2nd ODI: England v Australia at Lord's on Sep 5, 2015

[Twizzle]

agree with JJ, 50/50 call for mine as well

Was an instinct reaction from Stokes from a ball thrown at him (the stumps) by a fast bowler from 10-12 metres away. Wether it was instinct to cover the stumps or cover himself or a bit of both only one person can tell, not sure he will disclose the honest reason to the general puplic.

an instinctive reaction doesn't mean its not out

 

[JJ]

an instinctive reaction doesn't mean its not out

You can do that if you're avoiding injury - that might have been his intent - 6 of one, half dozen of the other - on field umpires thought not out, and that would have been fair enough too

 

[Twizzle]

The last person I saw given out was Gouch, the ball bounced then was going to hit the stumps but he knocked it away, instinctively, but given out.

 

[Twizzle]

You can do that if you're avoiding injury - that might have been his intent - 6 of one, half dozen of the other - on field umpires thought not out, and that would have been fair enough too

Where in the rules does it say this ??

 

[JJ]

Law 37 - Obstructing the field

"Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. In particular, but not solely, it shall be regarded as obstruction and either batsman will be out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball, as defined in Law 33.1, he willfully strikes the ball with (i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury, (ii) any other part of his person or with his bat."

 

[Twizzle]

Cheers. Where is that from ?

That would mean the ball had to be directed at him but it was going to miss him. Still the correct call imo.

The ball is directed towards the batsman every time he faces a ball so I think its pretty hard to win that argument.

 

[JJ]

I copied it from cricinfo - but it's about obstructing the field (as opposed to handling the ball as per Gooch, and I think Inzy), looked to me like raising his hand to protect himself is what Stokes did, then he batted the ball down because he's a good athlete - but the problem is the ball wasn't actually going to hit him - of course he couldn't know that when he started the move.

I genuinely think it was 50:50, slow motion made it look out - I have no problem either way, not sure there's a definitive argument either way

 

[Pete Cash]

It wasn't 50/50 it was a textbook interference with the field. Stokes was in no danger from the ball and his hand stopped his stumps being struck down.

Instinctive certainly but a lot of dismissals are from instinctive actions such as handling the ball.

 

[Pete Cash]

Basically with handled the ball as an example the law in practice states they cannot judge intention but only action. YouTube up mohinder armanaths dismissal he pushes the ball off his stumps with his hand and basically turns and walks off when he realised what he did. That's the same deal here. We can only judge by deed. The ball was clearly missing stokes and his hand stopped his stumps being struck down and being run out

How can anyone say it was 50/50

EDIT

http://imgur.com/a/F62u5

At no point was there any danger of Stokes being struck by the ball.

 

[Timbo]

I maintain the fact the ball was going to miss him comfortably means the argument he was trying to avoid injury doesn't stack up. Also, the fact that he was 100% going to be run out if he didn't take the action with his hand means that he was definitely out.

 

[Pete Cash]

I think its the word wilful in the rules that is providing the point of contention. Umpires have always judged a batsman based on their action rather than thought. If the ball was genuinely going to strike Stokes I imagine he would have been given not out because his "action" was protecting himself.

No cricketer gets out on purpose. Every handled the ball dismissal is just a brain snap. Opposition captains shouldn't be expected to call back a batsman because he accidentally got out.

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Still hate these guys for losing the Ashes,i don't forgive them yet.

 

[JJ]

Much ad about nothing - but if you watch the incident in real time, it's rather less clear than stills and ultra slow motion

 

[Pete Cash]

It is about stills and slow motion because of the way cricket has been umpired forever. They can't know Stokes intentions so the footage needs to be checked to see if he was in genuine risk of being hit. He was not

 

[JW]

Some 'spirit of cricket' Indian-like whinging coming out of the old dart today. Unusual and at best an unlucky dismissal sure, but emotion aside I doubt that Stokes could be judged truly hard done by.

 

[Timbo]

It's funny, but I don't recall the English press being quite so morally outraged when Broad hit the cover off the ball to first slip and just stood there. In fact, I believe their constant refrain was that you accept the ruling of the umpire and get on with it.

It's almost like they're a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites or something?

 

[JJ]

It's funny, but I don't recall the English press being quite so morally outraged when Broad hit the cover off the ball to first slip and just stood there. In fact, I believe their constant refrain was that you accept the ruling of the umpire and get on with it.

It's almost like they're a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites or something?

Journalists (English, Australian, American, Kiwi, whatever) are all like this...

Nothing in this incident, nothing in the Broad one - but the aggrieved journalists and indeed cricket fans in both cases whined like the proverbial

 

[Pete Cash]

Remember that Cook was disappointed that Matthews didn't withdraw the mankad appeal on Buttler a year ago despite him being warned twice. Whats with English captains whinging about the rules being enforced.

 

[Mr Bean]

Stokes dismissal was in the laws of the game but I would hate to see it happen in a World cup final.

 

[chigurh]

Mccullum having his say now - Smith will regret it blah blah blah

How butthurt is this sheep shagging merkin? He has been bitching relentlessly about Australian cricket for some time now.

FWIW I dont believe Smith will lose any sleep over it - it's not like he lost his mind (and the match) in the first over of a World Cup final. :lol: