Obstructing the field?

[shahid6995]

So in the last India Pakistan series Inzimam stops with his bat a throw from the Indian bowler (was it Sreesanth?) going right towards his body, they appeal and he is given out obstructing the field....

Hayden today stops an exactly similar throw from the bowler Anderson and calmly deflects it to fine leg... no one even appeals....

Both throws were missing the stumps easily..

Whats the difference?? Does this say more about the Indian team ethics, the England sense of fair play or the rules being stupid?

I believe if England had appealed the umpire would have been obligated to give him out, no?

 

[Dare]

u forget that Inzi was given out the same way when England toured Pak last time, Harmison threw the ball at him and he was given out.

 

[aussie1st]

If a ball is thrown at the batsmen he should be allowed to defend himself so for me it should be not out. It's not like hes been given an extra run or stopped a run out.

 

[shahid6995]

u forget that Inzi was given out the same way when England toured Pak last time, Harmison threw the ball at him and he was given out.

At least there the ball hit the stumps, Inzi was evading the ball and the umpires were just having a brain fart. Everyone more or less agrees that was the umpires fault, the rule was interpreted wrongly.

Don't see what was different between the two occasions I mentioned.

 

[Ponting_14]

So in the last India Pakistan series Inzimam stops with his bat a throw from the Indian bowler (was it Sreesanth?) going right towards his body, they appeal and he is given out obstructing the field....

Didn't something like that happen in 2005 when he was playing England?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Actually, the ball was on course for the stumps. And it was Raina, the fielder, who lobbed it over trying to give it to the keeper.

 

[puddleduck]

Didn't something like that happen in 2005 when he was playing England?

Try reading the post all of about 5 cm's above yours

I think being in or out of the crease has something to do with it, Hayden was in his crease so was perfectly in his right to hit the ball away, especially since it was going towards him!

And yes Inzy was unlucky against England, there was basically a break down in communication between the on field umpires and the third umpire.

 

[nightprowler10]

I found it hilarious that the poor guy was given out when he evaded AND when he just blocked it. Gotta feel for him.

 

[The Spin]

With the occurance against India, it was because Inzi was out of his crease when he hit it back. I haven't seen the Hayden one though

 

[sohum]

If we treat this as any other form of dismissal, the umpires cannot give it out unless there is an appeal. For example, in the Ind-Rsa series currently going on, the South Africans have gotten a few wickets caught behind where the batsmen haven't hit the ball. Now, if the Indians don't appeal in similar situations, it is only up to speculation to decide how the umpire would decide and why the Indians did not appeal.

 

[Gunner786]

the difference is team ethics
that ball was no way headed for the stumps and inzi could only defend it
but the 2005 evading act was just a digusting decision by the 3rd umpire,

 

[Dr.Cricket]

the difference is team ethics

Exactly... and also another word many players now days know
absolutely nothing about - Respect.

Considering few respect Inzi anymore (with good reason),
it's no wonder they appealed.