a part and not part of the boundary? When the current boundary law was refined in 2000 the MCC did not envisage the Mathews issue. It only tried to redress the unfairness of the "catchable" ball that went for six.

No doubt the MCC Technical Committee will file this issue for the future. It will not dilute the Boundaries Law if in the next Revision there is a change to Law 19.3 such that once a fielder has landed outside the boundary any contact with the ball will result in a boundary.

This brilliant act of fielding will in time become iconic for its sheer youthful exuberance, its quickness of mind and its balletic performance. It will be replayed over and again as one of the defining images of this World T20 tournament. It will become a regular feature in umpiring courses as an example of umpiring theory as well as field craft.