[VIDEO] Controversial decision in U19 World Cup - Batsman given out after picking up stationary ball

[Abdullah719]

http://www.cricbuzz.com/live-cricke...5th-match-group-a-icc-under-19-world-cup-2018

16.4 Jarion Hoyte to Jiveshan Pillay, out Obstructing the field!! Slashes at a wide one and almost chops it back onto the stumps. The ball takes the inside edge, deflects off the pad and rolls tantalizingly close to the off-stump. Looks like the keeper has made an appeal on 'handling the ball to the umpire.' To be fair, Pillay collected the ball once it stopped rolling and tossed it back to Stewart, who appealed to the umpire. The ball was still when he gathered it. Can't believe the Windies, of all teams, have appealed for this. The on-field umpires get together and refer it upstairs as the players wait in anticipation. It 'could be obstructing the field as well,' as my colleague Akshay points out, It has been four minutes 30 seconds thus far and we are still waiting for some substance from the TV umpire. On air commentators Tom Moody and Anjum Chopra aren't pleased one bit with it, and guess what we have a decision and it is not a desirable verdict. Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. This is such a shame to the spirit of cricket. Obstructing the field: Rule 37.4. Go, figure. Jiveshan Pillay obs 47(51) [4s-5 6s-2]

This is what rule 37.4 states: "Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and without the consent of a fielder, he uses his bat or any part of his person, including a hand not holding the bat, to return the ball to any fielder."

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/weg6c/vznlel" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

 

[shah_1]

This is NOT OUT for me

 

[DHONI_FAN]

Very poor from West Indies. They did something similar in the final of last u19 WC too.

 

[navin]

This is NOT OUT for me

this would be not out for anyone

 

[Madplayer]

WI u19 team has shown extremely poor sportsmanship spirit in last 2 u19 world cups.

 

[SensiblePakFan]

last year was legal, this however.........

 

[CanadianG00se]

Windies re most despicable team in cricket world. Im really happy their senior team is borderline minnows and are made to play qualifiers. They are pathetic in every sense......Wish they just dont qualify for WC and instead Ireland/Afg/Zim qualifies. Absolutely hate Windies....

 

[giri26]

Poor by west Indies young players.

 

[Alter_Ego]

Blame the Illiterate third umpire

 

[Protea Fan]

Awful gesture from WI captain,that was harsh the batsman had no intention to obstruct their

 

[kingusama92]

Blame the Illiterate third umpire

He has to follow the laws of the game. It was out.

But this is on the WI players and is a really dumb thing to do. All the batsman did was try to save the keeper a bit of time and instead they're appealing.

Truly unsportsmanlike.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

One of the all-time poor appeals from the WI, well and truly against the spirit of the game. The old WI's team players must be watching this and wondering, WTH is going on?!

Don't know what they are teaching these younger kids, but cricket should definitely not be played this way.

Last year the match against Zimbabwe also had a similar controversy (another pathetic gesture by the WI U19 team). Can't be coincident that the same team is involved again? Albeit this to me, actually is worse than that incident.

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MUST WATCH &#55357;&#56384;<br><br>One of the most bizarre dismissals you will ever see as Pillay is given out for obstruction.<br><br> <a href="https://t.co/zoapdDHrkj">https://t.co/zoapdDHrkj</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/U19CWC?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#U19CWC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WIvSA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WIvSA</a> <a href="https://t.co/X6f7XIuQ4S">pic.twitter.com/X6f7XIuQ4S</a></p>— ICC (@ICC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ICC/status/953459906140454912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Convict]

You get taught as a kid to not touch the ball ever while batting but you also (hopefully) get raised to not appeal in these circumstances.

Yes its a learning experience for Pillay but I think its the Windies Captain here who has the most to learn.

 

[Kohli The King of Chase]

Who's the 3rd umpire.

 

[R3verse Swing]

It's out of the ball is still in motion.

Not-out if the ball is stationary.

 

[Mr.Q]

You get taught as a kid to not touch the ball ever while batting but you also (hopefully) get raised to not appeal in these circumstances.

Yes its a learning experience for Pillay but I think its the Windies Captain here who has the most to learn.

Oho... so that's why they invented the ap?

Anyways, I think this is a new law. I mean this permission clause. Or was it there before? Once the ball is out of play you can take it without the permission of any fielder. That's what we were told!

