Was Stokes Out?

[Zinzan]

I just can't see any reasonable argument for recalling Stokes there. Sure you can argue that he didn't show intent therefore he shouldn't have been given out, if you want to argue the letter of the law. That's fine.

But no one else was responsible for him being out of his crease. There was no play that could have been considered foul. Australia wasn't guilty of using cheap tactics or anything that contravened any spirit of fair play.

Really don't understand McCullum's comments.

Told you there was a good chance McCullum may hypothetically view it that way Hendrix, prior to you shooting down the suggestion saying there's no way he would as he plays hard, but just doesn't talk crap.

Not saying I agree with him either, but as I said, the Lord's factor, his mate Morgan at the non-strikers end, the crowd booing, along with his taking the spirit of cricket to a supposedly new level and being cricket's ultimate nice-guy... I could so see him viewing it that way. And I as said, he'd likely be bollocked by NZ fans had he done so.

 

[hendrix]

Told you there was a good chance McCullum may hypothetically view it that way Hendrix, prior to you shooting down the suggestion saying there's no way he would as he plays hard, but just doesn't talk crap.

Not saying I agree with him either, but as I said, the Lord's factor, his mate Morgan at the non-strikers end, the crowd booing, along with his taking the spirit of cricket to a supposedly new level and being cricket's ultimate nice-guy... I could so see him viewing it that way. And I as said, he'd likely be bollocked by NZ fans had he done so.

Yeah, you were right.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The word wilfully is part of law 37.

He sort of has a point though. Why should Smith be expected to call back Stokes who was blatantly out, whereas no such pressure is ever put on an opposition skipper to recall a batsman who got a bad caught behind or lbw decision and who shouldn't have been out. It's just a because of the mode of dismissal.

 

[GIMH]

I think you have missed my point.

England were happy to take Inzi's wicket and now they have
Different captain
Different players
Different coach
Different selectors

So if they replace Morgan and the next captain thinks differently are all international teams supposed to change how they think too. Is the "spirit of cricket" dependent on who is captaining England at the time.

Its just like McCullum who was involved in the run out of Murali now thinks differently, and he expects other teams to change according to what he thinks this week.

This makes no sense at all. You're basically implying that Morgan is duty bound to make decisions on the same way his predecessors did. It's drivel.

 

[harsh.ag]

The word wilfully is part of law 37.

Law 37
For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that abatsman, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed hisdirection without probably cause and thereby obstructed a fielder’s attempt toeffect a run out, the batsman should, on appeal, be given out, obstructing thefield. It shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not.

If the change of direction involves the batsman crossing the pitch, Law 42.14shall also apply.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

[Daemon]

He sort of has a point though. Why should Smith be expected to call back Stokes who was blatantly out, whereas no such pressure is ever put on an opposition skipper to recall a batsman who got a bad caught behind or lbw decision and who shouldn't have been out. It's just a because of the mode of dismissal.

I get your point but he didn't mention wrong decision though, he had a gripe with people who were debating whether it was intentional or not. Or at least that's what I got from his mention of 'on the grounds that it was unintentional'

 

[Daemon]

Law 37
For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that abatsman, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed hisdirection without probably cause and thereby obstructed a fielder’s attempt toeffect a run out, the batsman should, on appeal, be given out, obstructing thefield. It shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not.

If the change of direction involves the batsman crossing the pitch, Law 42.14shall also apply.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Out Obstructing the field

Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. In particular, but not solely, it shall be regarded as obstruction and either batsman will be out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball, as defined in Law 33.1, he wilfully strikes the ball with

(i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury. See also Law 33.2 (Not out Handled the ball).

(ii) any other part of his person or with his bat. See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).



From the MCC website

 

[harsh.ag]

Nice. I seem to have a not-legit document

 

[TNT]

This makes no sense at all. You're basically implying that Morgan is duty bound to make decisions on the same way his predecessors did. It's drivel.

