• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Out for obstructing the field.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ProfessionalMackem said:
In proper cricket mate. Its only happened four times. Much easier to do it in lesser games.

The only one I could rememember before yesterdays was Inzimam's, and tbf he got out in some weird manners that guy.

Here it is with one that david hussey. got away with. Whats the difference?

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

I think the umpires were wrong to give Inzaman out as he was in a reasonably natural position having just played a shot. Ok, he was a bit slow getting back to the crease but it's not as though he moved into that position just to prevent the throw hitting the wicket and he only used his bat to stop the ball hitting him.

As for Hussey I think the umpire made the right call not giving him out as he was just trying to stop the ball hitting him where it may have hurt.

As for the incident the OP highlighted I think they were correct to give Hafeez out as he clearly moved away from the natural line of his run in an attempt to prevent the ball hitting the stumps.
 

ProfessionalMackem said:
In proper cricket mate. Its only happened four times. Much easier to do it in lesser games.

The only one I could rememember before yesterdays was Inzimam's, and tbf he got out in some weird manners that guy.

Here it is with one that david hussey. got away with. Whats the difference?

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

You did not specify 'proper' cricket in your original post.Is the first class game not 'proper'?

Hutton's was international cricket -Test v SA, albeit in 1951.The other 4 were in limited over one dayers
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
If it was a shit throw it wouldn't have been anywhere near the stumps and so wouldn't have been a problem.
Click to expand...

if he had thrown it well there was more than enough room to run him out, as it was his throw was poor and wouldnt have hit the stumps anyway
 
S'land till i die! said:
if he had thrown it well there was more than enough room to run him out, as it was his throw was poor and wouldnt have hit the stumps anyway
Click to expand...
if Hafeez had not changed his direction and got in the path of the ball he would,probably, not be out if the throw was poor.He was the maker of his own demise. Only needs the deliberate obstruction to be given out
.Does not matter that the throw would or would not have hit.

ProfessionalMackem said:
In proper cricket mate. Its only happened four times. Much easier to do it in lesser games.

The only one I could rememember before yesterdays was Inzimam's, and tbf he got out in some weird manners that guy.

Here it is with one that david hussey. got away with. Whats the difference?

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
The difference is Hussey was given the benefit of the doubt. It was deemed that he was protecting himself which you are allowed to do.

From That's cricket .com-
"The third umpire felt D Hussey did not change his direction and did not interfere in the direction of the throw intentionally.

If a batsman is found obstructing the field, no matter whether a run out would have been affected or not, he can be declared out."

and from Cricinfo
", based on the evidence so far, Hussey was deemed to be avoiding injury. "
 
Big Bad Bri said:
I think the umpires were wrong to give Inzaman out as he was in a reasonably natural position having just played a shot. Ok, he was a bit slow getting back to the crease but it's not as though he moved into that position just to prevent the throw hitting the wicket and he only used his bat to stop the ball hitting him.

As for Hussey I think the umpire made the right call not giving him out as he was just trying to stop the ball hitting him where it may have hurt.

As for the incident the OP highlighted I think they were correct to give Hafeez out as he clearly moved away from the natural line of his run in an attempt to prevent the ball hitting the stumps.
Click to expand...

Spot on post.

stanstheman said:
if Hafeez had not changed his direction and got in the path of the ball he would,probably, not be out if the throw was poor.He was the maker of his own demise. Only needs the deliberate obstruction to be given out
.Does not matter that the throw would or would not have hit.


The difference is Hussey was given the benefit of the doubt. It was deemed that he was protecting himself which you are allowed to do.

From That's cricket .com-
"The third umpire felt D Hussey did not change his direction and did not interfere in the direction of the throw intentionally.

If a batsman is found obstructing the field, no matter whether a run out would have been affected or not, he can be declared out."

and from Cricinfo
", based on the evidence so far, Hussey was deemed to be avoiding injury. "
Click to expand...

Only international cricket if proper cricket marra. ;-)

Anyways you're right about Hussey, but why wasnt Inzimam given the same benefit of the doubt. After all he was defending himself aswell.

Poor Inzi doesnt help himself like, but iirc he was given out run out from an England bowler chucking the ball back (probably Broad) at him when he played a defensive shot, I think it was that daft Daryl Hair who didnt know the rules and gave him out trying to get out of the way.

Edit it was Harmison. Apparently the rules say that he shouldnt have been given out because he was avoiding the throw when not running. Doesnt surprise me that Ian Botham didnt know the rules.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogL4lh7LWgU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogL4lh7LWgU[/ame]
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Spot on post.



