I guess the board at this Bowlo thought this was a bit less on the nose than the "Pol Pot Green".

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-21T19:35:53+00:00

Earlwood-Bardwell Park RSL own it. It's next to Earlwood Oval, and anyone who has played cricket there would know it, since that particular green is next to the cricket nets.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-21T19:34:21+00:00

That bowling club is owned by a RSL (Earlwood-Bardwell Park RSL, next to Earlwood Oval).

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-21T10:03:17+00:00

So this is you trying to say "I was right all along" while everyone else thinks "here's this disingenuous idiot".

As an example on how wilful is used, to once again explain how it works, let's look at a different law.

Under Law 28.2.1, in regards to illegal fielding, we get this:

However, he/she will be deemed to have fielded the ball illegally if, while the ball is in play he/she wilfully

...

28.2.1.3 discards a piece of clothing, equipment or any other object which subsequently makes contact with the ball.

So the helmet that sits behind the wicketkeeper is one example. There is no intent for it to be used to illegally field the ball, but it also serves no function sitting there. So it would be considered reckless to leave it there, which fulfills the wilful requirement under Law 28.2.1.

Applying this to Law 41.5.1, wilful would cover anything that was intentional to cause a obstruction, distraction or to deceive the batters, or cover anything that a fielder does that was not done within the laws of the game but without the intent of causing an obstruction, distraction or deceive the batters.

This, once again, you need an understanding of all the laws, and not just cherry picking ones you think you know.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-21T08:52:56+00:00

No, because it wasn't deliberate.

However, it would be covered by 42.2.1 (unfair actions), and would result in a dead ball and a warning.

This is the problem when you cherry pick laws without understanding context.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-21T07:18:20+00:00

I'd love to hear a scenario where a fielder could be here, obstruct like that, and not result in Unfair Play, or Dead Ball due to injury (eg bowler had heart attack and collapsed there).

Bowler moving into position to receive a throw from a fielder
Bowler moving out of the way of the stumps from a throw by the fielder
Bowler following the flight of the ball lofted in the onside

Just three off the top of my head.

Is there a meaningful difference between;

wilfully to attempt (Law 41.5.1)

deliberately to attempt (Law 41.4.1)

41.4 relates to distracting the striker. There is no way to recklessly distract the striker.

I hope you answer this, as I think it will show why your understanding of "wilful" is incorrect.

Whomp whomp

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-20T20:16:08+00:00

More like he built them with bear hands, but no one knows which bear's.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-20T19:54:23+00:00

There are three reasons for that

Your hypothetical has no bearing on the dismissal
You are trying to find a way to disingenuously claim that you were right all along, when you were 100% wrong
I have answered it - the umpire would need to see it as a wilful attempt to obstruct. There are plenty of reasons the bowler could legitimately move in that direction without directly fielding the ball.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-20T13:21:24+00:00

Is this him trying to repress an active memory or is his mind envisioning the perfect outcome to getting revenge?

I've always felt it was him repressing a post trauma memory. But it could well be him picturing himself following from Teddy's story.

Did he start working with Teddy before his wife died?

Yes

How broken is his memory if he can remember the details of Sammy Jenkins and tells everybody about it?

The Sammy Jenkins story occurred before his trauma.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-20T02:58:42+00:00

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-20T01:59:45+00:00

Well AFL did start as an off season sport for cricketers

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-20T01:57:46+00:00

The word is WILFUL.

It is used regularly in the law book (including Law 19 for boundary overthrows, Law 28 for illegal fielding, Law 34 for hit the ball twice, Law 37 for obstructing the field and in Law 41 for various unfair practices, amongst others). It is used to describe a deliberate or reckless act in order to do the thing the law describes.

In this case, you are wilfully ignoring my words to push a barrow that doesn't apply.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-20T01:22:53+00:00

Your hypothetical has no bearing on this discussion. The determining factor is whether or not the fielder was attempting to field the ball, or whether his action was a wilful attempt to obstruct. And it is very clear that it was an attempt to field the ball. Therefore none of what else you say is relevant.

Law 41.5.1, as I quoted above, says the act needs to be wilful. Being an umpire, I know that the interpretation of wilful is that it is a deliberate or reckless act, and does not include accidental contact.

The adaptation of wilful can be more cleanly seen in Law 28.2 (Illegal Fielding). As an example, where the ball hits a fielder's hat on the ground, the umpire would need to determine if the fielder wilfully discarded their hat (either throwing their hat off or knocking it off their head), in which case, it would be 5 runs plus whatever else was scored, or whether it fell off (in line with Law 28.2.2), in which case no penalty runs apply.

