fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Robinson would make a good magistrate
No place for precedent in the laws of cricketIs it really that different to the Inzamam case?
TrueNo place for precedent in the laws of cricket
Seemed to me Stokes was concentrating on not being hit by the ball rather than protecting his wicket.Is it really that different to the Inzamam case?
Seemed so to me. Stokes didn't exactly get back in time either.Should have done hawk eye to see if the ball was really hitting the stumps..
I don't have a problem with that - it is England v Australia at Lord's after allTechnically out, wonder if all sides would have gone through with the appeal then.
NZ might not have but that is because bmac is lovely. The rest? Dunno maybe Holder would have said no?Technically out, wonder if all sides would have gone through with the appeal then.
Stokes was about 4-5m out of his crease. Starc hurled it at full pace back at the stumps and looked on-target, would have run him out if he had hit. Stokes went to simultaneously evade and dive back at his crease and in doing so more or less caught the ball mid-air.What have I missed?
The fallout from this could be fun.
Yes. Stokes dropped down the order and Buttler rested for the remainder of the series.What have I missed?
The fallout from this could be fun.
NZ might not have but that is because bmac is lovely. The rest? Dunno maybe Holder would have said no?
To be fair no blame on SMith whatsoever, he was out.
Yeah, I'm not villainizing Australia, genuinely interested in the question.I don't have a problem with that - it is England v Australia at Lord's after all
I have no problem with your villainizing Australia - entirely appropriate to do so most of the timeYeah, I'm not villainizing Australia, genuinely interested in the question.
Yeah this was my initial thought, but wouldn't that run into exactly the same question? IIRC the caveat in both laws is identical.Easier to argue he was out handled the ball imo, though he should still have got the benefit of the doubt