Jump to content

Yusuf Pathan obstructing the field


Texan

Yusuf Pathan obstructing the field  

  1. 1.



Recommended Posts

Did Yusuf Pathan get a fair trial? He was given out obstructing the field, but there was much more the umpire would have had to consider while making the decision than Yusuf kicking the ball. The interpretation of Law 37, which deals with obstructing the field, by third umpire Vineet Kulkarni probably dealt the killer blow to Kolkata Knight Riders' IPL season. Yusuf Pathan had made his first fifty in three seasons for Knight Riders when he was ruled to have obstructed the field by kicking the ball away and was given out with his side needing 23 off 13. This was a huge decision. Allan Donald, the Pune Warriors coach, said it won his side the game. It was arguably also the moment that extinguished the defending champions' slim hope of making the playoffs. This was an unusual situation, in that it required the umpire to interpret two laws - Law 37, in Yusuf's case, and before that, Law 42.5, on deliberate distraction or obstruction of the batsman, in Wayne Parnell's case. Assuming that umpire Kulkarni considered the provisions of both laws, he ruled in Parnell's favour on the first occasion and against Yusuf on the second. Yusuf had pushed a yorker down the pitch and was trying to take a single. In an attempt to get to the ball, Parnell ran across, almost into Yusuf's path. As he approached the batsman, Parnell stuck both his hands out and in the process, touched Yusuf. Was that an attempt to deliberately obstruct Yusuf? Or was it just a reflex action in response to a possible collision? It did affect Yusuf, in that it slowed him down. Did it distract him enough for him to inadvertently kick the ball away? In Parnell's favour, his eyes were throughout on the ball, and not on the batsman, as he ran across. What the umpire had to decide was whether the outstretching of the hands constituted a deliberate obstruction. We have to assume he decided it wasn't, or else, a dead ball would have been called and Yusuf's case would not have been taken up. In Yusuf's favour, his eyes did not seem to be on the ball when he kicked it away, something one would usually do when one intends to kick an object. His team-mate Ryan ten Doeschate pointed out the same. "We get into trouble if we comment on any umpiring decision. They seem to make the decision and that is where they draw a line under it," ten Doeschate said. "We are very disappointed by the decision in the change room. The one thing you need to look at is where Yusuf's eyes are. And he is not looking at the ball, which makes it very hard for him to know where the ball exactly is. So if the umpire is saying he has kicked the ball, he has to know where the ball is. All I can say is, we are pretty disappointed with the way he got out." What could have gone against Yusuf is the manner in which he kicked the ball. You run with straight feet and if the ball happened to roll in his path, it would have meant a straight, involuntary kick. But Yusuf 's foot was angled at the point of impact, like a footballer's is. Now that, standalone, suggests intention. But was it instead an involuntary follow-up to his slowing down, which was a result of Parnell's hand movements? The umpire did not think there was a link. It is the umpire's call whether obstruction, by batsman or fielder, is deliberate. After assuming that he absolved Parnell on that account, he was within his rights to rule against Yusuf. He probably placed more emphasis on the angle of Yusuf's kick than his eyes not being on the ball, though one cannot conclude that was reasonable proof beyond doubt. Donald said the umpire got it right. "When you see it from the side, it looked a bit innocuous," Donald said. "When I looked at it on the replay, it was clearly an attempt to nudge the ball away. I think the intent of Yusuf Pathan was to actually kick the ball away and I think that rule is a big lesson for any cricketer when you think that you can either get in the way of the thrower or maybe just get a boot on it, whether it is intentional or not. When I watched it, it was a good decision by the third umpire. It was spot-on, and ultimately, that won us the game, but not clear thinking on his [Yusuf's] part, I reckon." This is what Parnell tweeted. "Just to clear the air regarding Pathan incident. I didn't give him out, the third umpire did. I play the game hard but I play it fair." One can only assume umpire Kulkarni gave Parnell and Yusuf a fair trial.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2013/content/story/636108.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny' date=' I didn't even notice the non-striker until you mentioned it.[/quote'] Non striker is the reason why he kicked the ball. I also noticed that later. Non striker would certainly have been out had Parnell got hold of the ball. He was almost full distance away from the other end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non striker is the reason why he kicked the ball. I also noticed that later. Non striker would certainly have been out had Parnell got hold of the ball. He was almost full distance away from the other end.
Actually, I think he kicked it because he thought he will get run out himself because non-striker would easily make it back. Pretty sure non-striker would have sacrificed his wicket in that case, but in the heat of the moment, Yusuf felt it best to kick the ball away to avoid himself getting run-out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Parnell was pushing him' date=' he took the chance and deliberately kicked the ball and then pretended like he only stumbled that way b/c the bowler pushed him.[/quote'] Had he kicked it using the toe end of his shoes, he might have even got away. But kicking it with an angled foot made it an easy decision for the umpire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep that was pretty deliberate. Pathan kicked the ball to save himself cos he saw the non-striker backing up. If you look closely the non striker only committed to the run only after Pathan kicked the ball. At 25 seconds here u see the non-striker backing up. At 26 seconds only after the kick does the non-striker commit to the run [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsecWLfQypg]Yusuf Pathan Obstructing the field (no audio) - YouTube[/ame] But seriously Pathan was tryin to win the game and some retarded non-striker was trying to guard his wicket? When Pathan on song is 3/4ths down the wicket if your a nobody you fecking RUN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Pathan did was deliberate' date=' but the decision should have been not out and 5 runs awarded to the batting side because the ball should have been called dead after what Parnell did, which was equally deliberate.[/quote'] this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looked deliberate' date=' but there's an angle which shows his face while kicking the ball and its obvious he's focused on his partner, not the ball[/quote'] If you have ever played football, you will know its easy to know where the ball is without looking down at all times, you will hardly see footballers looking down at the ball at all times. The part of his foot he hit the ball with is where footballers kick balls, if it was an accident, the ball would have hit the front of his leg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have ever played football' date=' you will know its easy to know where the ball is without looking down at all times, you will hardly see footballers looking down at the ball at all times. The part of his foot he hit the ball with is where footballers kick balls, if it was an accident, the ball would have hit the front of his leg[/quote'] Understandable, but Yusuf isn't a footballer, a cricket ball is a lot smaller and less likely to be seen. In that situation your running is also affected by your partner, you could stutter if he doesn't move. Also Parnell was pulling on his arm at the time.. Difficult to tell for sure honestly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understandable, but Yusuf isn't a footballer, a cricket ball is a lot smaller and less likely to be seen. In that situation your running is also affected by your partner, you could stutter if he doesn't move. Also Parnell was pulling on his arm at the time.. Difficult to tell for sure honestly
Yeah, its possible, but its still possible where the ball is before trying to kick it. What confirms it for me is how his foot hit the ball, that's only possible if he was kicking, his legs were straight till then and then he deliberately kicked out
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...