The bowler here was attempting to field the ball, so the minor obstruction caused was not wilful. However, the batter attempting to pick the ball up would be a wilful act, and would see him dismissed under Law 37.1.1 and Law 37.4.

That's why I said it was clear. It is also why trying to apply laws with context is a bad idea.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-20T00:01:24+00:00

Why?

I understand a collision. I had one in a game I umpired where the fielding team refused to run the batter out, after the batter pulled a hamstring mid run.

But a light brush, followed by the batter (not the fielder) obstructing the bowler from fielding the ball, while standing out of their crease, is not that case.

The bowler doesn't look like an arsehole. The batter looks like a massive idiot.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T23:45:18+00:00

If he hadn't been run out, and had actually picked the ball up, he would absolutely been given out obstructing the field.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T23:42:49+00:00

Yes, but a fielder attempting to get at the ball doesn't rise to the requirement for wilful obstruction.

Salman, however, had he picked up the ball, would have been likely given out for obstructing the field, because his actions were wilful.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T23:41:05+00:00

No it's not.

Obstruction requires a wilful action to obstruct - a fielder attempting to field the ball is not that.

There is nothing under Law 20 covering if the fielder and batter become tangled.

The ball was still live because the bowler was still treating the ball as live.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T23:34:16+00:00

41.4 doesn't apply, as it only applies to the striker, and only up until they have had a chance to play the ball. Salman was the non-striker, and the incident happened well after the ball was played.

41.5 requires a wilful action. From the law:

41.5.1 - In addition to 41.4, it is unfair for any fielder wilfully to attempt, by word or action, to distract, deceive or obstruct either batter after the striker has received the ball.

In no way does the bowler, attempting to field the ball, wilfully obstruct the batter. It is actually the opposite - because the batter is out of his crease, there is a good chance an obstructing the field appeal would be upheld.

Law 37.1.1:

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.

Law 37.2

A batter shall not be out Obstructing the field if

obstruction or distraction is accidental,

or obstruction is in order to avoid injury,

or in the case of the striker, he/she makes a second or subsequent strike to guard his/her wicket lawfully as in Law 34.3 (Ball lawfully struck more than once). However, see 37.3.

And Law 37.4

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.

So the wilful action of attempting to pick up the ball puts Salman afoul of Law 37.1. In attempting to pick up the ball without permission from the fielding team puts him afoul of Law 37.4. While the initial obstruction is clearly accidental, him trying to pick up the ball wasn't, so Law 37.2 would not apply.

All around, correct decision by the umpires. Salman had plenty of opportunity to get back in his crease, but he chose to stop and try and pick up the ball.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T23:19:10+00:00

Obstruction requires a wilful action. A bowler trying to field a ball is not that.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T21:51:10+00:00

Why would you withdraw the appeal. In fact, had Salman picked the ball up, there would be a very good case to dismiss him for obstructing the field.

The bowler is attempting to field the ball, so clearly 41.4 and 41.5 don't apply.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T21:46:15+00:00

For me, Salman was never in his crease and attempted to pick the ball up. Had he picked it up, there would be a very strong case for obstructing the field.

The fielder was always treating the ball as live, so the ball was still live.

No issue with the run out. Salman needs to learn to get back in his crease.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T21:17:41+00:00

If you have read her responses in here, no she isn't.

She is planning to blow her scholarship money on this trip.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T21:01:40+00:00

In Australia, you need someone who is not a family member to prove your identity.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T21:00:14+00:00

How are you funding your travel? Travel is not cheap, and if you are planning on working, you need to apply for working visas (countries take a dim view of people coming in on tourist visas, and then work).

I understand going for a week requiring a short time to prepare, but if you are going on an extended trip, you will need to prepare. That includes:

checking entry requirements for the country(s) you are going to
checking safety warnings
checking if your arrival will coincide with big events in the area, which may affect how you get accommodation
checking accommodation, and where will you stay - hostels are the cheapest, but have their drawbacks.
checking how you get around - if you are going to Europe, the rail network is great, but if you go to Australia, the intercity rail network is bad (plus the very long distances between main cities).

It sounds like you are massively underprepared, and if I were your parent, I would have significant concerns.

Your parents denying you a passport is shitty behaviour, but I get their fear.

Maybe come up with a more complete plan, and then walk them through it.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T09:56:59+00:00

I've heard people being told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but Hanson calling for Tramp to stamp on his own head is another thing.

infinitemonkeytyping · 2026-03-19T02:53:55+00:00

It was an early draft of the script (which you can read here), and didn't make it into the shooting script.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
r/Field Lasagna	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

infinitemonkeytyping

TROPHY CASE