Was Stokes Out?

[cpr]

Thats after the review. I don't think the umpire had really computed fully whats going on, as he wasn't exactly expecting it, not surprising he deferred to his colleague with the tech.

 

[Furball]

3rd ump. Dharmasena looked bewildered as to why there was even an appeal in the first place.

 

[adub]

Dharmasena looked bewildered as to why there was even an appeal in the first place.

So situation normal

 

[TheJediBrah]

3rd ump. Dharmasena looked bewildered as to why there was even an appeal in the first place.

genuinely hopeless umpire

 

[the big bambino]

While there are different individuals captaining England overtime, you can reasonably expect a consistency of conduct from the expectations people have of the role. You could argue the incumbent is being hypocritical because of the contradictory way a previous captain has performed in the role. Now of course Morgan could say he is redefining the role but it would've been nice if he made that clear before he basically demonised Smith simply for not behaving in a way that Morgan kept to himself until he unloaded afterwards.

 

[TNT]

While there are different individuals captaining England overtime, you can reasonably expect a consistency of conduct from the expectations people have of the role. You could argue the incumbent is being hypocritical because of the contradictory way a previous captain has performed in the role. Now of course Morgan could say he is redefining the role but it would've been nice if he made that clear before he basically demonised Smith simply for not behaving in a way that Morgan kept to himself until he unloaded afterwards.

Previous England captains used to support genocide and this is Morgan's way of making a stand against genocide, apparently.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Previous England captains used to support genocide and this is Morgan's way of making a stand against genocide, apparently.

worst post ever

 

[wellAlbidarned]

it's an impressive feat to be the worst poster on a site where I post

 

[Malleeboy]

In Australian football (more often in the past) when a team is being soundly beaten, they will start a skuffle or fight, in the hopes to throw the other team off their game and rev there side up for the contest. I wonder if Morgan outrage was to throw the aussie off there game and gel his team together against the otherside? (It appears to have worked in the last match)

 

[Jono]

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.

Sorry my response was specific to PEWS. I was only making the point that PEWS said that Baz and him have different views as to what is acceptable and what isn't (i.e. he didn't think Murali run out was acceptable but Baz did). But Baz doesn't is my point.

 

[Prince EWS]

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

Yeah but I never thought he was a hypocrite for his views on the Stokes incident in relation to the Mpofu and Murali incidents; I thought he was a hypocrite for his views on the Elliott incident in relation to the Mpofu and Murali incidents. Given all these incidents happened reasonably close together, and given he did it twice, I don't think he'd changed his mind back then.

My point actually was that I don't think he's a hypocrite or necessarily inconsistent anymore regardless of what he thinks about it now though. We still have very different views because he doesn't think Stokes shouldn't been out (or appealed for, whatever) and presumably still doesn't think Elliott should've been out.. but I don't think any combination of thoughts of these issues is necessarily hypocritical. I think Elliott/Stokes should've been out but Murali/Mpofu/Bell shouldn't have been, and I'm sure there are lots of people out there who think the exact opposite. They'll probably naturally think I'm being inconsistent and I'll think it of them ("how can you think that should be out when you don't even think this should be?!?!") but unless someone is just straight being biased due to the players/teams involved, it comes down to us all having different person 'ick factors' where slightly different things will instinctively rub us slightly different ways. These issues are all just different rather than being on a universally agreed upon scale of badness for which we have to pick a 'line'.