Was Stokes Out?

[TNT]

You have been referring to "England" as some sort of a person who has changed their opinion on this and is unreasonably expecting captains of other teams to appeal according to their view of right and wrong.

Gimp has been pointing out how "England" is a team and its opinions change as players/captains/management change.

How is he (or how am I) slow on the uptake?

EDIT: I see now your point is Morgan shouldn't be saying things like this because of England's past decisions. That he should be mindful of that. So you think it's a good idea for Morgan to censor himself because somebody in the past did something he disagrees with while holding the same office?

Slavery wouldn't have been abolished this way. And if there was a genocide happening somewhere today, Angela Merkel should remain quiet?

We don't know that Morgan disagrees with what England did in the past, when did he say he disagrees with what happened in the past?. How was Smith to know that Englands/Morgans position had changed if it has changed, has it changed?.

Comparing genocide to this incident, oh yeah.

 

[GIMH]

So basically because he's England captain he's bound to have the same opinion as all England captains ever. Okay then.

 

[Debris]

Yes but Stokes isn't really British. He supports removing the union jack from his nation's flag.

He just wants a navy blue flag? That is pretty dull.

 

[harsh.ag]

We don't know that Morgan disagrees with what England did in the past, 1) when did he say he disagrees with what happened in the past? 2) How was Smith to know that Englands/Morgans position had changed if it has changed, has it changed?

1) Assuming he would disagee with the Inzi dismissal appeal being upheld. That's what he said in the interview. Why would you assume otherwise?

2) How does this matter in the slightest? Smith upheld the appeal. Morgan commented that he personally wouldn't have done the same. Morgan said about Smith, "He's entitled to appeal. If he thinks it's out, he's going to appeal."

 

[TNT]

So basically because he's England captain he's bound to have the same opinion as all England captains ever. Okay then.

So each time England appoint a new captain the other teams have to find out what England's stance is on "The spirit of cricket". You seem to be suggesting that "the Spirit of cricket" is up to the current England captain.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

So each time England appoint a new captain the other teams have to find out what England's stance is on "The spirit of cricket". You seem to be suggesting that "the Spirit of cricket" is up to the current England captain.

It's just that current crop should not remain quiet on right/wrong in their opinion based on their previous crop. It's simple actually.

 

[TNT]

It's just that current crop should not remain quiet on right/wrong in their opinion based on their previous crop. It's simple actually.

Smith did nothing wrong.

Morgan was the only one that was wrong.

"Wadey had a good view and said straightaway that he thought the ball was missing Stokes and hitting the stumps, so we appealed and it went upstairs and the umpire gave it out. The way I saw it was that he was out of his ground and he willfully put the hand out - which is rule I've been told - and he got given out by the umpire."

If Morgan was in the same position as Smith and thought that the batsman willfully put the hand out to stop the ball hitting the stumps he would have withdrawn his appeal, don't think so.

 

[GIMH]

So each time England appoint a new captain the other teams have to find out what England's stance is on "The spirit of cricket". You seem to be suggesting that "the Spirit of cricket" is up to the current England captain.

Jesus ****ing Christ are you a parody?

For one thing I don't see that other captains have to give a **** what Morgan thinks.

There are probably people in the England team who would do exactly what Smith did. Yet you see England as some universal thing where we all have the same opinions.

Even if we indulge your strange theory. That other captains needs to know where England think the spirit of cricket lies. You aren't referring back to an incident that took place last year under Alastair Cook. You've gone back a decade. A decade! And yet for some bizarre reason think Steve Smith must have sat there before the match thinking, "well Michael Vaughan did this in a Test when I was still in high school so that's obviously how England want to play the game, therefore I'm going to captain in this way."

Behave yourself.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Smith did nothing wrong.

Morgan was the only one that was wrong.



If Morgan was in the same position as Smith and thought that the batsman willfully put the hand out to stop the ball hitting the stumps he would have withdrawn his appeal, don't think so.

miscommunication at its best

 

[TNT]

miscommunication at its best

Smith has said that he thought it was wilfull obstruction and that's why he didn't withdraw the appeal, what wrong are the England team making a stand against.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Smith has said that he thought it was wilfull obstruction and that's why he didn't withdraw the appeal, what wrong are the England team making a stand against.

I am referring to your post #160

According to Morgan, it's his opinion that matters for him and he said that. It does not matter what former English players did previously.

 

[TNT]

Jesus ****ing Christ are you a parody?

For one thing I don't see that other captains have to give a **** what Morgan thinks.

There are probably people in the England team who would do exactly what Smith did. Yet you see England as some universal thing where we all have the same opinions.

Even if we indulge your strange theory. That other captains needs to know where England think the spirit of cricket lies. You aren't referring back to an incident that took place last year under Alastair Cook. You've gone back a decade. A decade! And yet for some bizarre reason think Steve Smith must have sat there before the match thinking, "well Michael Vaughan did this in a Test when I was still in high school so that's obviously how England want to play the game, therefore I'm going to captain in this way."

Behave yourself.

You seem a little angry and hot under the collar, take a shower, we are just talking about cricket.

 

[TNT]

I am referring to your post #160

According to Morgan, it's his opinion that matters for him and he said that. It does not matter what former English players did previously.

Morgan was adamant the decision should have been withdrawn by Australia counterpart Steven Smith, saying: "I'm not sure what to think of it to be honest. It would have been a lot different if we were fielding.
England captain Eoin Morgan unhappy with Ben Stokes dismissal | Cricket News | Sky Sports

Morgan is just paying lip service and in the same situation he would have done the same as Smith. Just like when Australia gave lip service to Broad for not walking they would have done the same as Broad.

 

[TNT]

England captain Eoin Morgan protested against the dismissal given by TV umpire Joel Wilson, leading to a heated exchange with his Australia counterpart, Steve Smith.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket...sal-not-wilful

5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:
To dispute an umpire's decision by word, action or gesture

Just saying.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Morgan is just paying lip service and in the same situation he would have done the same as Smith. Just like when Australia gave lip service to Broad for not walking they would have done the same as Broad.

Point is that you can criticize Morgan's opinion but it's wrong to justify it with the actions by previous generation.

 

[Daemon]

Behave yourself.

so good

 

[TheJediBrah]

I am referring to your post #160

According to Morgan, it's his opinion that matters for him and he said that. It does not matter what former English players did previously.

The issue for me would be that he's talking complete ****

roles reversed, I highly doubt he would have done what he says he would

 

[SteveNZ]

hasn't he admitted he was wrong about the Murali run out though?

He might've done so years later, but he certainly didn't at the time. Baz of all people should know how the heat of the moment affects a decision.

Take the Bell run out v India, for example. That decision would never have been overturned had it not been lunch. The players on field at the time were insistent it was out, and it took a fair bit of time - and probably a look back over the footage by India - to change it. If it had've been the end of an over, or even drinks, it might have been much different.

And how can we ever expect Steve Smith to encapsulate a 'dismissal' that has given rise to 16 pages worth of double-sided argument in this thread into a few seconds and make 100% the right decision? I mean, we still don't agree do we?

Same as the benefit goes to the batsman, I'd expect any doubt from a captain to go towards upholding an appeal in this case.

And hopefully it's not lost on anyone that the umpires, the professional and official adjudicators of our sport, decided it was out. They had as much idea as Steve Smith did as to what Stokes was trying/not trying to do.

 

[NUFAN]

Hey I missed the game today, can someone give me an update regarding the thread title when England were 5 down today? Thnx

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Is that out given after the review or did the umpire actually give it out the first time?