Talk:Handled the ball

Untitled
>> when he inexplicably picked up the moving ball that was going nowhere near his stumps. This was quite controversial. Since Vaughan seemed to be picking the ball up to pass it back to the Indians, it is unclear why he wasn't given out 'obstructing the field'. The last line is odd. If the ball was nowhere near the stumps, and wasn't a possible catch, why should he be given obs-the-field ? Tintin 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the Laws of Cricket state that if a batsman touches the ball with his hand in an effort to return it to the fielding side, he is not out handled the ball (Law 33.2), but is out obstructing the field (Law 37.4). -dmmaus 01:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was under the impression it is o-t-f only if the batsman was in danger of getting out. Tintin 02:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Should the incident mentioned in this article be mentioned in the list? 58.96.101.222 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)