What's new

[VIDEO/PICTURES] D. Gunathilaka given out obstructing the field vs West Indies - Right decision?

MenInG

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
218,158
I am in 2 minds - think Pollard overreacted and the umpire shouldn't have given it out

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/93swm1" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

Mickey Arthur NOT happy!

EwIJIjjXMAchv2-


EwIJO4UXEAYLfyc


EwIJDEOXMAYRiH-
 
It is about as blatant an accident as you can possibly get. Clearly not deliberate and clearly not out.

Ridiculous decision.
 
Very poor decision. Sometimes you wonder how the ones given authority to make such decisions could go so wrong.
 
No way he is obstructing the filed, if anything he has tried his best to get away from the ball when he spotted it.

Poor umpiring, poor reaction and captaincy from Pollard.
 
No way that was obstruction.

But it seemed like the ball hit his bat again after bouncing off the ground when he played it. He could possibly have been out 'double the ball'. It would have been interesting if the third umpire had to judge that.
 
Rafa said:
Very poor decision. Sometimes you wonder how the ones given authority to make such decisions could go so wrong.
Click to expand...

Isn't it incredible how in 2021 with the replays and technology we have, how everyone who watches it can see that it is an accident and not deliberate obstruction apart from one man - the TV umpire. I mean you can show that replay to everyone on the planet and 7,851,231,228 people will say it was an accident and the 3rd umpire, whoever it is, will be literally the 1 person out of 7,851,231,229 people in the world who thinks it was deliberate obstruction.

Pathetic decision.

We can let the on field umpires off as they didn't have a replay.
 
very harsh, Pollard over reacted but still had the opportunity to withdraw his appeal.

Theres another angle which shows the batsmen look downwards a split second before back heeling the ball, which the umpire interpreted as he knew what he was doing, however in my opinion it was a very honest mistake and batsmen should have got benefit of the doubt.
 
very harsh, Pollard over reacted but still had the opportunity to withdraw his appeal.

Theres another angle which shows the batsmen look downwards a split second before back heeling the ball, which the umpire interpreted as he knew what he was doing, however in my opinion it was a very honest mistake and batsmen should have got benefit of the doubt.
 
If this is not out then I don't know what else is?

When a batsman gets out "hit wicket", does he have intentions to hit the stumps with his bat or foot? Not a million years but he gets out.

Here the batsman unintentionally kicked the ball away from Pollard. Watch the video at 2:01 and see the batsman's foot kicking the ball away from the fielder's reach. That's out!
 
Colorblind Genius said:
If this is not out then I don't know what else is?

When a batsman gets out "hit wicket", does he have intentions to hit the stumps with his bat or foot? Not a million years but he gets out.

Here the batsman unintentionally kicked the ball away from Pollard. Watch the video at 2:01 and see the batsman's foot kicking the ball away from the fielder's reach. That's out!
Click to expand...

Nice name :rahat1
 
Colorblind Genius said:
If this is not out then I don't know what else is?

When a batsman gets out "hit wicket", does he have intentions to hit the stumps with his bat or foot? Not a million years but he gets out.

Here the batsman unintentionally kicked the ball away from Pollard. Watch the video at 2:01 and see the batsman's foot kicking the ball away from the fielder's reach. That's out!
Click to expand...

Obstruction has to be deliberate, you confirmed the batsmen "unintentionally" kicked the ball away therefore it could not have been done deliberately therefore not out.
 
It was unintentional from the batsman so I dont think it falls under the obstruction of the field rule. Not a good decision I am afraid.
 
Titan24 said:
It was unintentional from the batsman so I dont think it falls under the obstruction of the field rule. Not a good decision I am afraid.
Click to expand...

There wasn't even any unintentional obstruction
 
Titan24 said:
It was unintentional from the batsman so I dont think it falls under the obstruction of the field rule. Not a good decision I am afraid.
Click to expand...

I've seen it again and it was definitely unintentional
 
Good old West Indian umpires strike again. Joel Wilson is a very poor umpire, a true successor of Billy Doctrove.
 
Colorblind Genius said:
If this is not out then I don't know what else is?

When a batsman gets out "hit wicket", does he have intentions to hit the stumps with his bat or foot? Not a million years but he gets out.

Here the batsman unintentionally kicked the ball away from Pollard. Watch the video at 2:01 and see the batsman's foot kicking the ball away from the fielder's reach. That's out!
Click to expand...

It was, as you said yourself, unintentional. Obstructing the field has to be intentional.

"Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the opposing side by word or action. "

Key word in bold.
 
Colorblind Genius said:
If this is not out then I don't know what else is?

