Spot on.
They changed that rule a couple of years ago.
Youâre not allowed to change your line to get in the way.
I thought it was clearly and unequivocally out.
But two years ago, it was good running.
The ball did hit him?
But thatâs the thing, I donât think he did. If he had of held his line, he would have been more in the way.
Why the hell did he try to cross the pitch? Quickest way is to run straight.
Looks to me like he was trying to clear a possible line at the stumps for the fielder, so as not to be accused of obstructing.
Interesting rule change, and I hope that makes players aware of it because it would be a much bigger issue in a Test.
Out of interest, what is a batsman supposed to do if a fielder steps into (or refuses to move out of) his line?
Run through him?
Did it? I honestly missed that.
If the ball didnât hit the stumps, would they still have appealed?
That or being hit by a ball that has been thrown at pace from 60m out.
Yeah. Hit him on the glove. Wade was standing in the right place to take the ball.
Interesting question! According to Bailey, the answer is no. But, I wonder.
Hereâs two other similar obstructing the field dismissals for those interested
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hk5ff
No real problem with either of those.
The first one is worst. Looks over his shoulder and then covers the stumps.
You could argue the English one was just a wide turning circle, but not very convincingly.
I donât have a problem with the new rule, so long as fielders get out of the way.
I also hope some allowance is made if a keeper is in the batsmanâs line. He should be able to run at full speed.
I reckon the Roy one is clearly out, - no doubt he knew what he was doing. The Hafeez one is not as clear-cut imo, but I would have given him, he moved too far in front of the stumps for my liking.
Hurricanes win four in a row. I was thinking that the top 4 had been settled remarkably early, but theyâre added some interest now. Good squad that seems to be getting better the longer the tournament goes.
And: If the selectors are going to be picking Lynnâs replacement on BBL form, there is only one player: Darcy Short. He is on fire.
This rule about the batsman âobsructing the fieldâ by changing his line to cover the stumps is one big crock of stinking shyte. What about the bowler deliberately obstructing the runnerâs path ? Youâd think the ICC was being run by the AFL bosses.
If they want to act in this area, theyâd be better off painting a pair of tramlines down each side of the pitch, and require the batsman to run in between them and ban the fielders from going inside them. It might look ridiculous at first, but it would be fairer and work better than this âobstructing the fieldâ bulldust.
DâArcy Short ? Fine batsman, blood oath. I wouldnât mind him getting a Test try-out. At least heâs a wrist spinner â bowls chinamen in fact â what the PC brigade call âleft-arm legspinâ (which is a contradiction in terms) or what Pommy immigrants call âleft-arm unorthodoxâ (as if thereâs something intrinsically wrong with wrist spin). Takes wickets, too.
Six FC games with an average of 22.
Two things on the Ross incident:
-
why the hell did he change direction when running down the pitch? Basic 101 is that you run straight as it reduces the distance you have to run as an angle can mean you get run out. Also they say that if you run straight it is more likely that you will get in the way and thatâs okay, better the ball hit you than the wicket and, if you havenât changed direction it isnât obstruction.
-
How the hell was Bailey able to appeal for obstruction AFTER WATCHING THE REPLAY (which he states he did in his post match interview)? That is not allowed under the laws of the game so the umps should have rejected his request and just decided on the run out scenario.