Was Stokes Out?

[TheJediBrah]

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.

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.

ffs of course i was exaggerating to say he "cheated". Just trying to express a point.

I said earlier:

Yeah, Stokes doesn't deserve to be ostracized or attacked for cheating

fair to play for you guys calling me out on it though. Can't get anything past you.

 

[fredfertang]

no it hasn't

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

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

rather more polarizing than 24-2, and I did qualify my remark anyway - but I'll admit I'm polarized - how anyone seeing that in real time can be satisfied beyond doubt that Stokes wilfully handled the ball is something I find absolutely baffling - I sincerely hope that none of the 24 (I think its 28 now) are ever tasked with sitting in judgment on their fellow man

 

[Zinzan]

fair to play for you guys calling me out on it though. Can't get anything past you.

Yeah, because everyone always reads everyone's previous posts prior to commenting on the isolated post they're about to reply to.

 

[Burgey]

I've always hated seeing people throw the ball afterwards. Mainly because nine times out of ten it seems they're just being a prick.

Not in this case IMO. Stokes a was mile down the deck and the throw wasn't even comparatively close to his body or head. Can understand if he flinched and was trying to protect himself, but can also understand him being given out. It's pretty 50/50 as to his intent IMO. I'd lean towards it being out.

 

[Burgey]

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 generally get my hands up high and pull the ball between mid wicket and square leg for four or six. What about you?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, because everyone always reads everyone's previous posts prior to commenting on the isolated post they're about to reply to.

what? I wasn't expecting you to. That's why I posted it.

rather more polarizing than 24-2, and I did qualify my remark anyway - but I'll admit I'm polarized - how anyone seeing that in real time can be satisfied beyond doubt that Stokes wilfully handled the ball is something I find absolutely baffling - I sincerely hope that none of the 24 (I think its 28 now) are ever tasked with sitting in judgment on their fellow man

I find this genuinely interesting because I have a hard time understanding how anyone can see that in real time and it not be obvious to them that it's out handled the ball

 

[Bahnz]

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).

As a few people have noted, it looks bad in slow-mo but having seen it in real time my impression was that he was probably reacting out of an instinctive fear of getting hit, and not due to any wilful effort to stop the ball from hitting the stumps.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

rather more polarizing than 24-2, and I did qualify my remark anyway - but I'll admit I'm polarized - how anyone seeing that in real time can be satisfied beyond doubt that Stokes wilfully handled the ball is something I find absolutely baffling - I sincerely hope that none of the 24 (I think its 28 now) are ever tasked with sitting in judgment on their fellow man

But whether he willfully did it or if it was just a reflex doesn't matter. It's out either way, no?

 

[marc71178]

what? I wasn't expecting you to. That's why I posted it.



I find this genuinely interesting because I have a hard time understanding how anyone can see that in real time and it not be obvious to them that it's out handled the ball

So obvious that the on field umpire and the third umpire didn't think it was that?

 

[marc71178]

But whether he willfully did it or if it was just a reflex doesn't matter. It's out either way, no?

How many time does the law have to be posted in this thread for it to be clear that it has to be wilful?

 

[TheJediBrah]

So obvious that the on field umpire and the third umpire didn't think it was that?

I don't understand your English tbh

 

[Furball]

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?

Yes. It wasn't out.

 

[Compton]

I'm still not buying this 'reflex' or 'avoiding injury' thing.

Bowlers chuck back balls at advancing batsman all the time, and this essentially never happens. Why is it that Ben Stokes has managed to be the first in recent memory to manage to handle the ball with this 'natural reflex'?

 

[Energetic]

Yes! but who cares? it wouldn't have made a difference to the result due to the margin of defeat. An overrated all-rounder who's not even ranked in top 10 with an ordinary record.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm actually not sure whether it's out or not, morally or by the rules. But I 100% support Australia's right to appeal and stick to their guns when it was out - which is hard for me to say as a noted hater of the way Australia play cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes! but who cares? it wouldn't have made a difference to the result due to the margin of defeat. An overrated all-rounder who's not even ranked in top 10 with an ordinary record.

Yeah all the allrounders in world cricket are overrated and crap except Shakib-Al-Hasan, Mashrafe Mortaza, Mahmudullah and Nasir Hossain

 

[adub]

There is a world of difference between putting up the defences to protect yourself from getting hit and throwing a hand out at near full stretch whilst you turn to make your ground. If Stokes was only worried about stopping getting hit he would have moved in a very different way. You see it regularly, with guys putting up the bat or ducking or swaying out of the way. Stokes knew he was dead if the ball hit the sticks and that was what every action was looking to stop. This 'oh he was protecting himself' crap is just such self serving bull****. If it was Warner that did it you know every Pom and his Granny would be screaming for him to be given and they'd be dead right to do so. When you're halfway down the pitch and the bowler is legitimately having a ping you have two choices - get the **** out of the way and take your chances on him missing, or cop it on the body. As soon as you make any move to get something between the ball and the sticks you're gone. The rules were clarified in the last couple of years to make this clear by making sure guys who run down the centre of the pitch to block a throw are ruled as obstructing the field. This is a pretty similar case. If Stokes turns anti clockwise to get back into his ground (away from getting in line with the throw) he would have got back in just as much time, but had no chance of getting something on the ball (or getting hit by it). He didn't do that because if it hit he was out. Obviously this was completely reflex, but that doesn't make it any less 'intentional' than placing a quality drive through the covers from a 150kph+ bowler.

Out every single day of every single week and so it should.

 

[hendrix]

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.

Nah I don't think one thing relates to the other. They play hard, they just don't talk crap.

 

[hendrix]

As a few people have noted, it looks bad in slow-mo but having seen it in real time my impression was that he was probably reacting out of an instinctive fear of getting hit, and not due to any wilful effort to stop the ball from hitting the stumps.

an instinctive reaction to prevent the stumps from being broken also, as others have noted.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes. It wasn't out.

No, it obviously was and was given.