 

[Space Cat]

Windies captain just said he would withdraw the appeal if happened again. I think hes a bit guilty but fair play for admitting he perhaps did the wrong thing.

 

[hadi123]

Awful sportsmanship, don't care what the rule is. West Indies still lost though, so this won't make as much difference as their infamous Mankad did in the last tournament.

 

[hadi123]

South Africa U19s coach Lawrence Mahatlane has said that he and his team have no qualms with the decision of West Indies captain Emmanuel Stewart to appeal or the umpires to give Jiveshan Pillay out obstructing the field during the Group A clash at Tauranga.

It's a moment that has generated plenty of discussion and debate, but it all started very innocuously. South African opener Jiveshan Pillay inside-edged onto his pad, watched the ball roll towards his stumps, before picking it up after it became motionless and lobbing it to West Indian keeper and captain Emmanuel Stewart.

It was at this point however that the controversy occurred, the West Indies skipper appealing for an 'obstructing the field' decision. The umpires conferred and Jiveshan Pillay was given out.

Within the letter of the law, the decision reached seems to be the correct one; law 37.4 stats "Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and,without the consent of a fielder, he uses the bat or any part of his person to return the ball to any fielder."

For South African coach Lawrence Mahatlane, that is the beginning and end of the matter. "Our take is very simple," he said after the end of the innings. "We play to the laws of the game, and it's part of the laws. It's happened so hopefully we'll learn for a long time from it."

https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/596679

 

[Fantasy]

WI u19 team has shown extremely poor sportsmanship spirit in last 2 u19 world cups.

I think this decision is an absolute joke and this should've never happened but hopefully they can learn from this experience and as somebody has said that the captain accepted the mistake and said that he won't be doing this again so that is a good thing.

But how is mankading against the spirit of game? Care to explain? Why is batsman out of his crease? He is trying to take an unfair advantage and if he is mankaded that is his own fault. If a bowler bowls a ball an inch over the line that is a no ball but batsman taking an unfair advantage is considered fine.

 

[Madplayer]

I think this decision is an absolute joke and this should've never happened but hopefully they can learn from this experience and as somebody has said that the captain accepted the mistake and said that he won't be doing this again so that is a good thing.

But how is mankading against the spirit of game? Care to explain? Why is batsman out of his crease? He is trying to take an unfair advantage and if he is mankaded that is his own fault. If a bowler bowls a ball an inch over the line that is a no ball but batsman taking an unfair advantage is considered fine.

Its generally considered to be against the spirit of the game if the bowler doesnt warn the batsman at the non-striker's end at least once before mankading him. If he sees the batsman out of his crease, just dont bowl that ball and warn him. Ofcourse he can run him out without warning but it would be considered against the spirit of the game by most people. Whether it should be or not is another discussion.

 

[Monsee]

South Africa U19s coach Lawrence Mahatlane has said that he and his team have no qualms with the decision of West Indies captain Emmanuel Stewart to appeal or the umpires to give Jiveshan Pillay out obstructing the field during the Group A clash at Tauranga.

It's a moment that has generated plenty of discussion and debate, but it all started very innocuously. South African opener Jiveshan Pillay inside-edged onto his pad, watched the ball roll towards his stumps, before picking it up after it became motionless and lobbing it to West Indian keeper and captain Emmanuel Stewart.

It was at this point however that the controversy occurred, the West Indies skipper appealing for an 'obstructing the field' decision. The umpires conferred and Jiveshan Pillay was given out.

Within the letter of the law, the decision reached seems to be the correct one; law 37.4 stats "Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and,without the consent of a fielder, he uses the bat or any part of his person to return the ball to any fielder."

For South African coach Lawrence Mahatlane, that is the beginning and end of the matter. "Our take is very simple," he said after the end of the innings. "We play to the laws of the game, and it's part of the laws. It's happened so hopefully we'll learn for a long time from it."

https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/596679

Would have been interesting to see what their reaction (s) would be if they had lost the game from there on!

Extremely poor, rude, and idiotic spirit shown by the keeper and rest of the team in upholding the appeal

 

[Abdullah719]

Windies teen regrets obstruction appeal

The West Indies Under 19 captain who appealed for a controversial obstructing the field dismissal in a World Cup match has backtracked and said he did not act in the "spirit of the game".

