weldone
Hall of Fame Member
to make the game move fasterI never understood batsmen who threw the ball back to the opposition. Make the bastards move.
similar to why home crowds throw the ball back after a six when the away team is fielding
to make the game move fasterI never understood batsmen who threw the ball back to the opposition. Make the bastards move.
Maybe you do. The law mentions the word 'willfully' an awful lot. Nothing in the laws saying they have a duty to move out of the way, that they must avoid the ball hitting them, etc. Can't imagine an umpire giving out someone standing their ground, tbh.If he stood perfectly still and blocked a catch as a result he would be obstructing the field. It's common sense. The ball is in the air, everyone can see it, and you can see a fielder trying to get under it. No reason to stand your ground outside of wanting to block the catch. It's intentional, and it's cut and dry.
You all need to read the law:
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-37-obstructing-the-field/
There is no point speaking in generals for incidents like this because every situation is differentOn this particular grab, I think there was some dodginess going on but too much doubt about how deliberate it was. Didn't look good, though.
Maybe you do. The law mentions the word 'willfully' an awful lot. Nothing in the laws saying they have a duty to move out of the way, that they must avoid the ball hitting them, etc. Can't imagine an umpire giving out someone standing their ground, tbh.
No reason to stand your ground isn't quite true either. What if you balls up a last-second movement and smack into a fielder? You have a right to do nothing and avoid making a bad situation worse, causing an injury, etc.
The law does mention wilfully a lot, and it's also the only word it mentions, there's no "reckless" or "careless" or anything, it's "wilfully" and nothing else. I changed my mind last night on it last night. If that catch hadn't been taken, I think it would have been tough to give pollard out. I suppose possible due to that arm action but geeee if he hadn't moved his arm, that is if he had kept on being oblivious to the world and accidentally walked into the bowler and prevented the catch I don't see how you could give Pollard out as he clearly would not have wilfully prevented the catchOn this particular grab, I think there was some dodginess going on but too much doubt about how deliberate it was. Didn't look good, though.
Maybe you do. The law mentions the word 'willfully' an awful lot. Nothing in the laws saying they have a duty to move out of the way, that they must avoid the ball hitting them, etc. Can't imagine an umpire giving out someone standing their ground, tbh.
No reason to stand your ground isn't quite true either. What if you balls up a last-second movement and smack into a fielder? You have a right to do nothing and avoid making a bad situation worse, causing an injury, etc.
Maybe you do. The law mentions the word 'willfully' an awful lot. Nothing in the laws saying they have a duty to move out of the way, that they must avoid the ball hitting them, etc. Can't imagine an umpire giving out someone standing their ground, tbh.
This is actually an excellent point and I've brought it up in discussion with some ICC Level 2 umpires, and the main takeaway is that 'Wilful' does not mean 'Intentional'. The definition of Wilful is a lot broader. You can wilfully do an action without intending the consequences that occur. A wilful action doesn't have to be deliberate in nature.The law does mention wilfully a lot, and it's also the only word it mentions, there's no "reckless" or "careless" or anything, it's "wilfully" and nothing else. I changed my mind last night on it last night. If that catch hadn't been taken, I think it would have been tough to give pollard out. I suppose possible due to that arm action but geeee if he hadn't moved his arm, that is if he had kept on being oblivious to the world and accidentally walked into the bowler and prevented the catch I don't see how you could give Pollard out as he clearly would not have wilfully prevented the catch
But there are a few things to consider within the greater context of the laws:Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, and while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.
He moves his arm because Bumrah is coming towards him and he tries to move out of the way. The ball went up in the air, he hung his head and had no idea where it was - he was tuned out, knowing he was going to be caught. There's nothing willful about what Pollard did. Whilst I don't know what ground that was, judging on where he continued to walk I'd say he was walking towards the changing sheds, not the bowler or the ball. I'm interested in how you can know the willful actions of a player when there's no indication he was watching where the ball was. True that I don't know his intentions either...but I'd suggest you'd have to be able to strongly prove willful behaviour rather than presume it.There is no point speaking in generals for incidents like this because every situation is different
Here, in this situation, Pollard hits the ball in the air, sees it's in the air, sees the bowler and fielders crowding in to catch it. Knowing all this, he still walks towards the bowler, and upon seeing the bowler in his face, doesn't simply take a step back to get out of the way, but instead makes this weird and unecessary arm movement that nearly distracts the bowler from taking the catch.
None of these actions by Pollard can be excused. If the catch was drop he was definitely responsible for it with his wilful actions of walking into the spot where the catch was to be taken and moving his arm in an unecessary manner.
Word salad with assumptions and more long bows drawn than an archer. You can’t just redefine words used interchangeably in English like that just because you want him to be out. His intention, where the determination of whether the action was wilful or not is absolutely not irrelevant. If you’re an umpire and you give that, by the letter of the law you’re wrong.This is actually an excellent point and I've brought it up in discussion with some ICC Level 2 umpires, and the main takeaway is that 'Wilful' does not mean 'Intentional'. The definition of Wilful is a lot broader. You can wilfully do an action without intending the consequences that occur. A wilful action doesn't have to be deliberate in nature.
Just evaluating the language used does seem confusing:
But there are a few things to consider within the greater context of the laws:
The first thing to note is that - if the custodians of the game wanted this dismissal to hinge on a batsman's intent, they would have used the word Deliberate, as they have in other parts of the book:
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-41-unfair-play/
The second thing is that this is a mode of dismissal, and in no other mode of dismissal does the umpire have to evaluate a batsman's intent, or whether or not their action was deliberate. Even for hitting the ball twice you see the word 'Wilful' used:
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-34-hit-the-ball-twice/
The reason the word 'Wilful' is used is to just ensure that the batsman's actions were under his control. That is, the batsman is protected it situations where the action that causes obstruction is a result of reasons outside of his conscious control. For instance - if a batsman trips over his own shoelaces, or if he sneezes, or if he is running between the wickets normally trying to score a run and a fielder wanders into his path.
In this specific situation, Pollards actions were wilful. He chose to walk into Bumrah's space, and he chose to move his arm in that manner. Now whether or not he intended to cause a distraction is irrelevant - as per the letter of the law, he has wilfully attempted to obstruct or distract the fielding side. He is out.
It's actually more black-and-white than I thought tbh. Pollard's intent should have never been part of the discussion to begin with.
How do I read that? wilful (obstruction or distraction) or (wilful obstruction) or distraction?37.3 Obstructing a ball from being caught.
The striker is out Obstructing the field should wilful obstruction or distraction by either batsman prevent a catch being completed. This shall apply even though the obstruction is caused by the striker in lawfully guarding his/her wicket under the provision of Law 34.3 (Ball lawfully struck more than once).
wilful (obstruction or distraction)This is the part on catches.
How do I read that? wilful (obstruction or distraction) or (wilful obstruction) or distraction?
Ors and Ands should always be bracketed. Or is there a legal rule that tells how they are to be treated?