*Official* Sri Lanka’s Tour of the West Indies-2021- All Format

[trundler]

Did Lewis and Hope exchange testicular guards before the innings?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Did Lewis and Hope exchange testicular guards before the innings?

I don’t think Lewis is comfortable at all.

During the first innings he midfielded a few and missed a run out chance...he probably left the field at some time as well.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

This is a thrashing

 

[Tom Flint]

I remember when chameera first came into the test team I thought he is very quick but pretty erratic, I sit here now still thinking the same although he seems to be a bit bulkier and hopefully stronger. Hope that helps him bowl longer spells and not break down all the time

 

[Beamer]

Really solid win. Shai is such an ODI run machine, we are lost without him.

Not comfy with the obstructing the wicket dismissal. I'd be going mad if one of our guys was dismissed like that. Yes technically he stopped a run out by getting in the way but it did look like an accident. I can see why Pollard appealed but it should have been given not out by the third umpire.

 

[Beamer]

I remember when chameera first came into the test team I thought he is very quick but pretty erratic, I sit here now still thinking the same although he seems to be a bit bulkier and hopefully stronger. Hope that helps him bowl longer spells and not break down all the time

Chameera is very impressive indeed. Will be a big threat to most teams if he carries on like this.

I'm a big fan of Sri Lanka's bowling attack in general, I think they have loads to work with.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This isn’t a court where we use case law, should be out regardless of what Stokes copped

Stokes' was worse. Stuck his hand out to block a throw at the stumps when he was well out of his crease.

I'm not convinced with this one. It looks as though he did deliberately take a step or 2 toward the ball which wouldn't make sense unless he was trying to block the field (possibly even subconciously). But there is a hell of a lot of doubt.

 

[mr_mister]

Stokes should have been given out for obstruction in the WC final

 

[SteveNZ]

Not sure on the obstructing the field here. The side on angle made it look like he *might* have known the ball was (although probably realised too late to do anything about it) but then he didn't exactly look in a hurry to turn around and get his bat down behind the line. I guess I'd say he was unlucky but didn't help himself.

Just so much doubt. What a **** decision. He looks anywhere but the ball, then very quickly looks down at which time his leg is likely moving towards it anyway.

A) Sport is played at pace, not in slo-mo. All sorts of sports **** it up when they slow things down and lose the feel for the game, plus umpires who don't have a feel in the first place

B) The umpire's call and soft signal BS coming into it again. There is no, and I repeat NO need for a soft signal when the review is in plain sight. Rugby/league has a soft signal and rightfully so because tries are sometimes obscured by bodies. OK actually I change my mind, soft signal might have some relevance for catches (although even then umpires have just as obscured view as TV does, if not more so). If this went up not out, it probably would have been not out. And it should have been.

That is honestly one of the most BS decisions I've seen. That batsman could have done nothing else, really. And **** me, he was going to get back anyway.

 

[cnerd123]

Then again, as mentioned earlier, there is precedent for this in the past where they've interpreted the word 'wilful' to essentially mean 'in control of his actions'. IE, the batter didn't slip or trip his way into obstructing the field, but was in control of his movements that then lead to the runout.

So I looked up some past examples of how this law has been applied:

For all of these dismissals it is hard to say that the batter was intentionally obstructing the fielding side from fielding the ball/effecting a run out. In most cases they don't even know where the ball is, and in the remaining they're just acting out of reflex, often to protect themselves from a ball thrown at pace directly at them.

Going off this it seems that actual 'intent' doesn't matter. It just matters if the argument can be made that the batsman had intent to obstruct the field. Running into the path of the throw, failure to evade the ball, etc. It is almost like the word 'wilful' is being interpreted to mean 'is the batter in control of their actions at the time of the obstruction'. If they slipped or fell in the way of the ball, then it might not be considered wilful. In all other cases, they're given out.

In this context, you can see why Gunathilaka was given out.

He clearly knew the ball hadn't left the square, and walked into the path of it.

It seems like there is very low bar set for determining a 'wilful' act, and if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Once umpires start giving batsmen the benefit of doubt in these scenarios, you will see more and more batters run into the way of the ball, or act confused as they stumble into the bowler's path. There will also be a lot of outcry when two identical scenarios get different decisions from two different umpires.

