David Hussey: Super Cheat!

[Spikey]

23.6 Ashwin to Wade, 1 run, 83.7 kph

Is history being made here? Dhoni has appealed for DJ's wicket for the batsman obstructing the field. What's with India captains and run outs! DJ could be in trouble here. Full ball on off stump, Wade drives to Raina at short cover for a quick single. The throw was heading towards Dhoni, DJ was unintentionally in the way as he ran a straight line from his crease. He puts his right hand out to stop the ball from hitting him. Mind you, the ball wasn't travelling at pace, it wouldn't have wounded DJ if it had hit him. Can you be given out for doing that? According to the new ICC rules, yes. Dhoni has asked for it.. This will be harsh on DJ, but by the rules this could be out. Bowden and Taufel are taking their time over this with the third umpire having a close look. The third umpire has decided that DJ didn't put his hand out to save his wicket, but to save himself from damage. Dhoni is explaining to the umpires that he thinks otherwise. The spirit of cricket discussions can begin afresh! The rule is a fairly strange one, and the ICC has clearly not thought it through. The over-rates continue to take a beating!

 

[Spark]

needs poll

 

[Spikey]

Oh yeah and then Wade probably should have been out too. Cause he did the whole "oh no I'm in trouble I'm gonna start running straight down the danger area and block the stumps" thing which was why the rule was changed

27.3 Sehwag to Wade, 1 run, 83.8 kph

good work from Umesh, but he throws to the wrong end. Wade was gone for all money as he ran back half the way for the second run, but Yadav had flung it to Dhoni's end. Dhoni's relay to the bowler's end missed. Ahem, Wade deliberately came in the way this time. Does anyone know the rules? I suspect I don't!

 

[uvelocity]

Just read the rules, and Hussey was not out under the rules too.
was a reaction, not trying to obstruct
I think intention is key (which can sometimes be hard to tell)
I wouldn't have appealed

 

[uvelocity]

Law 37 (Obstructing the field)

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.

Law 33 (Handled the ball)

Out Handled the ball
(a) Either batsman is out Handled the ball if he wilfully touches the ball while in play with a hand or hands not holding the bat unless he does so with the consent of a fielder.
(b) Either batsman is out under this Law if, while the ball is in play, and without the consent of a fielder, he uses his hand or hands not holding the bat to return the ball to any fielder.

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.

 

[Spikey]

But there's no way that was injuring him. If that's the line for "yep that's gonna hurt a player" then jesus christ. A batsman may as well block the ball, pick it up, put it in his pocket and just run and run and say "well you could end up hurting me!"

 

[uvelocity]

what if it hit him in the knee and he fell over and a stump went through his helmet????????????

 

[Spikey]

I hadn't considered that actually

 

[BoyBrumby]

Just saw it on the replay. Out, IMHO. 3rd ump swallowed it.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Just saw it on the replay. Out, IMHO. 3rd ump swallowed it.

Same here. Just saw it on the replay. If that's not obstructing the field, I don't know what is.

 

[uvelocity]

well you don't know what is. read the rules again. hand not on the bat.

 

[nexxus]

That would have been a straight red card penalty in football for deliberate handball. His motivation was to protect himself but his intent was to deflect the path of the ball.

Though to be honest, if it were me I'd have stuck a hand out as well. Heat of the moment and all that. I think the proper decision would've been to give him out and for everyone to offer commiserations about cricket being a tough game.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

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.

 

[Burgey]

I don't know why you'd stick out a hand though. I mean, anyone who's played as much cricket as Dussey must have had the ball thrown close to him like that plenty of times.

 

[Daemon]

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.

Well there you have it. You can now officially be given out for distracting the fielders by farting loudly.

 

[benchmark00]

H00ssey's hand looked to be retracting as the ball approached his person.

Discuss.

 

[Spikey]

he should get better reactions

 

[uvelocity]

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.

I don't understand the purpose of this post

 

[Spikey]

He's reminding everyone of the rule.


My take from that rule is that if a person removes his hand from his bat and moves it into the direction of the ball and makes contact with it, disrupting the course of the ball, it should probably be out, because through an action he has obstructed the fielding team from what they were doing (eg throwing the ball to the wicket keeper to attempt a run-out)

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I don't understand the purpose of this post

I don't understand the purpose of this post.