Sports News
Decision to give Jiveshan Pillay out for obstructing the field correct: MCC
Clearing the air, cricket's lawmakers, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has stated the dismissal in the Under-19 World Cup was a correct decision by the umpires.
Cricket’s obstructing the field laws came under the spotlight once again on Wednesday at the ICC U-19 World Cup after South Africa’s Jiveshan Pillay lost his wicket while returning the ball to the West Indian wicketkeeper Emmanuel Stewart in the Group A encounter. Since then the incident involving Pillay has created a lot of furor in the cricketing fraternity as the decision was questioned on social media while some former players also went to the extent of terming it as a disgrace. Clearing the air, cricket’s lawmakers, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has stated the dismissal in the Under-19 World Cup was a correct decision by the umpires.
The episode involving the Pillay saw the right-handed batsmen attempt to play a cover drive but the ball fell at his feet after getting an inside edge. However, before the ball could completely come to a standstill, the batsmen picked it up and returned it to the keeper. An appeal by the Windies resulted in Pillay being given out.
Amidst several viewpoints, the MCC, on its website on Thursday, clarified saying, “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,” it added.
“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,” it furhter adeded.
“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 Some people have questioned whether the fielding captain should have withdrawn his appeal,” it concluded.
Incidentally, Law 37.4 of the ICC also 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.”
