Law 37 (pdf), as it is since October 1, 2011
Law 37 shall apply. For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that a batsman, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed his direction without probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder’s attempt to effect a run out, the batsman should, on appeal, be given out, obstructing the field. it shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not. if the change of direction involves the batsman crossing the pitch, law 42.14 shall also apply shall also apply.Law 37 in the Laws of Cricket is as follows (I quote the relevant portion, for the full law, please see the link):
1. Out Obstructing the field Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the fielding side by word or action. 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. See 4 below.
2. Accidental obstruction 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.When David Hussey put his hand out to stop the ball from hitting him and the Indians appealed spontaneously, I (and a lot of others) thought that it was an easy decision. The batsman was Out. Upon reading the law, I must admit some ambiguity. The Umpire's decision, it seems to me, is reasonable. Dhoni is right to think that India were hard done by, because he will conclude that the outstretched hand had the sole purpose of preventing the run out.
The change to Law 37 is somewhat ambigious. Does the emphasis on changing direction "without probable cause", apply in place of the original point about wilful obstruction by word or action (the latter obviously applies in this case)? That the batsman put his hand out to interrupt the ball is beyond question. There is some doubt as to whether he did this to prevent himself from getting hit, or whether he did this to prevent the ball from reaching Dhoni. Here the benefit of doubt must go to the batsman. Given that Hussey didn't change direction, the benefit of doubt more generally, correctly went in his favor.
If the emphasis on changing direction while running is to be considered to be in place of the point about willful obstruction, then Hussey is in the clear.
A later episode involving Mathew Wade would have turned out badly for the batsman in my view. Wade took one runs and then turned for the second, only to be sent back because the second run was not on. The ball was thrown to the wicket keeper who let fly a fast throw, on the bounce, across the length of the pitch along the line of middle stump. Wade, in his effort to get back in his crease, turned around and ran back straight down the middle of the pitch. Miraculously, the ball missed him and reached Sehwag. Wade was home. Had that ball hit Wade on his way back, the Umpires would have ruled him Out if India had appealed. It didn't. As the law says, it doesn't matter whether or not the batsman would have been run out had the ball not hit him.
Update As Russell Degnan of idlesummers points out, Law 37 does not apply when the ball is stopped by a hand other than the one touching the bat. (See Law 37(1) quoted above). However, Law 33, Handling the Ball, does apply as Spark of QED suggested. In the case of Law 33, 33(2) works in the batsman's favor. While Obstructing the Field does not apply when the batsman pats the ball away with his free hand, Handling the Ball does, provided it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the batsman was taking evasive action.
Ha! I disagree on both incidents.
ReplyDeleteDoes the emphasis on changing direction "without probable cause", apply in place of the original point about wilful obstruction by word or action?
No, it doesn't. Law 37 applies in its original form, with the extra clarification about the batsman changing direction. Hussey didn't change direction, so the playing condition's clarification is irrelevant and Hussey is out under Law 37.1.
I would have given Wade not out obstructing the field. He changed direction, but I think he had "probable cause". He needed to very quickly turn around and start running back to the non-striker's end. I think it's quite reasonable to start running before you complete a full 180 degrees.
One thing I love about the internet is how quickly things like this appear for discussion. I Didn't see Hussey- but saw Wade and I think Wade was alright with what he did...well, until the 3rd time I saw it, yeah, he did drift in front of the stumps didn't he. Borderline- so not out for mine
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen Hussey either, but the rule is pretty clear. Touch the ball, you are out. Self preservation has nothing to do with it. That said, if it was self preservation and fending a ball, its poor form to appeal. But even if they do appeal, its out. (did not see though) .
ReplyDeleteHow is it "established beyond reasonable doubt" and what factors determine what an "umpire feels". Ludicrous!
ReplyDeleteChanging direction and putting your hand out isnt exactly a combined package governed by an all or nothing thinking. It needs to be considered in isolation.
And i cant get away with running over a kid while evading a pothole that might injure me. If any of you, technicality apart, considered the spirit(which by the way i no longer give a tiny rat's arse about), D.Hussey deserved to be out, not for defense, but for negligence!
I disagree with Russ on the interpretation of Law 37. I regard deliberately deflecting a throw with a free hand as obstructing the fielding side, and so the batsman is out by the first sentence of Law 37.1.
ReplyDeleteRuss argues (on Twitter) that the first sentence of 37.1 applies only to obstructing or distracting fielders, "otherwise the furthermore is unnecessary". I don't see it this way. The "furthermore" bit applies to a range of possible events, some of which are completely harmless (eg, a batsman tapping a ball after he's already made his ground), and the distinction about a free hand is only made to resolve a little ambiguity about whether the batsman is out handled the ball or obstructing the field.
Hey, very nice and informative blog with loads of info..
ReplyDeleteNot the first time it's happened.
ReplyDeleteSaurav Ganguly did the exact same thing :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOtnPkiiiME
David, technically I might agree with your reading of the 'furthermore' bit, but in any case, in terms of the point of the law I think resolving the OTF/HTB ambiguity is a bit more significant than you make out. The avoiding injury exception is a good reason to resolve the ambiguity before the out/not out decision is made - by your reading then if he did it purely to obstruct the field he's out handled the ball, but if he was avoiding injury then he's out obstructing the field!
ReplyDeleteIMO perhaps Law 37 needs a safety exemption generally, but it does get one in the use of hands case by passing the question to Law 33.
As for Wade, I haven't seen it, but to perhaps clarify David's comment, the question is whether he had "probable cause" to run down the middle of the pitch, even if he did have probable cause to change direction. The clarification in the playing conditions is only one example, and doesn't really add anything to a sensible interpretation of Law 37 in the first place.
Kartikeya, I just realised that you were talking about the Wade case as a hypothetical "had the ball hit him"- I don't think it should matter. A batsman is unquestionably obstructing the field if they are running down the path of a direct throw, even before it is thrown. If appealed, it is up to the umpire to decide whether it was deliberate or not. I might be going even further than the MCC here, but I don't think it's right that a fielder in this sort of situation may get a wicket if they throw at the batsman but not if they avoid hitting him.
ReplyDeleteSince Joost van der Trott was not penalised last year, it is unlikely anyone will be penalised.
ReplyDeleteOops. try this link.
ReplyDeleteTony, given that the MCC has said that sort of thing would be out if appealed, the ICC has decided it was worth saying so in the playing conditions, and, most importantly, people have started actually appealing for such things, I don't think it's unlikely at all. You might like to ask Mark Ramprakash or AB de Villiers.
ReplyDelete