Wicketkeeper-batsman Emmanuel Stewart appealed to umpires during the U19 World Cup match against South Africa on Wednesday after batsman Jiveshan Pillay picked up the motionless ball and threw it to the West Indies captain.

The left-handed Pillay, who had raced to 47 in the 17th over, had inside-edged a delivery back onto his pads and reacted quickly and moved to stop the ball rolling onto his stumps. However the ball missed the stumps and came to a stop, before Pillay picked it up and threw it at Stewart, who immediately appealed to the umpire.

After some discussion, the umpires upheld the appeal – as they were obliged to do under Law 37.4.

Law 37.4 (Returning the ball to a fielder) reads: Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and, without the consent of a fielder, he/she uses the bat or any part of his/her person to return the ball to any fielder.

"I asked the question and it was given out based on the laws and the rules of the game," Windies captain Stewart said after the match.

"But on reflection it wasn't in the spirit of the game. I think moving forward I would have withdrawn the appeal."

The Proteas U19 coach Lawrence Mahatlane said: "Our take is very simple. We play to the laws of the game, and it's part of the laws. It's happened so hopefully we'll learn for a long time from it."

Stewart, the Windies No.3, was given a fierce send-off from South Africa's Hermann Rolfes after he was bowled for 2 from 17 balls as South Africa U19s recorded a 76-run win.

The West Indies drew the backing of former Australia fast bowler Mitchell Johnson, who was a near lone voice in support of the highly-contentious decision.

"It's in the rule book so fair play," Johnson wrote on Twitter. "Follow the rules, that's the spirit of the game right?

"It's pretty simple, follow the rules, batsman shouldn't pick up the ball he isn't fielding."

Johnson added that he "can't stand it" when batters touch the ball, but did concede he would probably "give a warning first" before considering an appeal for obstruction.

Johnson took particular umbrage with South Africa captain Faf du Plessis, who tweeted the decision was an "absolute joke" and he had thrown the ball to a fielder many times previously.

"Maybe you should stop doing it," Johnson replied on Twitter.

"Whether we like or not, it's law in the game. As for spirit of the game, the players didn't do anything wrong right? #healthydebate"

The exchange harks back to the thrilling Cape Town deciding Test on Australia's last visit to South Africa in early 2014.

There, du Plessis picked up the ball in the 34th over and threw it to Johnson, who was irate.

"They are pretty aggressive about that ball," du Plessis said at the time. "I thought I was just being a nice guy picking the ball up, saving their legs in the field.

"But they run like a pack of dogs around you when you get close to that ball. Whatever, that is probably the way they play their cricket. I always pick the ball up, it means nothing."

Former Australia wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist, who was one of the few players to walk off without waiting for an umpire's verdict if he knew he was out, joined the chorus of condemnation for the West Indies U19s.

Former West Indies fast bowler Ian Bishop called for the law to be revisited.

"It's not a law that I think is appropriate and I think we can have another look at it," said Bishop, who was commentating on the match.

"Because the ball had stopped. The batsman was not trying to gain an unfair advantage.

"The umpires must follow the law – there is no out or opinion for them, there is an appeal, they must follow the law, so I think the law itself must be looked at."

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/west...et-faf-du-plessis-mitchell-johnson/2018-01-17

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is a absolute joke...not in the spirit of the game .I have done this almost a 100 times. <a href="https://t.co/nX0KUJ9PI4">https://t.co/nX0KUJ9PI4</a></p>— Faf Du Plessis (@faf1307) <a href="https://twitter.com/faf1307/status/953516294174904321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Maybe you should stop doing it. Whether we like or not, it’s law in the game. As for spirit of the game, the players didn’t do anything wrong right? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/healthydebate?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#healthydebate</a></p>— Mitchell Johnson (@MitchJohnson398) <a href="https://twitter.com/MitchJohnson398/status/953518763025969152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

On Wednesday morning, in the ICC U19 World Cup, Jiveshan Pillay was given out Obstructing the field.

The dismissal has sparked controversy and debate online and around the world, and so MCC feels it is worthy of clarification.

A video of the incident - in which the batsman, having played at the ball, waited for it to come to rest and then picked it up and threw it to the wicket-keeper.

The first thing to say is that the umpires were completely correct in their decision to give Pillay out Obstructing the field.

