PDA

View Full Version : Appeal for obstruction, Subjectivity and Your Opinion


Zeeshan
June 21, 2012, 05:12 PM
Instead of just tucking in Mushfiqur's NASIR thread, I am opening a new one for discussion. So I just watched the highlights and Mushfiqur's NASIR run-out appeal was an interesting case (he always somehow gets involved in weirdies). Basically for those who haven't watched he goes half-way and turns back and as he is coming back to non-striker's crease, the ball thrown at the stumps hits him and players appeal for obstruction. Commies were saying that rules have changed and it was referred upstairs.

My question: Do you agree that fielders should be able to appeal for obstruction? I mean it's very subjective isn't it about whether someone really changed the course of action or not? How do you prove intent?

I am very much against it. Technology or for that matter 3rd umpire should interfere as less as possible and s-- like that happens when a ball gets obstructed.

What do you think? And here's the CI description (http://www.espncricinfo.com/zimbabwe-tri-series-2012/engine/match/561551.html?innings=2;page=1;view=commentary):

9.1 Utseya to Mushfiqur Rahim, no run, too much happening there, Mushy dabs that down to third man and calls for the run, before deciding against it. Nasir Hossain has charged up the track, before he turns and runs back. The run-out chance is missed and Zimbabwe appeal for obstruction as Hossain turns and runs back. Its referred but given not out

BANFAN
June 21, 2012, 05:39 PM
My question: Do you agree that fielders should be able to appeal for obstruction?

I mean it's very subjective isn't it about whether someone really changed the course of action or not? How do you prove intent? ..

Why not if someone is obstructing intentionally?

The new rule has described the intent saying; if someone is changing his course to obstruct the ball.

If a player is watching the ball and altering the course and the ball hitting him, it can be translated as intent. But if he isn't watching and he changes course and ball hits him it may be translated as unintentional. Mushy was watching the ball, he changed his course and still it didn't look intentional, so he was given not out. So unless someone really mis uses the rule, intent can be identified easily. These things have happened in the past.

If someone is running to obstruct a ball, it can be understood. There are quiet a few such abstract rules in cricket and these days you don't see the umpires misusing those. Like LBW while offering a shot and not offering a shot, intentionally bowling on the leg side in test matches to deny runs to batsmen...etc all intent...

So let's see how it comes up. I don't think that it will be that big an issue.the law had to come because changing side can sometimes become a big issue in shorter version of the game (T20) .. Some crooks might use obstructions of this nature is such situation...or may have done ...

Zeeshan
June 21, 2012, 05:44 PM
Good points BF (okay that sounded wrong).

I understand but the thing is when Mushy was returning one of the commentator was saying he changed his course. THAT goes on to show how easily one can interpret things. Of course, umpire did not give the decision as he thought otherwise.

Thanks for mentioning LBW factor. Although most of us got used to LBW now and just by eye-balling we can tell if a ball would go on to hit the stumps or not, in this case I feel door for interpretation is left ajar by a big margin.

(And yes, it may not be misused, but suppose he was given out, then we would've been debating over this, no?! :D)

BANFAN
June 21, 2012, 06:32 PM
Good points BF (okay that sounded wrong).

I understand but the thing is when Mushy was returning one of the commentator was saying he changed his course. THAT goes on to show how easily one can interpret things. Of course, umpire did not give the decision as he thought otherwise.

Thanks for mentioning LBW factor. Although most of us got used to LBW now and just by eye-balling we can tell if a ball would go on to hit the stumps or not, in this case I feel door for interpretation is left ajar by a big margin.

(And yes, it may not be misused, but suppose he was given out, then we would've been debating over this, no?! :D)

We used it as kids to mean best friends...:) Good kids in BD wouldn't make BF/GF in wrong sounding manner. So it doesn't sound wrong to me.. SOHEL NR can shed more light on that ..:)

That commie was a crack leave him. 3rd ump didn't take time to decide. So they know the interpretation and use of it. Zimbos appealed desperately...so on field umps were confused and reffered.

Yes, that thread would be an instant super hit ...:)

Navo
June 21, 2012, 09:05 PM
A small point, but the alleged obstruction was caused by Nasir not by Mushy - even though Mushy was the one on strike at the time.

Maysun
June 21, 2012, 10:57 PM
I would have given it not out. The only time Nasir looked at the fielder was when he was turning. And if you look somewhere else while making a 180 turn, obviously your path won't be a straight one, his momentum took him over and he ran along that line. That's just how I saw it yesterday.

Zeeshan
June 21, 2012, 11:01 PM
A small point, but the alleged obstruction was caused by Nasir not by Mushy - even though Mushy was the one on strike at the time.

thanx navo-da.... oder dekte shob ek rokom lage to'h

Kohli_Sox
June 22, 2012, 12:04 AM
I think there is a certain amount of course that a batsman can't change his direction and needs to be limited within that; the rule is more than finding the intent of a batsman; the rule implies that how much a batsman change his direction I might be wrong though.

