Big Bash - Obstructing the Field

[tippex2]

Footage of an Obstructing the field incident in the Big Bash is online at www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22024025/george-bailey-missed-opportunity-uphold-spirit-game-brendon-mccullum .

Personally, even with the benefit of replays, I can't see how the batsman was deemed to have wilfully got in the way of the throw coming in....

[missingleg]

Interesting viewing.

The umpires at the time must have concluded that the act of changing the line of running constituted a deliberate act to obstruct the field.

You could argue that one either way - it's a subjective judgement call.

[tippex2]

It is subjective, but given that there's an explicit reference in the Laws to obstruction to avoid injury being Not Out (37.2) there's no way I personally could have been certain that the swerve was intended to get hit, as opposed to try to avoid the throw.

[bjmajor]

I agree with Tippex2 on this. Looked like the batsman was taking evasive action rather than deliberately trying to obstruct.

[Rob]

I'm going to offer an alternative view - I think he clearly slides into the crease knowing that he is getting his body between the ball and stumps. He obviously doesn't know exactly where the ball is, hence his "cowering" a little (almost expecting to get hit), but to me (only after a number of replays - not live) he is clearly trying to protect the stumps.

What was also interesting is that a lot of players have come out in defence of the batsmen, while at the same time acknowledging that don't know the Law!

[sillypoint]

Yes, an interesting one. A couple of points are worth making I think:
1. It is quite apparent from the replay that Ross has actually dived AWAY from the line of the ball—it was coming in from behind him and to his right, he has dived to his left.
2. I don't agree with Rob that he knows that he is getting his body "between the ball and the stumps"—it appears to me that he is actually moving his body out of the line of the ball. He may not know exactly where the ball IS (i.e. how close it is to him) but he clearly knows what line it is coming on, and moves out of that line.
3. According to the text, McCullum thinks this dismissal to be "against the spirit of cricket". He compares it to the Mankad. This argument is often trotted out by players and commentators when discussing these rare dismissals, and was actually used some years ago by umpires in a comp I am familiar with as a reason to give a batsman not out on a Timed Out appeal, a decision later applauded by local authorities. This is hogwash—umpires are not authorised under the Laws to decide appeals on that basis. None of the modes of dismissal in the Laws is "against the spirit of cricket". An umpire, before giving a decision on such an appeal might offer the captain the opportunity to withdraw his/her appeal—and were that opportunity taken up, that would earn high marks in a spirit of cricket sense for that captain—but the umpire must not make a decision on that basis. (To be fair to McCullum, of course, his criticism was of the fielding captain, not the umpires, so perhaps he actually meant that the appeal should have been withdrawn.)
4. Also in the text on this link it says that "the third umpire gave him out obstructing the field". There may be something in the BBL Rules to allow the third umpire to give a dismissal, but in the Laws this would clearly be a decision for the umpire at the bowler's end.
5. I agree that if a batsman deliberately changes his line so as to obstruct the path of the ball or a fielder attempting to reach the stumps, this would be correctly regarded as grounds for dismissal under this Law, but the action I see on this footage leads me to the conclusion that the umpires got it wrong. But they now have their place in history!

[tippex2]

I agree that McCullum thought that the appeal should have been withdrawn once it was clear that the batsman hadn't been Run Out (the initial appeal was primarily for a run-out, although of course any appeal covers any possible dismissal). Don't think he was suggesting that the umpires had any jurisdiction to not give a batsman out based on the Spirit.

Third umpire has the ability to give out for obstruction in almost all televised games. Jason Roy was given out this past summer by the third umpire, and I remember thinking at the time that it was reasonably clear on replay, but would have been very difficult to give out live; as the key point that the batsman had looked round and lined himself up to get in the way of the throw isn't something that I look for routinely. 

While it's clearly within bowler's end jurisdiction, in a case like this where angles of running are key, I can't imagine not wanting to consult my colleague before giving a decision.

[missingleg]

The closer you look at replays and the more you slow it down, the worse it looks. It's a very hard judgement call to make but you have to rule one way or the other.

Two things I've decided,
A lot less 'benefit of the doubt' is given to the batting side these days and you're much more likely to be given out in TV games (no way any of us on this forum would give that out live in one viewing).