Pollard Wicket - Is it Deliberate or unintentional?

[weldone]

I never understood batsmen who threw the ball back to the opposition. Make the bastards move.

to make the game move faster

similar to why home crowds throw the ball back after a six when the away team is fielding

 

[Top_Cat]

On 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.

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/

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.

 

[srbhkshk]

Isn't it often mentioned by the commentators that the non-striker has no obligation to get out of the way for the bowler to get to the other side in case a shot / catch is placed there? Why should it be different for the striker?

 

[cnerd123]

On 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.

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.

 

[Spikey]

On 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 catch

 

[Beamer]

I swear this sort of thing happens to Pollard all the time. I don't think it was deliberate but I agree that if Bumrah dropped it he should have been given out.

 

[cnerd123]

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

 

[Spikey]

See I would consider wilfully to have within it a sense of deliberateness in the action, as in the Cambridge definition of it, and unless there's a glossary in the laws of the game that states that cricket's definition of the word is different, why would I have reason to think differently? If the cricketing definition of it is different, that's fine, but it should be clarified

someone submit a Laws query

 

[cnerd123]

Thanks for volunteering Spikey

 

[Spikey]

i cant read or write

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

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.

I'd say the wrong word is in the laws. Willful means intentional or deliberate. Pollard, to my view, did not impede Bumrah willfully. He did it mindlessly. By the laws, he seemingly didn't willfully impede Bumrah, so not out. Although I suggest it should be because he moved off his normal stance, not trying to complete a single, and impeded the catch.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

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.

 

[TNT]

Probably a good opportunity for the ICC to make a comment as to what the ruling would be so that if this arises again then it would be on the books what the procedure is. I would like to see them make a statement that had the catch not been taken then the batsman would have been out obstructing the field so there will no controversy in the future. As it is batsmen could look at that and form an opinion it might be worth the risk of spoiling the catch and not be given out.

 

[Starfighter]

If ***** was a lawyer he'd make Dennis Denuto look like a genius.

 

[Dan]

Yeah I'm giving it on the basis that I reckon Pollard had a fair idea of what he was doing.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, I mean willful = deliberate, in everyday usage. If someone is doing something willfully they are doing it deliberately. Stick to PowerPoint and give up officiating.

 

[Victor Ian]

This is the part on catches.

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).

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?

 

[Burgey]

It means wilfully distracting the fielder.

 

[cnerd123]

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?

wilful (obstruction or distraction)

As per actual ICC international umpires I have asked, as long as the movement by the batsman is wilful, and leads to an obstruction or distraction, the batsman will be out, unless the reason behind such movement was to avoid injury. You can not aimlessly and carelessly move around the pitch and cause an obstruction and get away with it. There is no 'being an aloof idiot' clause in the laws.

My own interpretation of the laws (if anyone wasn't bothered to read earlier) was that the intention of a batsman matters too, and I was giving Pollard out because I thought he knew what he was doing. But as it turns out, that's not how the law is meant to be read.

Makes sense too - apart from the other points i provided earlier, there is also the practical point that when you tell batsmen they can get away with obstructing the field if they were just being careless, then you just know we will get top level batsmen aimlessly bumping into fielders every time they sky one. I guarantee you they'll start trying to find ways to game this little loophole, just like diving in football. And now there is extra work for the match officials to catch and punish such behaviour under some other clause (probably Fair and Unfair Play) and you just create even more grey areas for debate.

So, as per actual ICC international umpires, all you need to do is ensure that the batsman's movements were wilful - he was under his own control when he moved that way - and if that wilful movement leads to an obstruction, he is out. That's the right away to go about it apparently. But the laws are open for interpretation, and the way they are applied can vary place to place. As long as there is consistency of application and fair play/spirit of cricket is maintained, it's all good.

 

[Victor Ian]

Cheers *****.

I'm actually curious about my last sentence. In maths and programming they remove ambiguity with brackets. Is there a rule I am not aware of in English that determines how to treat AND/OR with preceding adjustments? Anyone?