|
|
Post by Mayur Wankhade Deshmukh on Apr 10, 2014 7:01:46 GMT
What are the intentions of law maker for following law :
"37.3 Obstructing a ball from being caught
The striker is out should wilful obstruction or distraction by either batsman prevent a catch being made."
|
|
|
|
Post by tippex2 on Apr 10, 2014 8:38:07 GMT
It stops the non-striker from sacrificing himself to protect the striker. If a good batsman is on strike batting with #9 or 10, and the good batsman hits the ball in the air, it would be beneficial for the batting side (in the absence of 37.3) for the non-striker to obstruct the catch, get himself dismissed and allow the good batsman to continue batting.
|
|
|
|
Post by sillypoint on Apr 11, 2014 12:10:41 GMT
Tippex2 makes a good point. The other point to note is that only the striker can be out caught, so it is logical that if the obstruction prevented a catch being made then the striker should be the one dismissed, regardless of which batsman caused the obstruction.
|
|
