KNOW YOUR LAWS: Cricket world in a spin after 'obstructing the field' dismissal

Michael Holding called it a disgrace.So did Shaun Pollock.

My understanding (from blokes who can bowl) is that, if a batsman picks up the ball with perspiration on his gloves it can counteract the work they have put on the ball. So, I wouldn't be too quick to condemn the West Indies players - maybe they could have complained to the umpire and made a point of the batsman's action - without actually appealing. I expect this guy has learnt his lesson.

It's not disgraceful. What is disgraceful is this silly notion that you can't do something that's within the rules because it's not according to the "spirit of cricket". Either it's legal or it's not. If the rule is that controversial either tighten it up or get rid of it altogether. The stink kicked up over a Mankad is even worse. The batsman is basically cheating by walking metres out of their crease during the bowler's run up and yet the bowler get's labelled as being unsportsmanlike if they mankad the batsman? Come on.

It's one of those ones that once the player actually appeals for it, and doesn't withdraw the appeal, the umpires have no choice but to give it out. Most wouldn't appeal for that though. But that being said, if you are the batsman, DON'T PICK UP THE BALL! Leave it for the fielding team. It's not yours to pick up. You defend your stumps, then leave it for them. I know some people like to do it feeling that in doing so they are just being nice, but it's not worth it, just leave it for the fielding team.

Rules are rules! Get it taken out of laws of cricket so its not a rule.

If the West Indian who appealed thought the ball was still moving, I'd agree with you, especially given how close it was to the stumps. It appears from the video to have stopped, just, but a close thing and the keeper could have thought it was still moving. If on the other hand he could see it had stopped and that the batsman was well in control of the situation (in his crease, steadily balanced, not about to swipe at the ball to keep it from the stumps etc) seems pretty ordinary. In that it is more clearly technically out, yes less controversial that the Ross dismissal. I've also never understood what was wrong with the mankad - especially with the requirements as they are now. Incidentally, does this mean you can no longer be out "handled the ball"? According to Cricinfo, 7 instances of that dismissal in tests against only 1 obstructing the field so far (Len Hutton Eng v SA in England [so English umpires] in 1951 - Cricinfo's match notes say: •L Hutton became the first batsman to be dismissed obstructing the field in Tests. After top edging a ball, he played at it a second time to defend it from hitting the stumps, but in the process prevented the wicket-keeper WR Endean from taking a catch .

But the saying absolutely applies here. Look you're right he shouldn't have picked it up, but ill disagree on your analogy. Mankadding a batsman differs because this situation he wasn't trying to use it to his advantage. No run or wicket was being attempted, he simply threw it back to the keeper as a gesture. Any common sense sportsmanship decision would've seen this be not out. With the Alex Ross dismissal in mind, you might've heard Baz McCullum post match. His view was that George Bailey missed an opportunity to uphold the sportsmanship of the game, and again same applies here. It is one hundred percent out, but any player with a shred of decency would've recalled this low blow of a decision.

There is a fantastic relationship between West Indies cricket and South African cricket in general . This is not in the spirit of that friendship and can only harm it.

It may be within the rules, but it's disgraceful sportsmanship. First it was mankad a couple of years ago and now this. The West Indies kids need to be taught what 'spirit of cricket' means.

I'm going to the be the contrarian on this one and say that the West Indies were well within their right to appeal on this one. The ball was live. A ball is only dead when in possession of the fielders. The usage of the term "spirit of cricket" is much abused nowadays. The 'spirit' is so overwhelmingly in favour of batsman to begin with. It's similar to people wheeling it out whenever a bowler wants to mankad a player who's deliberately backed up way too far. Don't touch the ball. That's what the fielders are for. In my mind, this is nowhere near as controversial as Alex Ross' obstructing the field dismissal in the BBL last week.

There is nothing in the laws to say the ball is dead here. Fielding team still considers it in play and a 'stopped ball' means nothing. Correct decision according to the laws. Having said that, to appeal for this is terrible sportsmanship.

Incredibly poor sportsmanship and makes a mockery of the spirit of cricket. Should be suspended for being a right goose.

technically out but what a rubbish bloke appealing that.