David Hussey: Super Cheat!

[Tapioca]

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.

Quoting again from the post above, the explanation of obstructing the field/handled the ball contains this curious line :

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

Again, I cannot claim that I am able to understand it

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Taufel gave Inzy out for obstructing the field even though the ball wouldn't have hit the stumps, but here Taufel let's Hussy off the hook. Taufel is at fault here for making a crappy decision.

 

[Spark]

Taufel gave Inzy out for obstructing the field even though the ball wouldn't have hit the stumps, but here Taufel let's Hussy off the hook. Taufel is at fault here for making a crappy decision.

Not relevant.

Under the obstructing the field law this wasn't out. It's fairly cut and dry. He didn't hit the ball with his bat or with part of the arm/hand holding the bat - hence not out under Law 37. Under the handling the ball law it's less clear-cut IMO.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

OK, just checked the rules and you are right that it's not clear regarding handling the ball since Hussey was trying to protect himself from injury.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Regarding "obstructing the field", I always hear commentators say that the batsman is allowed to put himself between the wickets and the ball thrown by the fielder, when taking a run. Why is that allowed?

 

[Spark]

It isn't under the new law. It was changed to ban exactly that.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Ah OK. Thanks Spark.

 

[Furball]

Having only seen the incident briefly, I'm going with not out.

 

[zaremba]

Yeah, not sure that's out really. Seemed pretty instinctive and he had reason to think that the ball was heading straight for him.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Could it be argued that Dussey knew the rules and therefore put out his hand to stop the ball hitting his body (instead of trying to avoid injury) and therefore being out by obstructing the field.

 

[Furball]

Could it be argued that Dussey knew the rules and therefore put out his hand to stop the ball hitting his body (instead of trying to avoid injury) and therefore being out by obstructing the field.

I don't he has the time to think like that.

 

[M0rphin3]

Quite obviously it was instinctual, so fair decision IMO

 

[AaronK]

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

i recall inzi doing that one time.. he was given out... hahah lol

in all seriousness.. he was not out.. the ball was coming close to his body..

 

[GIMH]

Is this on YouTube?

 

[M0rphin3]

Is this on YouTube?

d hussey stop the ball going to stump. - YouTube

 

[GIMH]

Thanks. Interesting. Doesn't look like self-defence to me but I don't think there's enough there to definitively give him out either.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Thanks. Interesting. Doesn't look like self-defence to me but I don't think there's enough there to definitively give him out either.

I struggle to see a case for self defence or that is was instinct as he had his hand raised well before the ball struck him. I don't see the latter as any kind of defence in any case, ftr; I'm sure Gambhir didn't coolly plan to elbow Twatto or Gooch to flick that delivery away from his stumps with his hand, but that they too were "instinct" doesn't completely mitigate the sins, so the same principle should apply to Dussey.

In any event he was committed to the run by that stage, so what more's to be gained by looking at where the ball is? Head down and go time.

 

[social]

Without knowing the intricacies of the law, I'd have given Dussey out because handling the ball is a no-no

Then again, I wouldnt have appealed as it was pretty obvious that he would've made his ground easily in any event and made a dumb-ass decision to defend himself from something that may not even have hit him

 

[turnstyle]

Not buying it. He's a blatant cheat and needs a donkey with his name painted up ASAP.

 

[Jacknife]

Not sure myself but I'm going not out, always a difficult one when the ball is thrown right towards the batsmen, he should have just let it hit him, even if he had missed he was easily making his ground.