Obstructing the field – Alex Ross is out

By chance I saw the incident live. It was the first BBL game I have watched this year.

My first reaction was to judge that his bat was down and that he was not run out. No further consideration entered my head.

It’s not clear to me why the commentators turned so quickly to the question of whether there might be some issue relating to obstructing the field. That possibility was not on my radar. Had they heard something on one of the player mics? As soon as I realised what they were discussing, it occurred to me that there must be some special regulation in BBL relating to running between the wickets and not impeding the thrower. (Bear in mind that there had just previously been discussion with Wade about taking off his right glove to expedite throwing in the last few overs of the game.)

When one of the commentators quoted what was obviously the standard cricket rulebook, my amazement turned to outrage as I realised that consideration was being given to the batsman’s dismissal for obstructing the field – ie that it was not some special BBL provision. I was always taught and encouraged to try to get between the thrower and the stumps when running between the wickets. I coached my sons and the teams in which they played to that end. (Ha ha: “to that end”.)

So, as far as I was concerned the matter should not have been considered. My sympathies were entirely with the batsman and giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt should have been enough.

However, once it was quite apparent that concern for ‘what is and is not cricket’ had been bypassed and one had to begin a forensic examination of what had occurred, it was apparent why the third umpire decided against the batsman. As the commentators said, it was clear from his ducking and evasive demeanour (body language) that he realised instantly that he was in line with the thrower. This is tantamount to protecting his wicket.

Also, a point not made in commentary, by veering slightly left from the line he had originally been on he was in fact extending very slightly the distance he had to run (he was not on the shortest distance between two points). In the batsman’s defence, however, knowing that the thrower was behind and to his right, the natural thing for safety’s sake would be to veer to the left.

Another issue that immediately arose was whether an appeal had been made in relation to the matter of obstructing the field. Wade’s response on mic was genuine and appropriate: that he wasn’t sure what he was appealing for; just that he had been excited! In any case, members of the fielding side would normally have to be exonerated because one does not have to specify what one is appealing for when one appeals. Many times a slow bowler has appealed when there has been either bat-pad (for caught) and pad-bat (for LBW) and the umpire has to adjudicate on both.

However the fielding captain’s role was rather besmirched in the unconvincing and rather wet interview George Bailey gave on the matter after the game.

So in my view this is another illustration of where the law is an ass. The question shouldn’t have arisen; it was ‘not cricket’. But having been asked to adjudicate, it is hard to find fault with the third umpire.