Ok so your not to quick on the uptake so I will say it differently, Morgan is saying that Smith should be duty bound to make decisions as he would himself. Why should Smith disregard precedence and the laws to make decisions based on what Morgan thinks. Are all captains duty bound to seek advice from Morgan on how when and why they should appeal?.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Law 37
For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that abatsman, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed hisdirection without probably cause and thereby obstructed a fielder’s attempt toeffect a run out, the batsman should, on appeal, be given out, obstructing thefield. It shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not.

If the change of direction involves the batsman crossing the pitch, Law 42.14shall also apply.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is this a recent amended version? Which edition?

From the Laws of Cricket (5th Edition 2013)

LAW 37 OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD

1. Out Obstructing the field

Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. In particular, but not solely, it shall be regarded as obstruction and either batsman will be out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball, as defined in Law 33.1, he wilfully strikes the ball with (i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury. See also Law 33.2 (Not out Handled the ball). (ii) any other part of his person or with his bat. See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).

2. Accidental obstruction

It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt.

Interpretation and Application

As well as continuing largely in its present form, Obstructing the field now takes over all the instances that in the past might have been Handled the ball, but now are not so because he is not playing (at) the ball. It is still paramount that any action is wilful. 37.1 It has been made clear that it will be obstruction, although not the only form of obstruction, if, once the striker has finished playing (at) the ball, either batsman wilfully strikes the ball with his bat or person. It must be remembered that ‘playing (at) the ball’ includes any second or later stroke in defence of his wicket and ‘person’ includes a hand not holding the bat. This includes the previous situation in which the illegal strike was after the ball has been touched by a fielder. In the case of a hand not holding the bat, as usual, no penalty will be incurred if it was an attempt to avoid injury.

 

[Prince EWS]

I absolutely detest McCullum on stuff like this, and given I've sometimes been on the 'out' side of the argument and sometimes been on the 'not out/withdraw the appeal' side, that's not particularly easy.

I used to think he was a massive hypocrite for running out Murali and Mpofu and then barking like a ****ing dog up in the pavillion when Grant Elliott was run out because, to me, it seemed like taking the moral high ground on one issue and then transforming into a ruthless 'letter of the law' guy on something much worse when it works to his favour. In retrospect I don't really think he's a hypocrite; we just have extremely different views on what should be acceptable and what shouldn't be in terms of the spirit of cricket. I still never look forward to him opening his mouth on the topic however.

I definitely think Stokes was out ftr, which may perhaps be interesting to those who accused me of going to sleep with my passport each night and waking up signing God Save the Queen in the morning when other similar issues came up.

 

[Spikey]

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

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

From what I have concluded about this:

1. By laws, an umpire can not give it out unless he thinks the batsman obstructed the field deliberately. So when an umpire reaches his decision and giving it as Out, he thinks Stokes purposefully obstructed.

2. Was it Out? Yes it was because Stokes was clearly out of the ground and he would not have made his ground in time.

In conclusion, an umpire can not give that out who are bounded by laws only. Having giving this Out, the umpire established the fact Stokes did it by his will.

Finally, a correct verdict was reached that Stokes was out but it was implemented in a wrong way.

 

[GIMH]

Ok so your not to quick on the uptake so I will say it differently, Morgan is saying that Smith should be duty bound to make decisions as he would himself. Why should Smith disregard precedence and the laws to make decisions based on what Morgan thinks. Are all captains duty bound to seek advice from Morgan on how when and why they should appeal?.

No mate. Not my uptake that is the issue here.

Let's retrace steps. You showed the Inzy dismissal from 2005 as evidence of hypocrisy from England. When I correctly ridiculed this idiotic post, you have gradually moved the goalposts to try and change what your argument is.

So let's now address the latest steaming pile of monkey crap you've posted.

