Was Stokes Out?

[TheJediBrah]

I think both arguments here are incorrect. He wasn't trying to deliberately block the ball and he wasn't instinctively trying to protect himself.

In my opinion he was instinctively trying to protect the stumps. For 3 reasons:
1. Like has been said you don't have time to think and make a deliberate action.
2. If he is trying to protect himself, why reach for the ball that's far behind you.
3. He was diving back to the crease at the same time, so he wasn't just trying to protect himself.

Stokes is a pretty talented guy so I think he was instinctively trying to protect his wicket.

That's just an obvious absolute contradiction

 

[TumTum]

That's just an obvious absolute contradiction

How? One is instinctive the other deliberate.

I don't think any party is to blame here, Stokes isn't a cheat and right decision been made time to move on.

 

[Coronis]

Woo media sensationalism! Out.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

2. If he is trying to protect himself, why reach for the ball that's far behind you.

He didn't reach for a ball behind him, he put his hand up to block the ball hitting him and reflexively followed it with his hand.

 

[adub]

If that ain't out just get rid of the rule and let batsmen do their best to block run out attempts. FFS. No one was cheating, no one was outside the spirit of the game. Stokes blocked a ball on it's way to the sticks with his hand, the Aussie appealed, he was (correctly) given. Move on.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It was ****ing out. Can't believe people are trying to blame Smith saying he should've recalled him.... why??!!! You don't recall batsmen for being dumb ****s. May as well recall a batsman who holes out to long leg hooking with 4 men on the boundary. It's the old spirit of cricket rubbish again that we had with the Buttler mankad. The rules are all that matter, and by the rules, he's out.

 

[OverratedSanity]

As I said in the tour thread, Stokes was out & although I don't think Smith can be blamed or was entitled in any way to recall the batsman, I do wonder if the likes of McCullum, de Villiers, Holder & Mathews would have reacted differently as skipper. Of course we'll never know.

Ha. McCullum ran out Murali and Mathews stuck it to Buttler. And rightly so.

 

[Zinzan]

Ha. McCullum ran out Murali and Mathews stuck it to Buttler. And rightly so.

The McCullum circa 2013+ is very different in the way he plays his cricket than the McCullum who ran Murali out all those years ago. If you can't see that, you haven't been watching him very closely.... so I still genuinely wonder how he would have reacted in that same situation, especially at Lords and especially as he and Morgan and supposedly so 'buddy buddy'.

Once again, I'm not blaming Smith in any way whatsoever, but given the way McCullum seems to put such a huge emphasis of the spirit of cricket these days, he could very well have called Stokes back, rightly or wrongly. And whats-more, he may very well have been criticised by NZ fans for being too nice if he did so. I didn't see the Mathews/Buttler one, so can't comment on that. For some reason I have an inkling AB may have erred on the 'nice guy' side too.

Either way, it's pure speculation.

 

[Adders]

And Morgan can shut his ****ing Pommy trap as well.

He's Irish mate.......

 

[Jono]

It was ****ing out. Can't believe people are trying to blame Smith saying he should've recalled him.... why??!!! You don't recall batsmen for being dumb ****s. May as well recall a batsman who holes out to long leg hooking with 4 men on the boundary. It's the old spirit of cricket rubbish again that we had with the Buttler mankad. The rules are all that matter, and by the rules, he's out.

Dhoni does.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Dhoni does.

Yup. And he's a fool.

 

[Jono]

Yup. And he's a fool.

SS's reaction when he did that was one of the best moments on CW.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why didn't Morgan call back Smith when he got caught at backward point? It wasn't deliberate, Smith was trying to hit the ball in the gap not to the fielder so he should have been called back.

The McCullum circa 2013+ is very different in the way he plays his cricket than the McCullum who ran Murali out all those years ago. If you can't see that, you haven't been watching him very closely.... so I still genuinely wonder how he would have reacted in that same situation, especially at Lords and especially as he and Morgan and supposedly so 'buddy buddy'.

Once again, I'm not blaming Smith in any way whatsoever, but given the way McCullum seems to put such a huge emphasis of the spirit of cricket these days, he could very well have called Stokes back, rightly or wrongly. And whats-more, he may very well have been criticised by NZ fans for being too nice if he did so. I didn't see the Mathews/Buttler one, so can't comment on that. For some reason I have an inkling AB may have erred on the 'nice guy' side too.

Either way, it's pure speculation.

lol pls

I remember watching the Murali run out, that was genuinely disgraceful

I'm extremely impressed with Smith. It shouldn't be up to a new Captain whose barely been through puberty to be the only mature and sensible figure of authority on the field while the more experienced English (Irish) Captain whines like a little ***** and embarrasses himself.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The McCullum circa 2013+ is very different in the way he plays his cricket than the McCullum who ran Murali out all those years ago. If you can't see that, you haven't been watching him very closely.... so I still genuinely wonder how he would have reacted in that same situation, especially at Lords and especially as he and Morgan and supposedly so 'buddy buddy'.

Oh I know that. I just prefer the old McCullum. Amazing how so many captains fall for that spirit of cricket nonsense in cases where it doesn't apply. That's why I love Mathews.

 

[Zinzan]

Why didn't Morgan call back Smith when he got caught at backward point? It wasn't deliberate, Smith was trying to hit the ball in the gap not to the fielder so he should have been called back.



lol pls

I remember watching the Murali run out, that was genuinely disgraceful

Can't you read? I never said it wasn't disgraceful, the point I was making was McCullum plays his cricket completely differently now than 5-6 years ago & as a result of that (with the Lords factor and Morgan being a buddy) he may have felt obliged, rightly or wrongly, to call him back.

I made it clear I'm not blaming Smith, so you're debating a strawman if you think I'm suggesting Smith should have acted differently.

 

[honestbharani]

Stokes was out easily.. the guy was trying to put his hand on the ball all along, you can see it in the replay that he has a good look at the ball and then puts his hand out. Steve Waugh did the same thing in Chennai against us.. It is not deliberate in the sense that he planned to obstruct the field. It is something players tend to do instinctively at the crease sometimes but the rule was put in for exactly that. He is out because of the rules. He is not a cheat or a coward or any other dumb thing opposition fans might call him but he was stupid to try and deflect the ball when it was gonna run him out and he was given out for it. End of story. Sky commentators can crybaby all they want.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea I don't like the 'intent' argument. It doesn't matter if Stokes was trying to protect himself or protect his wicket; he made a mistake, and he is out by the laws. Batsmen don't intend to get bowled, or to edge the ball to the slips, but they are still given out. Same thing here.

Smart cricket by Starc, silly mistake by Stokes, tough luck, he's out.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yea I don't like the 'intent' argument. It doesn't matter if Stokes was trying to protect himself or protect his wicket; he made a mistake, and he is out by the laws. Batsmen don't intend to get bowled, or to edge the ball to the slips, but they are still given out. Same thing here.

I think you need to read up on the rule a bit more

 

[cnerd123]

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).

Oooh okay missed the bolded bit. It looks pretty clear that he wilfully stopped the ball with his body - but yea he is not out if it was to avoid injury.

Hmmmm.

Don't think you can make a call on a batsmen's intentions one way or another. It's not glaringly obvious what happened here (unlike with Inzy's dismissal, for example). Benefit of the doubt to the fielding side makes sense; in a pragmatic, 'we don't want to set a precedent that batsmen can take advantage of' kind of way.

But yea okay I see the confusion. Not sure if I'd give it out or not.

 

[nevermind]

mervhughesinthecrowd.gif