Pollard Wicket - Is it Deliberate or unintentional?

[Burgey]

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, it's dependent on context.

Edit: though this is an example of pretty sloppy usage in a rule/ law making context.

 

[cnerd123]

A lot of Cricket's Laws are very vaguely or poorly worded. Every time we have an umpires course or meeting, there is non stop debate over hypothetical situations and how to apply certain laws (just like in this thread). Naturally you get very contrasting interpretations and applications, and a lot of times we just resort to Law 44 - Common Sense. Understand the intention behind the Law, and apply it as such on a case by case basis. Don't worry so much about the language actually used to write the Law.

TBH even for the interpretation given to me for this Law - I have questions over it. I can fathom a case where a batsman top edges the shot, is unaware of where the ball is, and in trying to locate where it went ends up obstructing a catch. Should he be out? As per the interpretation given to me - yes. But it does feel a bit contradictory to the intention of the Law.

I suppose when you get to International level there can be no leniency in this regard. Given how fierce the competition is, harsher interpretations are favoured in order to remove any grey areas. Kind of like the 'every ball down the legside is a wide' thing that the ICC requests umpires to do for Limited Overs cricket. But I suppose if you're just umpiring a club game you can take a less harsh approach, and whether or not you give a batsman out in this manner can be based on your judgement of his intentions. Allows you to let players off the hook for being just a bit careless and casual, and keeps the spirit of the game intact.

 

[Starfighter]

I think we need to ask Biryani Pillow about this. Did you know he's an umpire?

 

[Victor Ian]

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, it's dependent on context.

Edit: though this is an example of pretty sloppy usage in a rule/ law making context.

Damn right it is sloppy. So too, the word 'wilful'. Did they even bother to have some legal eyes peruse the laws? If interpretation relies on the intent of the rule then they should have defined the intentions at the beginning of each rule.

 

[Burgey]

I think we need to ask Biryani Pillow about this. Did you know he's an umpire?

I understand he is a far better umpire than *****.

 

[cpr]

I feel dirty saying this, but I agree with *****.

Wilful doesn't always mean intentional, there's an older meaning (who'd have thought cricket uses words that have meanings that have passed into antiquity) that's more similar to headstrong and stubborn - a wilful act being one carried out without care or thought for consequences. It covers this sort of situation rather well - Pollard is wilful in his intention to annoy Bumrah by swinging his arm in his face, and probably hasn't even thought of any consequences of doing so. Except there are consequences whether he likes it or not, and the use of wilful in the rules allows the umpire to punish those unintended consequences.

 

[Daemon]

Tread lightly guys. Walk down this path of fuzzy interpretations and we might just come out the other side with a religious text.

 

[Burgey]

I feel dirty saying this, but I agree with *****.

Wilful doesn't always mean intentional, there's an older meaning (who'd have thought cricket uses words that have meanings that have passed into antiquity) that's more similar to headstrong and stubborn - a wilful act being one carried out without care or thought for consequences. It covers this sort of situation rather well - Pollard is wilful in his intention to annoy Bumrah by swinging his arm in his face, and probably hasn't even thought of any consequences of doing so. Except there are consequences whether he likes it or not, and the use of wilful in the rules allows the umpire to punish those unintended consequences.

*z​orax

Don't give him the recognition of capitalising his username.

 

[Burgey]

Tread lightly guys. Walk down this path of fuzzy interpretations and we might just come out the other side with a religious text.

#NotAllUmpires

 

[ankitj]

So many ***** essays in this thread that no one read.

 

[Burgey]

So many ***** essays in this thread that no one read.

*z​orax

Don't give him the recognition of capitalising his username.

.

 

[Starfighter]

In fairness to cpr and ankitj I find that if you capitalise '*****' it doesn't autocorrect, while if you don't if corrects to 'borax'. So capitalising it is a little easier, but I do agree with the sentiment.

 

[Burgey]

Some things are too important to be left to auto-correct. This is one of them.

 

[Spikey]

phone boarding is the worst due to the forced capitalising of words

 

[cnerd123]

I understand he is a far better umpire than *****.

If he has umpired county cricket then he absolutely is and I'd love to hear his take on this.

 

[cpr]

*z​orax

Don't give him the recognition of capitalising his username.

I'm a firm believer in capitalising someones username incorrectly as the ultimate insult.

 

[Burgey]

Interesting perspective. Shall take that on board.