1. Precedence does not apply in cricket.
2. Even if it did, Inzy was given run out not obstructing the field. There are obvious similarities between the 'spirit' behind his dismissal and Stokes but precedence wouldn't apply regardless.
3. If that's what Morgan thinks, it's what he thinks. This may shock you, but I don't agree with him.

My point all along was that you bringing up the Inzamam dismissal was beyond stupid. Now that you've ran out of arguments for that you're trying to come up with some other logic to justify your bollocks, whereas actually all you should have said in the first place was that Morgan's comments were stupid, without trying to frame them as some sort of double standard.

Cheers.

 

[harsh.ag]

No mate. Not my uptake that is the issue here.

Let's retrace steps. You showed the Inzy dismissal from 2005 as evidence of hypocrisy from England. When I correctly ridiculed this idiotic post, you have gradually moved the goalposts to try and change what your argument is.

So let's now address the latest steaming pile of monkey crap you've posted.

1. Precedence does not apply in cricket.
2. Even if it did, Inzy was given run out not obstructing the field. There are obvious similarities between the 'spirit' behind his dismissal and Stokes but precedence wouldn't apply regardless.
3. If that's what Morgan thinks, it's what he thinks. This may shock you, but I don't agree with him.

My point all along was that you bringing up the Inzamam dismissal was beyond stupid. Now that you've ran out of arguments for that you're trying to come up with some other logic to justify your bollocks, whereas actually all you should have said in the first place was that Morgan's comments were stupid, without trying to frame them as some sort of double standard.

Cheers.

BOTM confidence shining through

 

[Jono]

I absolutely detest McCullum on stuff like this, and given I've sometimes been on the 'out' side of the argument and sometimes been on the 'not out/withdraw the appeal' side, that's not particularly easy.

I used to think he was a massive hypocrite for running out Murali and Mpofu and then barking like a ****ing dog up in the pavillion when Grant Elliott was run out because, to me, it seemed like taking the moral high ground on one issue and then transforming into a ruthless 'letter of the law' guy on something much worse when it works to his favour. In retrospect I don't really think he's a hypocrite; we just have extremely different views on what should be acceptable and what shouldn't be in terms of the spirit of cricket. I still never look forward to him opening his mouth on the topic however.

I definitely think Stokes was out ftr, which may perhaps be interesting to those who accused me of going to sleep with my passport each night and waking up signing God Save the Queen in the morning when other similar issues came up.

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

 

[Smudge]

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

Yeah, perhaps PEWS could try reading the link to McCullum's thoughts posted in this very thread.

Not that I agree with Bazza on either his U-turn on the Murali incident or his thoughts on the Stokes incident.

 

[TNT]

No mate. Not my uptake that is the issue here.

Let's retrace steps. You showed the Inzy dismissal from 2005 as evidence of hypocrisy from England. When I correctly ridiculed this idiotic post, you have gradually moved the goalposts to try and change what your argument is.

So let's now address the latest steaming pile of monkey crap you've posted.

1. Precedence does not apply in cricket.
2. Even if it did, Inzy was given run out not obstructing the field. There are obvious similarities between the 'spirit' behind his dismissal and Stokes but precedence wouldn't apply regardless.
3. If that's what Morgan thinks, it's what he thinks. This may shock you, but I don't agree with him.

My point all along was that you bringing up the Inzamam dismissal was beyond stupid. Now that you've ran out of arguments for that you're trying to come up with some other logic to justify your bollocks, whereas actually all you should have said in the first place was that Morgan's comments were stupid, without trying to frame them as some sort of double standard.

Cheers.

Ok you are a lot slower on the uptake than I thought, perhaps if you reread my posts and think about it for a couple of weeks it might come to you.

 

[GIMH]

I read them mate. If you feel Morgan shouldn't have said what he did, I can agree. It's the fact you've tried to frame it as some double standard that's piss poor.

 

[harsh.ag]

Ok you are a lot slower on the uptake than I thought, perhaps if you reread my posts and think about it for a couple of weeks it might come to you.

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?