Let's say someone is running on left side of the wicket. The throw comes in from mid-on (presumably right hander on strike). Now if who's running on the left side goes around to the other side and obstructs the ball, he might be given out in these types of scenarios; I might be wrong again

frd
June 22, 2012, 12:13 AM
I think there is a certain amount of course that a batsman can't change his direction and needs to be limited within that; the rule is more than finding the intent of a batsman; the rule implies that how much a batsman change his direction I might be wrong though.

Let's say someone is running on left side of the wicket. The throw comes in from mid-on (presumably right hander on strike). Now if who's running on the left side goes around to the other side and obstructs the ball, he might be given out in these types of scenarios; I might be wrong again

i think you are right .

Zeeshan
June 22, 2012, 12:17 AM
Why did the commies say: "Rules have changed" - I mean what's the comparison of old rule against new one regarding obstruction? I understand there is obstruction by word or action.Word? Sledging naki?

playmaker
June 22, 2012, 12:28 AM
I dont think you can conclude that nasir INTENTIONALLY came into the direction of the throw. When he turned, he didnt change his direction intentionally, it happened because his momentum carried him towards his right.

Unless there is clear evidence that he came in the line of the throw, you cant give him out. People might say, he was lookin at the ball just b4 it was thrown. dudes plz, he had to keep an eye on the ball so that he knows when its coming and simply coudnt take his eyes of the ball.

Kohli_Sox
June 22, 2012, 12:55 AM
I dont think you can conclude that nasir INTENTIONALLY came into the direction of the throw. When he turned, he didnt change his direction intentionally, it happened because his momentum carried him towards his right.

Unless there is clear evidence that he came in the line of the throw, you cant give him out. People might say, he was lookin at the ball just b4 it was thrown. dudes plz, he had to keep an eye on the ball so that he knows when its coming and simply coudnt take his eyes of the ball.

Yeah the ball was thrown straight at his direction, what surprised me was the comments made by commentators at that time

playmaker
June 22, 2012, 01:51 AM
Yeah the ball was thrown straight at his direction, what surprised me was the comments made by commentators at that time

I feel the same, the commies where SAYING: It shouldve been out. But if you watch it properly, you cannot conclude that nasir intentionally came in line of the ball. He mightve changed direction but that is quite common when you are running, you sometimes end up changing direction

Barring this decision, its been the most Biased commentatory ive seen in my life. Seriously, no1 really wants to hear stuffs like how Gillespie used only 134 characters to describe muzhange, or what Mpofu's name is. To these boys have no knowledge about our players?? Anything? Why dont they tell anything about the recent performances of our players or even a reference to Asia Cup?

Poor picture quality, poor commentatory, no wonder even something as exciting as T20s is made so dull. All along I felt as if ODIs is going :waiting:

Kohli_Sox
June 22, 2012, 02:55 AM
When Abdur Razzak called as Abdur Rehman can't expect much

playmaker
June 22, 2012, 03:02 AM
^^

And to add to that the commies telling to Mushy: "you're captain is missing" :-p

TimAus
June 22, 2012, 03:57 AM
I don't like the obstructing the field rule, for me the pitch belongs to the batsman.

Shaun petr
June 22, 2012, 04:18 AM
what i feel icc is the most stupid organization in the whole world...everytime they change rule like changing clothes. Making some stupid ftp was the proof. I expect nothing from them.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition

shakibrulz
June 22, 2012, 04:40 AM
I agree that it's entirely arbitrary. I mean how are we supposed to know that, read the batsman's mind? They should take the intent part off and make it more objective - as in say batsmen are not allowed to deviate from the path of running unless there's a fielder in his way, ever. And the bowler should stay away from that path, or he should be penalized as well. IMO from what I've seen, intentional or otherwise, Nasir did deviate from the line way too much.

Purbasha T
June 22, 2012, 05:04 AM
Also the batsman may have changed his course in an effort to avoid the ball hitting him (more likely given the nimrapona of us Bengalis :-p).

Naimul_Hd
June 22, 2012, 06:12 AM
As Campbell mentioned, the main point here is, 'significant change' of running course. If umpire feels that Batsman intentionally significantly changed his running path to avoid run out then umpire can give him out. But the term 'significantly change' can be varied from umpire to umpire.

BANFAN
June 22, 2012, 03:09 PM
I agree that it's entirely arbitrary. I mean how are we supposed to know that, read the batsman's mind? They should take the intent part off and make it more objective - as in say batsmen are not allowed to deviate from the path of running unless there's a fielder in his way, ever. And the bowler should stay away from that path, or he should be penalized as well. IMO from what I've seen, intentional or otherwise, Nasir did deviate from the line way too much.

You know, if you take away the intent part, it's a useless law. It's very easy to understand the intent. If you obstructed the ball intentionally or unintentionally that can be identified from video footage very easily. There are so many intent based laws in cricket...