Australia batter Marnus Labuschagne survived an appeal for obstruction during his century in the One-Day Cup on Wednesday (September 17).
Marnus Labuschagne survives obstruction appeal in Australia One-Day Cup
Labuschagne was leading the Queensland team that took on Victoria in the One-Day Cup on Wednesday, and found himself in the middle of a controversy. Having arrived at the crease in the third over after Jimmy Peirson was dismissed, he put on 62 with Jack Clayton before the opener was bowled by Glenn Maxwell.
Match 2, Queensland vs Victoria
vs
- Ball by ball Over
In the 23rd over, Labuschagne played a forward defence to a delivery from pace bowler Harry Dixon. With his eyes still on the ball as it lay stationary just in front of him, the batter did not notice non-striker Matt Renshaw charging down the wicket in pursuit of a quick single.
Labuschagne used his bat in an attempt to retrieve the ball, but then appeared to start off on a run as he noticed Renshaw coming down the wicket. Dixon then reached the ball and picked it up even as Renshaw turned and scampered back to the bowler's end.
The bowler did not shy at the stumps, and raised his hands apparently in frustration, gesturing to the umpires that Labuschagne had interfered as he tried to reach it. Officials Donovan Koch and Riki Wessels conferred briefly conferred in the middle, before allowing play to continue, with Labuschagne ruled not out.
He went on to score 130, powering Queensland to 310-5 before they eventually secured a 55-run win.
What do the Laws say about the appeal against Labuschagne?
According to sections 37.1.1 and 37.1.2 of the Laws of the Game, "Either batter is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, and while the ball is in play, he/she wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.
"The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, he/she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat. This will apply whether it is the first strike or a second or subsequent strike. The act of receiving the ball shall extend both to playing at the ball and to striking the ball more than once in defence of his/her wicket."
Note: 37.2 states that the striker may be ruled not out if the obstruction is made in order to avoid injury, or to guard their wicket lawfully.
In this case, the umpires ruled that Labuschagne did not wilfully obstruct or distract the fielding side, potentially because he was not aware that his partner had set off for a run.
However, a case for his dismissal could also be made using Law 37.4, which states: "Either batter 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."
Even if Labuschagne was not wilfully obstructing the fielding side, his attempt to collect the ball was most likely in order to return it to the bowler (it was fairly clear that there was no imminent danger to his stumps).
It cannot be said for sure, but the umpires perhaps neglected to rule Labuschagne out on these grounds as he did not actually complete the action of returning the ball to a fielder without their permission.
Follow Wisden for all cricket updates, including live scores, match stats, quizzes and more. Stay up to date with the latest cricket news, player updates, team standings, match highlights, video analysis and live match odds.
