Was Stokes Out?

[Spikey]

If he had dropped everything and focused on not getting hurt, ok sure not out. But he's still actively trying to get back into his crease, while using his hand, which was off his bat prior to the throw, to get into the way of the ball.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Nah.. the ball was more than a fair distance away... I mean if it was a bouncer would he have felt in danger if there was that much distance between him and the ball? As I said, it is an instinctive thing that batsmen tend to do from time to time and the law was there to prevent that. He is obviously out.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Is it me or did Stokes appear to actually attempt to catch the ball? His palm appears to try close over the ball for a fraction of a second.

 

[Spikey]

The problem is Stokes turns into the direction of where Starc's throw will go. This wasn't intentionally devious of him or anything, but it has complicated things

 

[cnerd123]

Maybe it was Stokes fielding instincts kicking him. Guy's played cricket his whole life; when a ball is hurled at him he either whacks it with a bat or catches it with his hands.

 

[fredfertang]

Given that the batsman should get the benefit of the doubt the fact that this thread has polarised opinion to any significant extent makes it clear that the third umpire screwed up

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

lol pls

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.

wasn't responding to your post in any way in this case

Given that the batsman should get the benefit of the doubt the fact that this thread has polarised opinion to any significant extent makes it clear that the third umpire screwed up

no it hasn't

there's been ~29 people stating the obvious (that its out) and 2 or 3 stubborn English supporters disagreeing

 

[nsniks]

It was out and I agree with Atherton on commentary that slow motion replay made it worse for Stokes

 

[honestbharani]

Given that the batsman should get the benefit of the doubt the fact that this thread has polarised opinion to any significant extent makes it clear that the third umpire screwed up

24-7 is hardly a polarized score, Fred...

 

[hendrix]

Yeah it's just that I've seen some comments already saying that "it was probably out by the law, but the appeal should have been withdrawn because ????" which makes no sense, unless you're opposed to the very existence of obstructing the field + handled the ball as dismissals.

For what it's worth I think the taboo on giving a batsman out obstructing the field is really, really weird and shouldn't be there, because it's why we had that silly scenario a few years back where batsman after batsman would deliberately run zigzags to make sure the ball didn't hit the stumps when taking a run. These are professional sportsmen; give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Mankading too. Apparently cricket has convinced itself that just because a mode of dismissal is abnormal or rare, it should basically never happen, whilst forgetting that those modes of dismissal exist for a reason.

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.

McCullum's new mantra has to do with behaving on a cricket field how you would behave off a cricket field. I.e. don't be a wanker, don't abuse people, and try and enjoy things.

Nothing about this dismissal contradicts any of that.

 

[Furball]

His hand ends up where it does because it's an instinctive reaction. His hand is there to be the first line of defence against the ball hitting him.

Anyone saying it's definitely out should do a wee experiment where they get a friend to launch a cricket ball at them from 15 metres away and see what happens with their hands.

 

[Bahnz]

By the letter of the law I reckon that's probably not out. But given that Stokes would almost certainly have been run out had it not been for sticking his hand out, I tend to think that justice was done.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

So obvious that the on field umpire gave it as not out.

Really? All I saw was a replay of the wicket, didn't see the umpire. It looked a straight forward out to me

 

[Zinzan]

McCullum's new mantra has to do with behaving on a cricket field how you would behave off a cricket field. I.e. don't be a wanker, don't abuse people, and try and enjoy things.

Nothing about this dismissal contradicts any of that.

I didn't say it did contradict any of that, but with a booing crowd at Lord's and his mate Morgan at the non-strikers end pleading his case, I just wonder if Bmac may have succumbed to being the 'nice diplomatic overly-sporting guy'. As I said, had he done so, he would have likely got a barrel full from NZ fans.

 

[Zinzan]

By the letter of the law I reckon that's probably not out. But given that Stokes would almost certainly have been run out had it not been for sticking his hand out, I tend to think that justice was done.

Why wouldn't it be out according to the law below? Obviously the 3rd umpire interpreted that the action of using his hand wasn't in fact to avoid injury, given how far his hand was away from his body and it's hard to disagree with that, so not sure what letter of the below law you're referring to.

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).

 

[honestbharani]

His hand ends up where it does because it's an instinctive reaction. His hand is there to be the first line of defence against the ball hitting him.

Anyone saying it's definitely out should do a wee experiment where they get a friend to launch a cricket ball at them from 15 metres away and see what happens with their hands.

I have actually been injured on the cricket field due to a throw from the bowler and being the keeper, I have seen at least 3 such dismissals when I was playing for my school. His hand did go out instinctively but it was to protect his wickets and not his head. Its a reaction just like how Steve Waugh put his hand out to keep the ball from hitting his stumps in Chennai. You guys are just making way too much fuss about what was really just a daft dismissal in the end.

 

[Zinzan]

His hand ends up where it does because it's an instinctive reaction. His hand is there to be the first line of defence against the ball hitting him.

Anyone saying it's definitely out should do a wee experiment where they get a friend to launch a cricket ball at them from 15 metres away and see what happens with their hands.

Honestly think you need to remove your rose-tinted glasses on this one. Whether it's a reflex action or not, his hand was far enough away from his body to rule out the 'avoiding injury' clause and he blocked it from hitting the stumps when he was out of his crease. In fact as someone else pointed out, it almost looks like he was trying to catch it.

Would you honestly be making this argument if the roles were reversed?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I didn't say it did contradict any of that, but with a booing crowd at Lord's and his mate Morgan at the non-strikers end pleading his case, I just wonder if Bmac may have succumbed to being the 'nice diplomatic overly-sporting guy'. As I said, had he done so, he would have likely got a barrel full from NZ fans.

I think he's more intelligent than that

You'd have to be a complete idiot to call back a rightly dismissed batsman who effectively cheated and then complained about being given out like a complete wanker

 

[honestbharani]

I think he's more intelligent than that

You'd have to be a complete idiot to call back a rightly dismissed batsman who effectively cheated and then complained about being given out like a complete wanker

Now you are just going overboard the other way. It is a genuine reflex reaction of most batsmen at such times to avoid getting out. I know its daft, like handled the ball, but it does happen. I am 100% sure he was not even thinking about what he was doing.

 

[Zinzan]

I think he's more intelligent than that

You'd have to be a complete idiot to call back a rightly dismissed batsman who effectively cheated and then complained about being given out like a complete wanker

You may be right, guess we'll never know for sure. But you're over-simplifying things implying it was blatant cheating on Stokes part, even if it was out.