Was Stokes Out?

[Jono]

Read my post above yours, Joni.. It happened against Pakistan, FFS and both sides still handled it better.

Haha, but Inzy is a special case

 

[hendrix]

Unfortunately, the law mentions "intention" and that is tantamount to requiring the ump to be a mind reader

All this kerfuffle over the word intent. The ICC has indirectly given the best way to judge intent when they changed the interpretation for players who run down the pitch to block throws. It is simple. If you move to get yourself between the ball and the sticks - that's intent.

The intent is judged from the action - move towards blocking the throw = intent, move away of stay still = no intent.

Yeah this. Same as chasing a kick in rugby or league. If the retreating defender changes his line - for whatever reason - that's obstruction. It's up to the player himself to ensure he's not infringing.

If you're out of your crease and move towards the line of the ball, it's obstruction. It's your responsibility to get back in your crease.

 

[Burgey]

I really don't like the habit of buzzing throws in past the eye line of batsmen, and it was the Australian team under Steve Waugh which really kicked that off. IIRC it was a NSW thing which then, quite naturally and properly because NSW uber alles, became part of the Australian way of doing things. But I don't think this was the case here at all. Starc was genuinely having a ping at the stumps because Stokes was so far out of his ground. It wasn't like he was just standing in his crease and Starc petulantly threw the ball at him, like we see so often when a bowler has the ****s because he's frustrated. It was a genuine attempt o run him out.

I think there's been too much made by both sides about this, especially the likes of Vaughan et al. Perhaps Michael ought to have withdrawn the appeal against Kasprowicz in 2005 when his glove was off the bat handle. It's all just a bit stupid. Too much revisionism here. Last thing cricket needs is to become like rugby league where the only thing everyone talks about each week is a refereeing decision.

 

[Dan]

cpr dominating this thread.

 

[Malleeboy]

He was not in the line between the ball and stumps, he was not line with where the ball was moving.
His movement was to move something into the line of the ball and the between the stumps and the ball's line, that is his arm
You might argue that his hand movement was due to his body spinning out of the way, but it you allow that then players will turn and be trained to ensure that there back "accidently" covers the line of the stumps.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I've not read through the whole thread but the above is a wrong view.

The key word in the laws (not rules people) is 'wilful'.

I've only briefly seen the incident but that would be the question I would ask myself, and my colleague.

Wilful is pretty open for interpretation. If you're out of the crease and putting something in the way of the fielder's target then that is wilful obstruction. If it's not then what's to stop everyone running down the pitch blocking the stumps and then claiming it wasn't wilful?

 

[Burgey]

Wilful doesn't have to mean premeditated. You can wilfully do something, but still do it on the spur of the moment.

 

[Spikey]

I'm getting sick of people comparing this to Ian Bell v India, Muralitharan v NZ and Paul Collingwood v NZ. As far I'm concerned, there's no comparison between this and those cases. Because in all those situations, something unusual happened before the dismissal, be it players thinking the ball was dead or a collision between players or whatever. In this case, prior to the dismissal, Stokes left the ground and Starc had a ping at the stumps. There's nothing unusual about that. 28 years ago on that very ground Roger Harper completed a run-out celebrated as one of the greatest seen in the game that was just like what Starc did. And then Ben Stokes "protected" himself by moving his hand move away from the body and towards the stumps and indeed trying to catch the ball.

 

[GIMH]

It's like comparing the Montreal screwjob to Owens winning the NXT title by knockout

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

OK, but that bolded part, your looking at half a second time span there? How quick can a guy snap his neck around? He'd give himself whiplash if he'd managed to turn his head any quicker. Also to know its not going to hit him is a bit much IMO. These people are beaten by a ball bowled at twice the distance that they are intent on hitting, at half the distance a ball thrown (not bowled) unexpectedly and sending a bit of a panic in you... Nah, I think he's reacted to the threat instinctively and not overly bothered to pick up the exact trajectory. As I say, I think the umpires made the right call, but to suggest Stokes is making a concerted effort to catch that is going a bit far.

To add to this, the ball was travelling at an angle.
Stokes, Starc and the wicket were not in line. Think the path of the ball made him to react that way. No way it was a deliberate attempt to block the ball.

 

[vandem]

I really don't like the habit of buzzing throws in past the eye line of batsmen, and it was the Australian team under Steve Waugh which really kicked that off. IIRC it was a NSW thing which then, quite naturally and properly because NSW uber alles, became part of the Australian way of doing things. But I don't think this was the case here at all. Starc was genuinely having a ping at the stumps because Stokes was so far out of his ground. .

... and Stokes was genuinely putting his hand up to protect his head / neck from a ball flung toward him from 6-8 metres away. The umpire saw it in real time and didn't see any "willful" obstruction of the field.

Still puzzled why there was no real-speed replay for 3rd umpire, don't see how they could judge intent (willfull? not willful?) without taking into account reaction time / speed.

 

[TheJediBrah]

... and Stokes was genuinely putting his hand up to protect his head / neck from a ball flung toward him from 6-8 metres away. The umpire saw it in real time and didn't see any "willful" obstruction of the field.

Still puzzled why there was no real-speed replay for 3rd umpire, don't see how they could judge intent (willfull? not willful?) without taking into account reaction time / speed.

Nope. It was to protect his stumps.

 

[fredfertang]

The only man in the history of the game who could properly be given out in those circumstances is Bradman, and I'd still be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt

 

[harsh.ag]

The only man in the history of the game who could properly be given out in those circumstances is Bradman, and I'd still be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt

Thoughts on this fred?

Another thing - The rule says "(i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury." This may not have anything to do with the batsman's intent, and the "unless" exception may only be valid if the batsman touched the ball right in front of his face or privates etc.

If that's the case, then yeah, Stokes was definitely out.

 

[TNT]

This is how the English would have handled it.

 

[fredfertang]

@harsh

Personally I don't think the fact that the ball clearly wouldn't have hit Stokes is any more relevant than whether or not it would have hit the wicket had he not stopped it - I think it boils down to whether or not he made a conscious decision to improve his chances by flailing his arm like that - I don't see how he could have done

But I'd be interested in Biryani Pillow's considered view on it and, if he disagrees with me, would accept his opinion (although I'd be very grumpy about it, and mutter dark oaths about Surrey supporters)

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is how the English would have handled it.

Yeah that was actually rubbish umpiring from Hair. Can't be given runout if you're taking evasive action.

 

[TNT]

>>>>>Yeah that was actually rubbish umpiring from Hair. Can't be given runout if you're taking evasive action. <<<<<<<

Is that why England withdrew their appeal................................ wait,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that's right they didn't.

 

[GIMH]

>>>>>Yeah that was actually rubbish umpiring from Hair. Can't be given runout if you're taking evasive action. <<<<<<<

Is that why England withdrew their appeal................................ wait,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that's right they didn't.

And all the players in that match played this one...

I mean I don't think Smith should have withdrawn his appeal, but it is of zero relevance to what happened in this match.

 

[TNT]

And all the players in that match played this one...

I mean I don't think Smith should have withdrawn his appeal, but it is of zero relevance to what happened in this match.

Just pointing out when it was England they were quite happy to take the wicket but somewhere between that incident and this one they have decided that they now would do it differently and because they have changed their stance then everyone should have followed them. But then again we don't know that because if it was them they may still have taken the wicket. England have at some stage changed their view on this matter and just expected that everyone do the same.