David Hussey: Super Cheat!

[benchmark00]

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.

Well you can argue with the law, but that's the law.

 

[Burgey]

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.

But the idea of obstruction is to move towards the line of the ball and get in the way, isn't it?

 

[uvelocity]

But the idea of obstruction is to move towards the line of the ball and get in the way, isn't it?

I'm thinking lesser of two evils scenario. Just seems a bit different to me, lots of rules are like your out except if you were doing it to avoid injury

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Well you can argue with the law, but that's the law.

Until my petition to change the law goes through.

 

[_Ed_]

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

Reckon Dhoni might be a risk of that today.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I think it's just involuntary reflexes taking over, the way Steve Waugh was given handling the ball. Graham Gooch too if memory serves right? People aren't always capable of rational thinking under stress.

 

[zaremba]

Nah, the second part of the law defines what obstruction is.

No, the first part of the law defines what obstruction is.

The second part (beginning "furthermore") identifies a specific case which will be deemed to be obstruction in any event. That's indicated by the use of the word "furthermore".

 

[benchmark00]

No, the first part of the law defines what obstruction is.

The second part (beginning "furthermore") identifies a specific case which will be deemed to be obstruction in any event. That's indicated by the use of the word "furthermore".

Ah yes, so it defines what situation would be obstruction, which is what I said.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

This Australia v India has tour been light on controversy, good to see some now even at the end.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

No, the first part of the law defines what obstruction is.

The second part (beginning "furthermore") identifies a specific case which will be deemed to be obstruction in any event. That's indicated by the use of the word "furthermore".

This was my original interpretation.

 

[zaremba]

Ah yes, so it defines what situation would be obstruction, which is what I said.

Well, the point is that the second part of the rule doesn't limit the basic broad definition in the first part of the rule - on the contrary it extends it further. And so just because the circumstances don't come within the second limb of the rule, they may still come within the first.

Slightly oddly written Law, though.

 

[Cabinet96]

Spikey's just tasting it after his pre series Dussey rant.

 

[Tapioca]

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.

The clarification of the Law 33 appears in http://www.lords.org/data/files/law_33_qanda-9681.pdf . It deal when a dismissal is Obstruction and when it is handled. I have read it a couple of times but still can't understood it properly, but I suspect that Hussey's case will be obstructing the field

In most cases when a batsman wilfully handles the ball, he will disadvantage the fielding side in some way. If he is given out on appeal, how does the umpire decide whether he is out Handled the ball or Obstructing the field?

It is true that the Law does not lay down clear boundaries between these two situations.
The difference lies in the intent.

To be out Obstructing the field, either umpire (or if necessary the umpires together after
consultation) must consider that the batsman has made a wilful attempt to obstruct or distract the opposing side by word or action. Such action could include handling the ball in some way, but the use of a hand not holding the bat would only be the means by which the attempt is made.

In one case where the batsman’s purpose in handling the ball may or may not be evident, the Law removes the necessity for the umpires to consider intent. In Law 37.4, it could be well be a ‘free’ hand which, without consent, is used to return the ball in play to a fielder. This section of Law speaks only of ‘bat or person’. The batsman is then out Obstructing the field, since a hand not holding the bat is part of his person

 

[DingDong]

would like to see what action they against fry the umpire after that massive goober still shaking my head honestly

 

[ganeshran]

According to the rules, that was out and should have been given especially when Dhoni appealed.

 

[NasserFan207]

Out.

 

[honestbharani]

lol.. the umpires just dont want to uphold Indian appeals these days, it seems..



Mind you, I can understand Dhoni's desperation.. Looks like the only way we will ever get wickets here

 

[BoyBrumby]

Unless he's made of glass or something I can't buy that he was trying to avoid injury. Until the law/playing condition (I'm not sure which, tbh) was changed quite recently lots of batsmen would deliberately put themselves between the stumps and the fielder with the ball, thereby presumably actually increasing their chances of being injured by a thrown ball to avoid losing their wicket.

I'm willing to bet that somewhere in his thousands of hours of footage Robelinda has some of Dussey doing just that.

 

[uvelocity]

Australia v India, CB Series: David Hussey in handling-the-ball incident | Cricket News | Commonwealth Bank Series | ESPN Cricinfo

And the second part of the law definitely rules out obstruction, hand not holding the bat - means point to handling the ball rule, and avoidance of injury. Some may not agree with the law, but imo the law was applied as it stands.

 

[Debris]

My first instinct on seeing this is that it should have been out. It seems analogous to handling the ball.

It is a bit harsh calling him a cheat though. All he did is abide by the umpire's decision, which is all you can ask.