Ben Stokes has become the latest victim of what is called "obstructing the field" formally in the rule book. Law 37 in the ICC rule book states that "Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action." There are some obvious apprehensions in this first line itself. For instance, what qualifies as distracting the fielding side by word? Is it randomly muttering when the bowler is about to bowl? Is it irritating the fielders in close in positions? Is it making unwanted and avoidable gestures? What about sledging? If all of the above count as sledging, then can sledging from a batsman get him out obstructing the field? Moreover, if this does not count as sledging then what does? There are obviously a lot of unanswered questions here, but more importantly, it is about the ambiguity of this "law"
The law further justifies "wilful" by claiming that it is up to the on field umpires to decide whether any action or obstruction is wilful or not. Of course, it is like saying that the umpire decides whether a player is LBW or not, but it isn't nearly as accurate. Each and every umpire may have a different attitude about obstruction and each action may be interpreted differently by each individual. Therefore, there fails to be any clarity as to what qualifies as wilful. Moreover, there are several situations stated as to when a batsman is considered to be out such as if he passes the ball to the fielder without his consent with a "bat or any other part of the person" and if he deliberately distracts the fielder while taking a catch. Whilst one may agree that the latter is perfectly reasonable, the former happens numerous times every test match. Do the fielders not know the rules or do they also acknowledge the fact that this is completely pointless?
Now arises the big question. Why the need for obstructing the field? People mostly believe that the game of cricket is constantly tipping and favouring and batsmen. What about the laws of the game. Is hitting the ball twice a justifiable way of getting out? Or getting timed out? These laws need to be pondered upon, we can't just blatantly accept them.
Another debate arises over whether the Australians breached the 'spirit of cricket' by appealing for obstruction? First and foremost, everyone has a different perception of what the spirit of cricket really qualifies as. The most obvious definition is playing the game fairly with full integrity and respect. Some people may add giving respect to your opponents while some people may think it is about carrying forward the legacy. None of these perceptions or any others are wrong. It is just that some of them don't agree with some of the rules. The Aussies shouldn't be blamed for appealing, the ICC rule book compelled them to. It is the rule that is the controversy and the dismissal just piled on the agony. The rule clearly stated that the batsman will be adjudged not out if the the batsman is using his bat or body to avoid injury. By the looks of it, this looked the case for Stokes; which further reinstated the outrage.
Some of us may still feel that this is just a one-off decision and the rule shouldn't be altered. But, spare a thought for the fact that this was the only the 6th time in almost a 60 year old ODI history that this ever happened. That can't be a coincidence. Not only does this suggest the rarity of this mode of dismissal, but also how the game can go on without any harsh consequence if this rule is not included. This may just be a certain specified or exaggerated case but the experts certainly need to brainstorm the importance and relevance of this rule for the future.
The law further justifies "wilful" by claiming that it is up to the on field umpires to decide whether any action or obstruction is wilful or not. Of course, it is like saying that the umpire decides whether a player is LBW or not, but it isn't nearly as accurate. Each and every umpire may have a different attitude about obstruction and each action may be interpreted differently by each individual. Therefore, there fails to be any clarity as to what qualifies as wilful. Moreover, there are several situations stated as to when a batsman is considered to be out such as if he passes the ball to the fielder without his consent with a "bat or any other part of the person" and if he deliberately distracts the fielder while taking a catch. Whilst one may agree that the latter is perfectly reasonable, the former happens numerous times every test match. Do the fielders not know the rules or do they also acknowledge the fact that this is completely pointless?
Now arises the big question. Why the need for obstructing the field? People mostly believe that the game of cricket is constantly tipping and favouring and batsmen. What about the laws of the game. Is hitting the ball twice a justifiable way of getting out? Or getting timed out? These laws need to be pondered upon, we can't just blatantly accept them.
Another debate arises over whether the Australians breached the 'spirit of cricket' by appealing for obstruction? First and foremost, everyone has a different perception of what the spirit of cricket really qualifies as. The most obvious definition is playing the game fairly with full integrity and respect. Some people may add giving respect to your opponents while some people may think it is about carrying forward the legacy. None of these perceptions or any others are wrong. It is just that some of them don't agree with some of the rules. The Aussies shouldn't be blamed for appealing, the ICC rule book compelled them to. It is the rule that is the controversy and the dismissal just piled on the agony. The rule clearly stated that the batsman will be adjudged not out if the the batsman is using his bat or body to avoid injury. By the looks of it, this looked the case for Stokes; which further reinstated the outrage.
Some of us may still feel that this is just a one-off decision and the rule shouldn't be altered. But, spare a thought for the fact that this was the only the 6th time in almost a 60 year old ODI history that this ever happened. That can't be a coincidence. Not only does this suggest the rarity of this mode of dismissal, but also how the game can go on without any harsh consequence if this rule is not included. This may just be a certain specified or exaggerated case but the experts certainly need to brainstorm the importance and relevance of this rule for the future.
