The Sheffield Shield nearly descended into a spirit of the game debate as the umpires chose not to give New South Wales’ Chris Green out for obstructing the field after using his bat to block a run-out.
Green was facing WA’s Charlie Stobo at the WACA when he blocked a delivery right back to the bowler, Stobo then quickly throwing the ball back at Green’s stumps as the NSW batter was out of his crease.
With the ball heading for Green’s legs, he used his bat to block it from hitting him, with WA then seeming to ask the question of the umpires as to whether that was against the rules.
Watch India v England LIVE and Exclusive to Fox Sports available on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start Your Free Trial Today >
Under the laws of cricket, it appears Green should have been given out obstructing the field. Yet the umpires discussed the act and did not give it out.
“Played that twice, Green. There’s a couple of little queries here from the West Australians about hitting the ball twice,” one of the commentators said.
“He’s half a step outside the crease so probably strictly speaking, he is out obstructing the field if he’s using his bat to defend his stumps when he’s standing out of his crease.
“It’s interesting the umpies have decided not to give it out – Sam Whiteman wasn’t interested in withdrawing the appeal.”
But another said: “You can’t. Don’t appeal that … don’t start this.
“Don’t stoop to this.
“I don’t think there was any chance it was gonna hit the stumps, because it was gonna cannon into his pads.”
The first replied: “He didn’t actually need to put his bat in the way, because it was gonna hit the pads, and that wouldn’t have been out because he was just standing his ground.
“You don’t have to jump out of the way if they’re throwing it at the stumps but probably not needing to play it with the bat.”
WA coach Adam Voges said at stumps he had asked for an explanation for the decision.
“I’m waiting to hear from the match referee as to what the interpretation was. I’ve asked the question, I just haven’t got an answer yet,” Voges said.
He added: “He’s hit the ball out of his crease.”
Mathews dismissed in bizarre scenes | 00:23
NSW’s Moises Henriques, who was batting with Green when the incident occurred and was controversially given out via catch just short of a century not long after – despite not appearing to make contact with the ball – did not criticise WA for appealing.
“I’d turned around for the actual event but he said the ball was just gonna hit him in the legs if he didn’t put the bat there, so I’m not really sure what else he’s supposed to do there,” Henriques told reporters.
“They’re well within their rights to ask their question and that’s up to the umpire as what they decide to do. I can’t blame them for asking the question.
“I think the right decision was made but yeah, you’re allowed to appeal.”
Rule 37.1.1 of the laws of cricket reads: Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, and while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).
37.1.2 adds: The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, he/she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat. This will apply whether it is the first strike or a second or subsequent strike. The act of receiving the ball shall extend both to playing at the ball and to striking the ball more than once in defence of his/her wicket.
The incident comes less than 24 hours after an English player was given out for obstructing the field during the Under-19 World Cup, after picking up a dead ball to hand it to the wicketkeeper.
Discussion about this post