When a batsman gets out "hit wicket", does he have intentions to hit the stumps with his bat or foot? Not a million years but he gets out.

Here the batsman unintentionally kicked the ball away from Pollard. Watch the video at 2:01 and see the batsman's foot kicking the ball away from the fielder's reach. That's out!
Click to expand...

Intentions dont apply to hit wicket or other dismissals. Intentions from batsmen only come into play when they touch the ball while running or movement between the wickets after paying the ball. There is no roam for intentions in other modes of dismissal as otherwise every kind of dismissal (Edge, bowled, hit wicket etc.) while facing the ball will count as unintentional because, no batsman ever wants to get out.

So I dont think comparison of hit wicket to the obstruction of the field is a valid one. Otherwise the lucky four off Stoke's bat in the WC 19 final when his bat hit the ball while it was heading towards stumps/keeper would have counted as the obstruction of field as well which it wasnt as it was unintentional.
 
Last edited:
Surely there isn't enough in this to give him out. There are a couple of ways of looking at it but no way it's conclusive.

1. He doesn't make contact with the ball on purpose.

2. He does step across and in front of the ball to save his partner from a run out chance and therefore also gets into a position where he ends up making contact with the ball unintentionally.

Is number 2 enough to give someone run out? I don't know and also not sure about the rules. It just comes down to interpretation I suppose. But just not enough in it for me.

That being said, how many times do we see the bowler/fielder get in the way of the runner leading to a run out? It's not too dissimilar in that the batsman made it harder for a fielder to get to the ball.
 
Colorblind Genius said:
If this is not out then I don't know what else is?

When a batsman gets out "hit wicket", does he have intentions to hit the stumps with his bat or foot? Not a million years but he gets out.

Here the batsman unintentionally kicked the ball away from Pollard. Watch the video at 2:01 and see the batsman's foot kicking the ball away from the fielder's reach. That's out!
Click to expand...

No.
 
It's a very harsh decision. No issues with Pollard appealing, his job is to take wickets not make friends.

That's on the umpire.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Don’t think that was willful at all. I wouldn’t appeal but hey &#55358;&#56631;&#55356;&#57343;*♂️&#55358;&#56631;&#55356;&#57343;*♂️</p>— Daren Sammy (@darensammy88) <a href="https://twitter.com/darensammy88/status/1369667420818968580?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 10, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Pathetic decision. He is not even looking at the ball, he doesn’t change direction. He is just trying to get back into his crease and accidentally hits the ball. What is he supposed to do? Just stand there and let Pollard get the ball? :))
 
Idiotic decision, unintentional.

Besides the batsman was like 1-2 steps away from the crease now way Pollard would have ran him out.
 
Incorrect decision That shouldve been not out

With all the replays and 2nd looks how could they get it so wrong?

Who made that decision?
 
What an atrocious and horrendous umpiring from on field as well a TV umpire.
Windies umpires are the most biased umpires of the current lot by a margin.
 
Unfortunate, but this is as close to obstruction as you will get. It's like handball penalties in football.

So the decision was correct.
 
BDfanforever said:
Unfortunate, but this is as close to obstruction as you will get. It's like handball penalties in football.

So the decision was correct.
Click to expand...

Agree, the batsman made no attempt to return to his crease and the fielder was unfairly disadvantaged giving the non striker time to regain his crease.
 
Pollard is always a huge crybaby. Always has something to whine and cry about. Thankfully Lala humbled him on our tour to WI in 2013.
 
Gilly said:
Agree, the batsman made no attempt to return to his crease and the fielder was unfairly disadvantaged giving the non striker time to regain his crease.
Click to expand...

BDfanforever said:
Unfortunate, but this is as close to obstruction as you will get. It's like handball penalties in football.

So the decision was correct.
Click to expand...

I believe he didn't touch the ball deliberately. Also, he wasn't sure where the ball was.

Benefit of doubt should've gone to the batsman.
 
sweep_shot said:
I believe he didn't touch the ball deliberately. Also, he wasn't sure where the ball was.

Benefit of doubt should've gone to the batsman.
Click to expand...

I dont think it had anything to do with touching the ball, he stood in front of the ball restricting the fielder from getting to the ball giving the non striker time to return to his crease.
 
Last edited:
Gilly said:
I dont think it had anything to do with touching the ball, he stood in front of the ball restricting the fielder from getting to the ball giving the non striker time to return to his crease.
Click to expand...

ICC laws are pretty clear, it has to be intentional
 
Umpire has no way of knowing whether it was intentional or not. But if I was Pollard, I would get mighty annoyed too. Pollard is justified in appealing and shouting as well.
I will be happy either way - Out or Not Out.
 
