Confusing,illogical & possibly unfair laws on display in T20 World Cup 2009

T20 World Cup second edition that is underway in England has already thrown up a couple of interesting laws that appear more confusing than convincing.

1. The top two seeded teams are allocated slots in the Super Eight stage regardless of where they finish in their group. The Super Eight stage is not determined on winners and runners-up. This means that if the seeded teams qualify in their group, then they take the predetermined positions in the super eight Stage. Since India has already qualified , the results of their match, currently underway against Ireland, will not shift India's position in Group E . The abiding reason as per the Cricinfo website is to ensure supporters who buy Super Eight tickets can be assured of knowing who they will be watching - assuming their team qualifies! What nonsense! Seeding a team is based on past performances and proves helpful while drawing lots for the qualifying group. But once the qualifying groups and teams have been drawn up ; fairness of the game demands that the present performances in the qualifying matches should dictate the positions in the Super Eight stage groups & not seeding.
2. There was an interesting situation in the Sri Lanka Vs. West Indies qualifying match today; when Sarwan had smashed a Mendis delivery to the long-on boundary. Mathews took a great overhead catch, the momentum taking him over the line. Mathews throws the ball up in the air before crossing the rope, the ball also crosses the boundary but it is in the air. Mathews is behind the rope but he jumps to slap the airborne ball back into play. The ball goes inside the ropes , still airborne, but doesn't cross the rope after that, and after an eternity of replays it is decided that will be only be three runs (run by the batsmen) & not a six. So although both the ball and the fielder had crossed the boundary rope but were not grounded during the time of contact , it was not declared a six. Clause 19 (3) of the laws of cricket defines this position of 'grounding' clearly. However, to a spectator, the situation above appears starkly unfair as the fielder & the ball are clearly shown to be outside the vertical plane of the boundary line when the contact was made to get the ball back into the field of play. If the boundary line is the definitive limit of a cricket field then then 'grounding' clause do appear limiting & unfair.