Loitering around Law 37 of cricket, obstructing the field

Loitering around Law 37 of cricket, obstructing the field: A lot has been put to light about the Law 37 of the MCC of late. Some might wonder about the significance of Law 37. It is the law which defines that how a batsman can be deemed OUT for obstructing the field. There arose a major confusion and critical analysis regarding the physical significance of the law after Ben Stokes was adjudged out for obstructing the field in the 32^nd over of the English innings against Australia in the 2^nd ODI.

In an attempt to focus on to the law and enlightening up its significance on each of the flip sides, lets start from the basics.

To be precise, Obstructing the Field is one of the ten ways to be dismissed in the game of Cricket.

The Rule:

So, before digging deeper, let us go through the definition laid by the MCC for the same.

Law 37 is defined as:

“Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.  In particular, but not solely, it shall be regarded as obstruction and either batsman will be out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball, as defined in Law 33.1, he wilfully strikes the ball with

• A hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury.
• any other part of his person or with his bat. “

Now, this clearly signifies of the fact that if the batsman is found to be faulty or rather intentional in obstructing the path for getting dismissed, the umpires have the full privileges to adjudge him OUT.

It is to be noted that the bowler isn’t credited the wicket for the batsman who is being dismissed for Obstructing the field. The dismissal is similar to a run out.

Also Read – The Shaded Bricks – 5 Unknown Laws of Cricket

Explanation:

This dismissal can be adjudged on two situations.

1. Suppose a batsman has hit the ball and is about to get caught by any fielder or the bowler himself. In the meantime, if the batsman or the non-striker happens to deliberately stand in as a resistance to prevent the fielder or the bowler from taking the catch, he shall be given OUT for such an act. This goes completely against the spirit of the game. However, there are exceptions to it.

(i) If the batsman is found to resist the fielder or the bowler but the action for the same is not found to be deliberate then he shall not be given out for the purpose as this was not intentional. By looking at the body language and gestures of the batsman, the umpire figures out whether or not the action was intentional.

Note- Even if the non striker happens to deliberately obstruct the catch, the batsman or the striker will be penalised, i.e. adjudged out for this purpose.

2. In the attempt to take a run, if the batsman directly interrupts the fielder’s aim by blocking the stumps while taking the run, he can be given out if the actions are found deliberate for the purpose. Suppose a batsman goes for a quick single. While on the run, the batsman deliberately kicks the ball and the fielder fails to collect the ball. This helped the batsmen to rotate positions. In such an event, the fielding team might throw an appeal and quite likely, the batsman would be given out.

Inception and Timeline:

The first instance of such kind of dismissal came to light in a minor match on 27^th August, 1792 between Sheffield Sports Club and Bents Green. John Shaw, a Bents Green player managed to score 7 runs and his dismissal was recorded with the head, “run out of the ground to hinder a catch.”

The first instance of Obstructing the field was marked in 1951 in international cricket. Len Hutton was dismissed under this head in 1951 in the Test series between England and South Africa. He stands to be the only player to be dismissed for obstructing the field in Tests.

Rameez Raja stands to be the first batsman in ODIs to be dismissed for obstructing the field. This happened in 1987 when he deliberately hit the ball away with his bat to avoid being run out on the final ball of the innings in order to complete his century.

Prior to Ben Stokes dismissal, Pakistan’s Anwar Ali stood to be the latest batsman to be dismissed in such a manner in ODIs. He was adjudged out for obstructing the field in an ODI against South Africa on 27^th November, 2013.

In T20, there has been only a single such instance. Yousuf Pathan was dismissed for obstructing the field in the match 65 of IPL 2013 between Kolkata Knight Riders and Pune Warriors India. He deliberately kicked the ball while rotating the strike.

Final verdict in accordance with the spirit of the game:

Cricket, which is synonymous to the phrase, ‘Gentleman’s game’ shall be played with sheer spirit. Sometimes, cases might arise whereby a batsman tried to block the ball as a result of his reflex action to prevent from getting injured. However, this might end up in blocking the pathway for the stumps. In such kind of situations, the fielding team’s captain can withdraw the appeal, considering it in good faith and contributing towards the spirit of the game. Even though these things are technically legal, but judging by the spirit of the game, such acts shall not be entertained. Even batsmen should have to be lenient and must avoid getting involved in something like that. This not only demeans the spiritedness of the game, but also promotes hostility in the ground among the teams.

Also Read – 24 Most crazy Cricket stats: Try and explain them people

Similar to mankading, obstructing the field stands to be one of the controversial dismissals in the world of cricket. And after the dismissal of Ben Stokes, controversies in the matter have been stimulated to a considerable extents.

Technically speaking, according to the frames in the replay, Ben Stoke’s hand did seem to block the ball in its pathway to the stumps. However, as a human being, it was most probably a natural reflex from him to prevent himself from getting hurt. Judging by the laws of the game, Australian fielders had full rights to appeal for the same and it did pay off for them but may be sometimes a few things have to be let off for just to keep the spirit of the game and its gentleness intact.