Only international cricket if proper cricket marra. ;-)

Anyways you're right about Hussey, but why wasnt Inzimam given the same benefit of the doubt. After all he was defending himself aswell.

Poor Inzi doesnt help himself like, but iirc he was given out run out from an England bowler chucking the ball back (probably Broad) at him when he played a defensive shot, I think it was that daft Daryl Hair who didnt know the rules and gave him out trying to get out of the way.

Edit it was Harmison. Apparently the rules say that he shouldnt have been given out because he was avoiding the throw when not running. Doesnt surprise me that Ian Botham didnt know the rules.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

I think we must agree to disagree about 'proper' cricket esp if you include limited over internationals.

As for the Inzi decision. with the Harmy run out. he could be said to be avoiding the throw but it was not directed at him and he had already left a view of the stumps.Inzi could quite legitimately have left his ground( see Law 38 below) to avoid the ball hitting him but that would have entailed moving towards Harmy and remaining in the vicinity of the flight of the ball.

The incident I was referring to was Pak v Ind in 2005/6 when he made little attempt to get back into his crease .His action falls in the definition of Law 37.His mistake was using his bat rather than his hand not holding the bat.The law relating to avoiding injury is Law 33 Handling the ball ,which would apply in Hussey's case but not in Inzi's.

Law 37

"Furthermore, it shall be regarded as obstruction if while the ball is in play either batsman wilfully, and without the consent of a fielder, strikes the ball with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, after the ball has been touched by a fielder. This shall apply whether or not there is any disadvantage to the fielding side."

"It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt."

Additionally the Run Out law 38 provides for a batsman who has regained his ground then leaving it to avoid injury.

"2. Batsman not Run out
Notwithstanding 1 above, a batman is not out Run out if
(a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down"
Inzi had not regained his ground so loses that protection


Law 33
"2. Not out Handled the ball
Notwithstanding 1(a) above, a batsman will not be out under this Law if he handles the ball to avoid injury."

It is easy to confuse the two.It depends on the circumstances and actions of the batsman.
 
stanstheman said:
I think we must agree to disagree about 'proper' cricket esp if you include limited over internationals.

As for the Inzi decision. with the Harmy run out. he could be said to be avoiding the throw but it was not directed at him and he had already left a view of the stumps.Inzi could quite legitimately have left his ground( see Law 38 below) to avoid the ball hitting him but that would have entailed moving towards Harmy and remaining in the vicinity of the flight of the ball.

The incident I was referring to was Pak v Ind in 2005/6 when he made little attempt to get back into his crease .His action falls in the definition of Law 37.His mistake was using his bat rather than his hand not holding the bat.The law relating to avoiding injury is Law 33 Handling the ball ,which would apply in Hussey's case but not in Inzi's.

Law 37

"Furthermore, it shall be regarded as obstruction if while the ball is in play either batsman wilfully, and without the consent of a fielder, strikes the ball with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, after the ball has been touched by a fielder. This shall apply whether or not there is any disadvantage to the fielding side."

"It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt."

Additionally the Run Out law 38 provides for a batsman who has regained his ground then leaving it to avoid injury.

"2. Batsman not Run out
Notwithstanding 1 above, a batman is not out Run out if
(a) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down"
Inzi had not regained his ground so loses that protection


Law 33
"2. Not out Handled the ball
Notwithstanding 1(a) above, a batsman will not be out under this Law if he handles the ball to avoid injury."

It is easy to confuse the two.It depends on the circumstances and actions of the batsman.
Click to expand...

Thats what inzi did when harmy threw down the wickets though.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Thats what inzi did when harmy threw down the wickets though.
Click to expand...

The question the umpires had to answer " Did Inzi move to avoid being injured? Clearly they did not think so but I concede that, although Inzi's movement was minimal and the throw was at the stumps,not Inzi, with Inzi virtually outside the off peg line, he might have feared being struck.Probably would not have given if the TV cameras had not been there.
 
stanstheman said:
The question the umpires had to answer " Did Inzi move to avoid being injured? Clearly they did not think so but I concede that, although Inzi's movement was minimal and the throw was at the stumps,not Inzi, with Inzi virtually outside the off peg line, he might have feared being struck.Probably would not have given if the TV cameras had not been there.
Click to expand...

Haway mate. The size of inzi he covers about three sets of stumps. The ball that Harmy threw was straight at him, he was trying not to get hit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top