I don't necessarily agree with any of these decisions, but it seems to be pretty consistent that if you're in control of your actions and get in the way of the ball/fielder you will be given out, regardless of what your intent was.

 

[ataraxia]

So I looked up some past examples of how this law has been applied:

For all of these dismissals it is hard to say that the batter was intentionally obstructing the fielding side from fielding the ball/effecting a run out. In most cases they don't even know where the ball is, and in the remaining they're just acting out of reflex, often to protect themselves from a ball thrown at pace directly at them.

Going off this it seems that actual 'intent' doesn't matter. It just matters if the argument can be made that the batsman had intent to obstruct the field. Running into the path of the throw, failure to evade the ball, etc. It is almost like the word 'wilful' is being interpreted to mean 'is the batter in control of their actions at the time of the obstruction'. If they slipped or fell in the way of the ball, then it might not be considered wilful. In all other cases, they're given out.

In this context, you can see why Gunathilaka was given out.

He clearly knew the ball hadn't left the square, and walked into the path of it.

It seems like there is very low bar set for determining a 'wilful' act, and if you think about it, it kind of makes sense. Once umpires start giving batsmen the benefit of doubt in these scenarios, you will see more and more batters run into the way of the ball, or act confused as they stumble into the bowler's path. There will also be a lot of outcry when two identical scenarios get different decisions from two different umpires.

I don't necessarily agree with any of these decisions, but it seems to be pretty consistent that if you're in control of your actions and get in the way of the ball/fielder you will be given out, regardless of what your intent was.

So Stokes should've been out in the WC final?

 

[cnerd123]

So Stokes should've been out in the WC final?

haha i think so, it's a shame NZ didn't appeal for it! Born losers that lot

 

[ataraxia]

haha i think so, it's a shame NZ didn't appeal for it! Born losers that lot

obligatory angry react

 

[SteveNZ]

So Stokes should've been out in the WC final?

He never changed his line, nor really looked after he turned for 2.

Maybe this one is partly consistent with other decisions (if we're looking at 'wilful' actions), but holy hell Gunathilaka never looks until the last second and doesn't move to stand on the ball, he just carries on his path back to the crease (slowly) which is where the ball is. He doesn't change direction or anything. It's just a mud decision with no feel for the game.

 

[ataraxia]

He never changed his line, nor really looked after he turned for 2.

Yeah, he shouldn't have been out given that he didn't do it on purpose, but according to past precedent:

Going off this it seems that actual 'intent' doesn't matter. It just matters if the argument can be made that the batsman had intent to obstruct the field. Running into the path of the throw, failure to evade the ball, etc. It is almost like the word 'wilful' is being interpreted to mean 'is the batter in control of their actions at the time of the obstruction'. If they slipped or fell in the way of the ball, then it might not be considered wilful. In all other cases, they're given out.

 

[Tom Flint]

He knew that the ball was somewhere close behind him, he also knew that his partner would have been ran out it pollard had a clear path to grab the ball. He moved himself into a position where he knew the ball was likely to be and therefore denied a clear wicket taking opportunity. Was the correct decision.
IMO

 

[TheJediBrah]

He knew that the ball was somewhere close behind him, he also knew that his partner would have been ran out it pollard had a clear path to grab the ball. He moved himself into a position where he knew the ball was likely to be and therefore denied a clear wicket taking opportunity. Was the correct decision.
IMO

Looks this way to me too

 

[Himannv]

I think a suitable punishment is to ban him from playing Test cricket ever again.

 

[honestbharani]

I think a suitable punishment is to ban him from playing Test cricket ever again.

Wasn't he the one who said he has more Insta followers than Angelo Matthews?

 

[Daemon]

He knew that the ball was somewhere close behind him, he also knew that his partner would have been ran out it pollard had a clear path to grab the ball. He moved himself into a position where he knew the ball was likely to be and therefore denied a clear wicket taking opportunity. Was the correct decision.
IMO

Was his correct course of action there to stand still in the middle of the pitch then?

He had a general idea of where the ball might be but his movements suggested he was actively trying to avoid touching the ball, not the other way round.