TOPIC:

Did the batsman have his back to the ball?

How could he have done it deliberately then? I think your right Anch, it is a case of over- umpirring.

AR and AM, this is the relevant law

37.1 Out Obstructing the field

37.1.1 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. See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).

37.1.2 The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, he/she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat. This will apply whether it is the first strike or a second or subsequent strike. The act of receiving the ball shall extend both to playing at the ball and to striking the ball more than once in defence of his/her wicket.

37.1.3 This Law will apply whether or not No ball is called.

37.2 Not out Obstructing the field

A batsman shall not be out Obstructing the field if

obstruction or distraction is accidental,

or obstruction is in order to avoid injury,

or in the case of the striker, he/she makes a second or subsequent strike to guard his/her wicket lawfully as in Law 34.3 (Ball lawfully struck more than once). However, see 37.3.

It is open to interpretation that Ross's actions were wilful or whether he was trying to avoid being hit by a ball coming in like a rocket from the outfield. A very harsh call I thought. I was disappointed that Bailey appealed for this to be honest once it was clear that Ross had made his ground.

mikeh -- thanks you have summed that up really well for everybody -- it seems extremely harsh for two reasons, as you notted:

we cannot know a person's thoughts
the question of avoiding injury.

anchorman wrote: Mike, what I saw of it, the appeal for obstruction came from Wade.
I don't think Bailey asked the question.

Anch Baz McCullum and Jeorge Bailey spoke for a longtime after the game.Given the match came down to the last ball of the match.Right or wrong it was a huge decision.

Remember the Ben Stokes incident in a ODI against Australia in 2015 where he was given out for putting his hand out to protect his stumps from a throw. This was also a bit controversial as it looked like it may have been self preservation.Have a look and see what you think
www.cricket.com.au/news/ben-stokes-out-o...ell-starc/2015-09-06

I forgot all about the Stokes incident. At the time, I thought Stokes was an idiot, and said so on here, mikeh, but I agree, you could, having seen the full law, have a new sympathy for the man. That is the only time I have ever seen 'obstruction' given in a cricket match.

ArkRoyal wrote: How could he have done it deliberately then? I think your right Anch, it is a case of over- umpirring.

Ark he ran from the edge of the pitch to the centre of the pitch.

The decision was a joke and in the end affected the result of the game.
Whilst Ross was there the Heat were in with a chance.
He veered to the left yes but clearly the did not obstruct the view of the stumps.
The ball hit the stumps only because it hit the batsman.
he was in the middle of thew pitch which meant that the ball ricocheted right to hit the stumps.
Clear evidence that he did not obstruct the throw.

I don't mind umpires making mistakes but when it affects the result it is unacceptable.
The third umpire would have the worst view and no benefit of the doubt was given

Unacceptable!!

Then he spent half the night trying to justify the decision to the Heat.

It's an interesting one as Ross wasn't looking at the ball when it hit him but he clearly changed direction as he got closer to the stumps and finished up in the middle of the pitch. Why Ross did that only he'll know but I thought it was a long bow to draw to actually take the view that the batsman deliberately obstructed the throw at the stumps.