uvelocity
International Coach
fmd
I posted the rule on the same ****ing page already
and the rule mentions the use of the hand
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
David Hussey: Super Cheat!
- Thread starter Spikey
- Start date
I posted the rule on the same ****ing page already
and the rule mentions the use of the hand
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah the law is written in a way where the circumstance where the hand not holding the bat touches the ball the batsman is liable to be dismissed by handled the ball, not obstructing the field.
Which brings us back to Law 33 sub section 2, which says:
"Notwithstanding 1(a) above, a batsman will not be out under this Law if he handles the ball to avoid injury."
Weird rule I must admit. But those are the facts.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
I copied it from your post.
Nah nah, that's bull****. It's not saying that you are allowed to put your free hand out to stop the ball, it is just going into further explanation of what obstruction should be. The first sentence (which I bolded) should be enough to have given Dussey out.
Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the fielding side by word or action.
If it's not Out Obstructing the Field, it's Out Handled Ball. Either way it's out if you obstruct the field with your free hand.
Last edited:
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah, the second part of the law defines what obstruction is.
uvelocity
International Coach
which is a fair enough argument, but I reckon that was the reaction he was making.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah his intention was definitely not to deflect the ball to avoid a run out, which means his intention was to avoid getting hurt.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
OK, so once you use your free hand it goes from Obstruction to Handled Ball.
My bad.
So he should have been out Handled Ball.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Look at the Handled the Ball rule though bro.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Yeah, because the hand is so much harder to injure with a small leather ball than your body.
Don't buy it. Brain fade, imo.
Last edited:
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't understand the first part of your post, but anyway:
If a hard ball is throw and hits your elbow, it hurts alot. Yeah he wouldn't have died, but avoiding death isn't a part of the law is it?
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
If you put your hand out to a ball, you still can get injured. A broken wrist maybe.
He could have taken it on the body.
He could have ducked.
Putting your hand out? Pffft, he should be Out Stupid.
I can understand if the ball was coming straight at his face, but c'mon!
He could have taken it on the body.
He could have ducked.
Putting your hand out? Pffft, he should be Out Stupid.
I can understand if the ball was coming straight at his face, but c'mon!
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No, he'd be out handling the ball wouldn't he, and that's why I think the "hand not on the bat" is excluded from the obstruction rule - its meant to be covered by handling the ball.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Huh? He's a professional cricketer, I'm pretty sure he has the ability and skill to successfully deflect a ball away from his body with his hand.
If your argument is that his intention was to knock the ball away with his hand to avoid getting run out then there's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind. I would just strongly disagree with that.
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
How different was this to Inzy obstructing the field and given out? And have the rules changed since Inzy?
Same umpire though - Taufel
Same umpire though - Taufel
uvelocity
International Coach
It's interesting to me that the obstruction rule doesn't mention injury actually. Run out rule has avoidance of injury in would be written in other rules too.
Like if in order to not run into short leg for example one obstructed a throw, there is no provision for that.
Like if in order to not run into short leg for example one obstructed a throw, there is no provision for that.
Last edited:
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
He's a professional cricketer, so you'd think he'd stop being a ****ing ***** and take the blow to the body like every other cricketer in the world.
I can understand the injury clause, I just disagree with it. The protecting yourself part of the Handled Ball law should be open to more interpretation. It should be okay to put your hand in the way of a ball flying at your face, for instance. But in this case, there are better options to take than putting your hand in the way of the ball. Like not putting your hand in the way of the ball.