Yeah silly to bring up comparisons that aren't equivalent. Like, would be really silly to bring up Inzi being run out from blocking a ball from Harmison in 05, and the lanky **** throwing it back even though there was no attempted run, but Inzi being given out just because he hopped to avoid getting hit. England being the keepers of the spirit of cricket must have forgotten to call him back.
Couldn't agree more.
Wasn't Inzy out of his crease? In which case he should have been out
He wasn't. He was stood in the crease and only jumped up to avoid being hit by the ball.
Ben Stokes himself got given out a few years back in exactly the same way in an ODI.
Interesting. At the time it was said that the umpires had made a blunder and according to the laws it couldn't have been given out. Do you recall what the reaction was for the Stokes dismissal?
I think the general reaction was that it was technically, legally out (I think because he was still out of his crease) but it really was a **** thing for Starc to do because hurling the ball straight at the batsman and then appealing when they quite naturally defend themselves from wearing one on the body is **** behaviour even if legal. And I think most people agreed it really shouldn't be legal any longer; you really don't want to incentivise bowlers throwing the ball at batsmen to try and burgle **** wickets.
I just looked it up. The one I'm thinking of was in an ODI against India, that one he was definitely out of his crease.
I’m not saying that it would be withdrawn, but I don’t think these examples really prove anything unless one hit and Stokes goes through with the appeal.
Lmao he got given out obstructing the field against India when Raina threw the ball and he blocked it with his bat when out of his crease, and then a few weeks later he tried to avoid the ball against England but was given runout. The Inzi interview later where he said something like "I hit the ball I'm out , now I left the ball I'm out the **** you want
" was funny as ****
I think there would be a lot more debate in Australia - I know a few guys who aren't personally thrilled with it and don't love it being in the game - but the massive, massive overreaction in the English press (as well as the frankly mob behaviour from the MCC) means that their attitude now is "nah **** em". It is galling to be lectured on morality by the likes of Piers Morgan, regardless of the issue.
It's mostly just about whether this is some unprecedented act outside the norms of the game or not. If Stokes really would withdraw it then that's fine, that's a personal decision, but to demand that everyone else follow an unwritten rule that the player in question himself does not follow is pretty rich.
It sounds like the Inzi one might be a bit different. He never left his crease and only jumped (as much as Inzi ever did) to evade the ball. 3rd umpire was called to check he landed back down before the bails were dislodged. It was ridiculous beyond belief.
nah you have it backwards. He even said it in the post match of the India game FFS.Lmao he got given out obstructing the field against India when Raina threw the ball and he blocked it with his bat when out of his crease, and then a few weeks later he tried to avoid the ball against England but was given runout. The Inzi interview later where he said something like "I hit the ball I'm out , now I left the ball I'm out the **** you want
Yeah but what about Freddie bowling Afridi first ball and emptying the ground, during that same (otherwise wretched) series