Indiafan said:
ICC laws are pretty clear, it has to be intentional
Click to expand...

Precisely what I said, the batsman should have turned around and returned to his crease but he chose to stand right where he would prevent the bowler from getting the ball. If he had of spun around to return to his crease and knocked the ball away that could be construed as unintentional but he stood between the fielder and the ball preventing the fielder from getting to the ball.
 
He didn't know where the ball was so he couldn't have known he was blocking the path to the ball.

In any case the third umpire clearly says it is because he 'kicked the ball away', not because he 'stood between the fielder and the ball'.

Honestly without exaggeration one of the worst umpiring decisions in the history of cricket. If this is out might as well make every ball contact post delivery out e.g. Stokes should have been out in the world cup final too.
 
Gilly said:
Precisely what I said, the batsman should have turned around and returned to his crease but he chose to stand right where he would prevent the bowler from getting the ball. If he had of spun around to return to his crease and knocked the ball away that could be construed as unintentional but he stood between the fielder and the ball preventing the fielder from getting to the ball.
Click to expand...

But the 3rd umpire deemed it out because he kicked the ball - the 3rd umpire audio confirms that he thought that the kick was intentional. Also, the batsman doesn't need make way for the fielder to get the ball. As long as he doesn't change his course to intentionally block the fielder from getting the ball, he's well within his right to stand wherever he pleases.

This was a poor decision
 
Can’t believe it. I don’t understand how with modern day technology, replays and DRS something like this has happened. Pollard overreacted and probably put pressure on his fellow West Indian umpire who gave it out on soft signal and even third umpire. Going back to the 2019 World Cup when Dharmasena gave Roy out to that howler in the semis you could see how every decision he made in the final was favoring England because of the backlash and reaction to the Roy dismissal. The Taylor dismissal in the final was also a howler and who can forget the Stokes overthrow that cost NZ the World Cup by giving 6 runs instead of 5 which would’ve meant NZ win by 1 run and no super over. Don’t need these weak hearted type umpires who are reactionary and care so much about what they might have to hear from the players or media. Umpires shouldn’t bottle under pressure. The ICC definitely need to look into this cause it clearly shows their incompetence if there’s these kind of decisions in 2021. Imagine if this was a World Cup final with a few runs needed and 1 wicket in hand. The ICC seriously needs to wake up and get a reality check.
 
Down to Pollard. He should not have appealed. Umpire had to act and he made a judgement call but why even appeal?
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“Wilful obstruction” no way was that wilful... <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/shocker?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#shocker</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WIvSL?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WIvSL</a></p>— Tom Moody (@TomMoodyCricket) <a href="https://twitter.com/TomMoodyCricket/status/1369667140505116680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 10, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Not intentional, definitely not out. Poor sportsmanship from Pollard and bad umpiring too.
 
You can see Pollard has the ball in his hand and the non-striker is still far from getting back. Instead of taking a shy at the wickets, Pollard starts complaining.

Screen Shot 2021-03-11 at 1.55.28 PM.jpg
 
Why is it that so many international cricket umpires are so bad? How many times have we watched third umpires, with the benefit of all the tech in the world, make the opposite decision to the entire rest of the world?

If a third umpire makes an error of judgment, there should be repercussions. The on-field umpires have an excuse because they have to make snap judgments without any tech, but the third umpire has no such excuse. Too many lack basic competency.
 
On field umpires giving a soft signal out was also inexplicable...
 
or was it correct decision to give him out?

At 1:40, Guna looks innocent but at 2:05 he knew where the ball was and at 2:10 it appears he did kick the ball knowingly. Its just that the entire buildup from other angles made it look it wasn't wilful but yet I am of the opinion that he was wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MenInG
[VIDEO] Incredible hitting by Logan Van Beek in Super Over versus West Indies
Replies
2
Views
1K
Major
M
MenInG
[VIDEO] Najam Sethi takes offence to a question on what's been achieved in the Asia Cup saga
Replies
69
Views
7K
Savak
Savak
MenInG
[PICTURES/VIDEO] Was Sarfaraz Ahmed given out stumped wrongly?
Replies
43
Views
6K
PakLFC
P
MenInG
[VIDEO] Shahid Afridi invites Pakistan squad to home for dinner, meet Jahangir Khan
Replies
17
Views
5K
MenInG
MenInG
MenInG
[PICTURES/VIDEO] Virat Kohli given out LBW in the 2nd Test versus Australia - Correct decision?
Replies
50
Views
5K
JattMaula
JattMaula
Back
Top