Obstructing the Field

[whakidywhak]

Ball driven hard towards the non-striker who CATCHES the ball. I believe the proper interpretation of the Laws is that the non-striker is OUT Obstructing the Field and a defence of 'reflex action'is untenable? (I am discounting the preventing a catch by a fielder scenario)

[sillypoint]

I don't think there is a blanket answer—you would have to judge the actions of the non-stoker at the time. The key words in the Law are "wilfully attempts", so you would have to assess his intentions. A reflex action might very well be accidental (in other words, not wilful). You would almost certainly need to consult your colleague before making a decision in the vent of an appeal.

[jaybee]

There is rather more to this than whakidywhak suggests.

The first point to consider here is whether the action was intentional; if it is a reflex action or self-preservation you cannot say that the non-striker "wilfully obstructs" the field (Law 37.1) and so neither batsman would be out. If a cricket ball is coming hard at your face I would suggest that catching the ball is the most likely reflex action, particularly if you're a cricketer.

"It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not" (Law 37.2)

If it is wilful the umpire then needs to consider whether a catch is being prevented - Law 37.3 says: "The striker is out should wilful obstruction or distraction by either batsman prevent a catch being made." This is true for a catch in any circumstances (MCC's Open Learning Manual). Clearly if the umpire at the striker's end thinks that obstruction is in point and it might be preventing a catch he ought to speak to his colleague at the bowler's end. It is good practice for the umpires to consult anyway.

If the obstruction interferes with fielding other than taking a catch, it is the batsman causing it who is out.

[sillypoint]

One further point. The fact that the Law says it is for "either umpire" to decide whether a batsman's action is wilful suggests that they do not have to agree—if either one of them believes the action was accidental then the decision should be Not Out. To put it another way, it takes TWO umpires to give a man OUT for obstruction, but only one to give him Not Out. For this reason I believe it is essential that the umpires consult before a decision is made—if both umpires believe the obstruction was wilful, then the decision can be Out; otherwise it should be Not Out.

[jaybee]

Nov 9, 2014 9:17:15 GMT sillypoint said:

One further point. The fact that the Law says it is for "either umpire" to decide whether a batsman's action is wilful suggests that they do not have to agree—if either one of them believes the action was accidental then the decision should be Not Out. To put it another way, it takes TWO umpires to give a man OUT for obstruction, but only one to give him Not Out. For this reason I believe it is essential that the umpires consult before a decision is made—if both umpires believe the obstruction was wilful, then the decision can be Out; otherwise it should be Not Out.

I agree that, if there is any doubt - and in most cases - the two umpires should consult. However I'm not too sure that the Law, as it stands, means that both umpires have to agree - or even consult - before giving somebody out. If Umpire A is convinced that it is wilful obstruction he/she doesn't need to consult and, even if Umpire B disagrees, I don't think he/she has any power to overrule his/her colleague once the finger has been raised, notwithstanding the 'any doubt - not out' principle.

[sillypoint]

Re: "I'm not too sure that the Law, as it stands, means that both umpires have to agree - or even consult - before giving somebody out." I have to take issue with this. Among the ten dismissal laws it is ONLY in Law 37 that there is the proviso that "It is for EITHER umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful …" (37.2). So we must ask why this is so. In part it is no doubt because the obstruction or distraction could occur at any time while the ball is in play, and therefore the umpire at the bowler's end may not even see or hear it occur—yet he would still have to give the decision as it is within his jurisdiction (Law 27.5). However, it is equally likely that this Law was worded thus because the umpires are required to make a judgement about the intentions of the batsman in question, so it is prudent to expect them to agree if possible. Consider the following scenarios:

1. The striker's end umpire sees a clear and wilful obstruction while the batsmen are running, but his colleague does not see it at all. It would be absurd for the bowler's end umpire to refuse to give it out just because he had not seen it. This, surely, is the intention behind the wording of this Law. In this instance agreement would not be possible so the evidence of the umpire who saw the action should be accepted and acted upon.
2. The same scenario, except that this time the striker's end umpire considers the action may well have been accidental. The bowler's end umpire would have to consult his colleague because he himself did not see/hear what the appeal relates to. Again his colleague's judgement should be accepted and therefore his decision should be Not Out.
3. Both umpires see a possible obstruction, such as the one that started this thread. The bowler's end umpire is pretty sure it was wilful, his colleague is equally sure it was accidental. It would certainly be possible for the bowler's end umpire to take matters into his own hands and give the batsman out, but it would not be very prudent to do so; far wiser to reason that there is doubt as to the intentions of the batsman and not give him out.
4. The same as scenario 3, except that this time the bowler's end umpire is not convinced that the action was wilful. In this instance consultation is probably not needed, since based on his own observation he has already decided his decision should be Not Out, so even if his colleague thinks otherwise his own decision that it was accidental is sufficient.
5. Both umpires see an act of obstruction and both are convinced it was wilful. No problem there—Out!

In each of the above scenarios, with the possible exception of scenario 4, consultation, though not mandated by the Law, would most certainly be prudent, in order for the bowler's end umpire to be as sure as possible of the facts before giving his/her decision.

[jaybee]

sillypoint:
I think you have missed the thrust of what I said earlier. I think we are all agreed on the practicalities which mean that it's impossible to say that one umpire or the other has jurisdiction. That is why Law 37.2 says 'either'.
The Law then goes on to say "He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt." Thus - as long as he is sure he can give either (sorry to use that word again!) batsman out - without consultation - and this cannot be overruled by the other umpire.
I cannot agree that using 'either' implies and much less requires a joint decision. The word's more usual meaning is 'one or other of two' and, although it can mean 'each of two', surely the legislators would have said 'both' umpires or 'the umpires together' [as in Law 21.3(b)] if they had wanted unanimity on the decision.
Where we are agreed is that, in many - if not most - circumstances, it's good practice for the umpires to consult to be sure that they agree that it is wilful obstruction. However if a batsman picks up the ball to return it to a fielder there cannot be any doubt that this was wilful rather than an accident and I, for one, wouldn't expect a consultation. I would normally ask the captain if he wanted to withdraw the appeal - but that's a totally different matter!

[sillypoint]

All of that is fair enough except for one thing: Law 27.5 makes clear that it is the bowler's end umpire who must answer any appeal for Obstructing the Field. Thus the provision in Law 37 itself allowing "either umpire" to judge the wilfulness of the actions of the batsman in question would require consultation in some circumstances, as described in my previous post.

[gooders]

I must admit, it is when I see petty squabbles like this, that I realize I made the right decision at the end of this last season to hang up my coat for the last time.

[sillypoint]

Reasoned and logical discussion over a point of Law is hardly a "petty squabble".

[gooders]

Nonetheless, I am still happier having left it all behind.

[whakidywhak]

As a matter of interest regarding the 'catch may be a reflex action' argument, if you are standing at the bowler's end and the ball is driven hard towards you, what would be your reflex action - catch or avoid? I do not believe any catch to be pure reflex; there is always an intent to keep hold of the ball as opposed to palming it away, etc.

[jaybee]

Happy New Year everybody.

I don't agree. We may be considering, literally, a matter of life and death if, for instance, the ball is driven straight and hard towards the batsman's head. Protection of his person overrides any other consideration and, whether or not the ball sticks in his hand, I would not give him out.
Of course every situation is slightly different and there are also cases where it would be an obvious case of obstruction.

[tippex2]

Surely it's at least possible, particularly when wearing a batting glove, that if the ball comes at someone's head and they move their hand up to protect themself, the ball could stick in the hand, or lodge in a loose sleeve etc without any intention.