The Laws of Cricket are extremely clear on this matter. Law 37.4 states:

“Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if, at any time while the ball is in play and, without the consent of a fielder, he/she uses the bat or any part of his/her person to return the ball to any fielder.”

Pillay did not seek, or receive the consent from, a fielder and did use his hand to return the ball to the wicket-keeper. He was thus rightly given out on appeal.

This Law has been questioned – why should a batsman be punished for being helpful?

The reason behind it is that a fielding team will often take enormous care to maintain the condition of the ball – and they are allowed to do so. Any external influence on the ball – including a sweaty glove – could change its condition unfairly.

Batsmen are therefore, instructed to leave the ball to the fielding side unless given specific consent to pick it up. It may seem harsh, but a scenario in which batsmen could, without any punishment, interfere with the ball would be far more problematic. Instead, all a batsman needs to remember is not to return the ball to any fielder without consent – as the popular adage goes: batsmen bat, bowlers bowl and let the fielders field.

There is another matter surrounding the often misunderstood Spirit of Cricket that has arisen around this incident. Some people have questioned whether the fielding captain should have withdrawn his appeal.

Law 31.1 states:

“Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he/she may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder.”

Law 31.8 adds:

“The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only after obtaining the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls. If such consent is given, the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke the decision and recall the batsman.

The withdrawal of an appeal must be before the instant when the ball comes into play for the next delivery or, if the innings has been completed, the instant when the umpires leave the field.”

The West Indies captain, Emmanuel Stewart could, therefore, with the consent of the umpires, have withdrawn the appeal, had he wished to. Interestingly, he said after the game that, if he had the time again, he would withdraw the appeal.

Pillay made a mistake – he acted in a way not permitted under the Laws. He was correctly given out on appeal. While the opposing captain may withdraw the appeal, he should not be criticised for not doing so.

These players are young and are still learning the game. It appears that both Stewart and Pillay learnt valuable lessons on Wednesday – faced with the same situation again, both would probably act differently.

https://www.lords.org/news/our-blog...g/laws-blog-was-pillay-right-to-be-dismissed?

 

[Saurav]

Its a stupid outdated rule that needs to be atleast updated

Don't know why players are made to feel guilty about following the laws?Its a professional sport with careers at stake .I'd take advantage of every loophole I can as long as its not illegal

BTW In the video what was Pillay when he turned back while the ball was still rolling.He stopped only when he realised that's its not going to hit the stumps.Otherwise he would have swatted it .Seen countless batsmen either do that or kick the ball away and get away with it.How's that fair or even legal?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Poor by the Windies boys but they are kids.

The law is there for a very good reason, the batting team shouldn't handle the ball as the ball is the main tool of the fielding side who often work on it to help them.

In school I was taught never to pick up the ball and only to kick it if its heading towards my stumps.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Its a stupid outdated rule that needs to be atleast updated

Don't know why players are made to feel guilty about following the laws?Its a professional sport with careers at stake .I'd take advantage of every loophole I can as long as its not illegal

BTW In the video what was Pillay when he turned back while the ball was still rolling.He stopped only when he realised that's its not going to hit the stumps.Otherwise he would have swatted it .Seen countless batsmen either do that or kick the ball away and get away with it.How's that fair or even legal?

Not in this case but if the fielding side has been working the ball for reverse, the last thing they want is sweaty gloves handling the ball. Nothing wrong with the rule.

 

[Saurav]

Not in this case but if the fielding side has been working the ball for reverse, the last thing they want is sweaty gloves handling the ball. Nothing wrong with the rule.

Fair enough,then make the penalties lower like 5 extra run in such case instead of wicket

Wicket should be awarded only if the batsman did the act to try and prevent getting out.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Fair enough,then make the penalties lower like 5 extra run in such case instead of wicket

Wicket should be awarded only if the batsman did the act to try and prevent getting out.

I agree extra runs would make more sense as a first warning and if the batsmen does it again, he is out.

There are a few laws in cricket which often make little sense to people such as the bowler running out the non-striker if he takes too many steps, but again there is logic behind this. Although it's a gentlemans game, both sides should play hard but play fair, sticking to the rules of the game.

 

[Mamoon]

Very poor from the West Indies. This happens frequently in international cricket, but no one bothers to appeal for it. It is completely against the spirit of the game.