Definition
Law 37 of the Laws of cricket provides that:
Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully obstructs or distracts the opposing side by word or action. It shall be regarded as obstruction if either batsman wilfully, and without the consent of the fielding side, strikes the ball with his bat or person, other than a hand not holding the bat, after the ball has touched a fielder.If the obstruction is accidental, then it is not wilful, and so the batsman cannot be given out Obstructing the field.
Paragraph 3 of the Law provides that:
The striker is out should wilful obstruction or distraction by either batsman prevent a catch being made. This shall apply even though the striker causes the obstruction in lawfully guarding his wicket under the provisions of Law 34.3 (Ball lawfully struck more than once).This predecessor of this part of Law 37 was in point for the only such dismissal in Test match cricket. Len Hutton, was playing for England against South Africa in 1951 at the Oval when the ball hit his bat handle and popped up. As the ball came down toward his stumps, he hit it away, obstructing the wicketkeeper Russell Endean from taking the catch. Coincidentally, Russell Endean was the first man given out handled the ball in a Test match.
Read more about this topic: Obstructing The Field
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“According to our social pyramid, all men who feel displaced racially, culturally, and/or because of economic hardships will turn on those whom they feel they can order and humiliate, usually women, children, and animals—just as they have been ordered and humiliated by those privileged few who are in power. However, this definition does not explain why there are privileged men who behave this way toward women.”
—Ana Castillo (b. 1953)
“... if, as women, we accept a philosophy of history that asserts that women are by definition assimilated into the male universal, that we can understand our past through a male lens—if we are unaware that women even have a history—we live our lives similarly unanchored, drifting in response to a veering wind of myth and bias.”
—Adrienne Rich (b. 1929)