by Peter Vincent
Saturday, December 22, 2001

Several e-mails have challenged the view that India's action in appealing against Michael Vaughan was unsporting by referring to what they believe were similar transgressions by England, notably the bump-ball catch against Sanath Jayasuriya last winter.

Although England are not entirely innocent of actions that stretch the spirit of the game, that particular incident is an ill-chosen example. I don't think any England fielder, and particularly Graham Thorpe who pulled off a staggering take, had a clear view that it was a bump ball.

Another correspondent cites Ashley Giles not walking in the present match when caught off bat and boot and given not out. Well, neither did Shiv Sunder Das when caught off pad and bat having scored 11.

I don't think it does anyone any good to fling this mud about. Personally, I feel that India were mildly unsporting, but I also don't seriously expect any team to give up an advantage conferred by the foolishness of an opposing batsman. By the way, it was not just the bowler that appealed, as has been asserted; Deep Dasgupta did also.

While flinging mud, one correspondent delved back into the past to point out that Sir Leonard Hutton is the only batsman to have been given out in a Test for obstructing the field. In fact, this particular incident was as the result of an instinctive reaction by Sir Leonard and does not call his sportsmanship into question. The question I would raise is, should he still be the only batsman to have been dismissed in this way in a Test?

Law 32, Handled The Ball, states in part 2 (ii) that a batsman will not be out under this law if "he uses his hand or hands to return the ball to any member of the fielding side without the consent of that side".

However, attention is then drawn to Law 37, Obstructing The Field, part 4 of which states: "Either batsman is out under this Law if, without the consent of the fielding side and while the ball is in play, he uses his bat or person to return the ball to any member of that side."

As this is what Vaughan was doing, should it not have been this Law under which he was given out?

Peter Vincent is a freelance writer, proofreader and editor, living in London. His love of cricket dates from seeing Graham Gooch's 154* at Headingley in 1991 and he has been "pretty much obsessed with the game ever since".

Punter's Point is the weekly column that is written by a Wisden reader. It should be an opinion piece of up to 500 words on the subject of your choice, topical or otherwise. Please send it to feedback@wisden.com, giving your phone numbers and a postal address. The best piece to arrive by 4pm Friday (BST) will be published on Wisden.com the next day. Wisden reserves the right to edit the pieces.

More Punter's Points
An ego-less focus

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd