David Hussey: Super Cheat!

[Agent Nationaux]

If the ball had hit him, wouldn't he then have been out under law 37.

 

[Crazy Sam]

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

I agree with this. I don't think you should be appealing for this type of thing when the batsman is going to make his ground. Had he been a bit further down the pitch then I wouldn't have had a problem with them appealing and Hussey being given out.

The argument that it's "instinctive" doesn't wash with me at all; if a batsman who is on strike blocks a ball then instinctively puts a hand out to stop it from falling onto the stumps then he should be out too. Not much difference here.

 

[slowfinger]

Would it have been in the Spirit of The Law if he'd been given out and told to **** off?

 

[Jacknife]

If the ball had hit him, wouldn't he then have been out under law 37.

I cant see how, if he was running with his head down and not looking at the fielder throwing the ball and he had no change in direction, it wouldn't be out, other wise you'd end up with a situation where fielders would be trying to hit the batsmen rather than the wickets.

 

[Jacknife]

I agree with this. I don't think you should be appealing for this type of thing when the batsman is going to make his ground. Had he been a bit further down the pitch then I wouldn't have had a problem with them appealing and Hussey being given out.

The argument that it's "instinctive" doesn't wash with me at all; if a batsman who is on strike blocks a ball then instinctively puts a hand out to stop it from falling onto the stumps then he should be out too. Not much difference here.

Agree if there was a genuine chance of a wicket and the batsmen impeded with that process, either with arm/hand or getting his body in the way on purpose, it should be out.

 

[morgieb]

Didn't appear to be out IMO.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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?

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

No, that's still allowed, what is now barred is deliberately changing your angle of run to block a throw. If you're in the way anyway, keep running! What you're suggesting is that batsmen should stop running or take a longer course...

Just seen it for the first time. My take on it is that Hussey's hand is out so far and so early that it's not normal cricket, which is enough reason for it to look out. You just don't stick your hand out and block the ball like that.

 

[Burgey]

If the ball had hit him, wouldn't he then have been out under law 37.

No, because he didn't really change his line to put himeslf between the ball and the stumps, did he?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Gah. Whenever I see this thread title, I get the song Super Freak by Rick James stuck in my head.

 

[juro]

I cant see how, if he was running with his head down and not looking at the fielder throwing the ball and he had no change in direction, it wouldn't be out, other wise you'd end up with a situation where fielders would be trying to hit the batsmen rather than the wickets.

Might improve ratings...

 

[stephen]

I wish I could find a full speed shot of this, slow motion makes it look really bad.

However, I can buy that it was self defense as Hussey saw a ball pinged at where he was running and the hand came out to prevent a more painful blow. From the evidence I'd say that the umpires got it right.