Was Stokes Out?

[harsh.ag]

1) It was instinctive
2) No way to know if the instinct was to protect himself or something else
3) On balance, giving it out is safer than not

 

[Zinzan]

Interesting whether this thread would be longer than 7 pages to date had it not been given out.

 

[the big bambino]

I can't see how Stokes' defensive action could be described as premeditated and therefore wilful. Neither is it convincing that he sparred at the ball a distance away from his head. He still turned his head and then his back bcos in the brief moment he thought it was in line with the ball coming towards him. That seems a second line of self defence to me. The first line is to instinctively put up your hands to parry the missile which is the reason for the reaction. The actions of bunting away the projectile and turning the head are defensive instinctive. Not out for mine.

 

[Coronis]

I can't see how Stokes' defensive action could be described as premeditated and therefore wilful. Neither is it convincing that he sparred at the ball a distance away from his head. He still turned his head and then his back bcos in the brief moment he thought it was in line with the ball coming towards him. That seems a second line of self defence to me. The first line is to instinctively put up your hands to parry the missile which is the reason for the reaction. The actions of bunting away the projectile and turning the head are defensive instinctive. Not out for mine.

Even if it was just "instinctive" the fact remains that the ball was not going to hit him and he stuck out his hand, preventing it from possibly striking the stumps, i.e he obstructed the field. Out.

 

[marc71178]

I don't understand your English tbh

According to you it was impossible for anyone to watch it in real time and not conclude it was handled the ball yet the field umpire gave it not out and nobody gave it handled the ball.

 

[Burner]

It was not out, if you ask me. If you watch it live then it's DEFINITELY not out but if you slow it down maybe you can create a case for it being out but even then I reckon it's pretty slim. Batsman have an habit of acting like little school girls when the bowler throws the ball towards them. They can effortlessly manipulate a bowl bowled at them at 150 but just toss it at them and they lose their ****. All the times I've seen batsmen react to balls being thrown at them, it's pretty much every time identical to Stokes' reaction.

 

[Dan]

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

Eh, cricket umpiring decisions don't have the same burden of proof as a court decision.

I could imagine Watto appealing against a DRS decision in some form of international court, though.

 

[fredfertang]

It is for exactly that reason that I didn't use the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt', however unless I have missed something and the batsmen no longer gets the benefit of the doubt then to all intents and purposes it's a distinction without a difference

 

[honestbharani]

But isn't the doubt factor what the umpire feels? Maybe the third umpire felt there was not even a iota of doubt that he was taking some kind of injury evasion action and concluded it was out?

 

[ImpatientLime]

i think one thing we can all agree on is that its been too long since we had a good 'spirit of cricket' debate.

 

[Watson33]

Instinct behaviour for me, but I can see both sides of the argument.

 

[harsh.ag]

Another thing - The rule says "(i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury." This may not have anything to do with the batsman's intent, and the "unless" exception may only be valid if the batsman touched the ball right in front of his face or privates etc.

If that's the case, then yeah, Stokes was definitely out.

 

[fredfertang]

But isn't the doubt factor what the umpire feels? Maybe the third umpire felt there was not even a iota of doubt that he was taking some kind of injury evasion action and concluded it was out?

and on the evidence he had I can understand why he took that view - I'm sure he won't make that mistake again!

 

[cpr]

Watching it, I don't even think Stokes was trying to make his ground. He's seen the ball launched back at his direction, and twisted his body in a protective way and stuck a hand out as instinct to try and keep it away - all he knows when its thrown is its heading his way, he won't have been able to see the exact line it was travelling that quick - though bloody good guess by getting his hand on it! I don't think he's tried to catch it, merely when it hits his palm the muscles have naturally contracted a bit and it looks like an attempted catch (you punch your hand and your muscles will naturally curl around the fist, unless you are trying otherwise). To me, he lands, then as a secondary thought moves the bat to the crease as his cricketing instinct kicks in. I feel it was a purely evasive movement

From Starcs POV, he's got a batsman out of his crease, and he launches an accurate throw at the stumps. He has a clear shot at the stumps, and he isn't aiming at anything but them. If a batsman is scared then that's not his fault, nor should he feel he is impeded by it. He's every right to feel aggrieved that a dismissal has been denied by a deliberate action of an opponant - I'm not saying Stokes has made a deliberate action to stop the ball, but the decision to make an evasive move is a deliberate action, and that has lead to the ball being stopped. There is a difference, but from Starcs POV the result is the same, Stokes has flung himself for whatever reason and its stopped his run out.


The interpretation of this reminds me of football and penalties for deliberate handball - its very rare its 'deliberate' in how fans interpret it to mean 'they meant to handle it'. However referee's logic is
A) Was the attacker impeded by a defenders decision to place their hand in an unnatural position (not by their side, or protecting face) which lead to the ball being handled, whether that was the intent of the defender or not?
B) Had the ball followed a trajectory that intended to put it through that point (i.e., it hasn't hit a divot or bounced off another's leg etc.)?
C) Was it struck with genuine desire to advance play fairly (i.e. not aiming for the hand to deliberately win a penalty).

Usually if all these are true, the ref will give a pen, and get his parentage called into question by a number of drunken yobbos.


I say its fair to apply the same logic when looking at this rule, as 'wilfully' and 'deliberately' have similar (though not 100% identical) meanings, and are both modes of decision based on deciding if an infringement took place.

So for A), Stokes may be the attacker when he strikes the ball, but that ends when Starc stops his shot, and he can be considered the attacker from that moment (a fraction of a second before he launches his attack on the stumps). It's clear his attack is impeded. It's also fair to call Stokes' hand position unnatural – It's not beside his body, or protecting vital parts of his body. Without the hand being so far out, the ball would not have touched Stokes (again, Stokes may not know that, but it is a fact)
Its also clear Stokes' movements were decided upon – as in he hadn't accidentally fallen over. I would say this lead to the ball being handled, though Stokes probably did not mean to (or, possibly, he had not had time to think of the consequences and withdraw the hand before it was stuck. The thought process 'Damn, thats coming at me and could hurt, I'll push it away, oh **** no that'll get me in trouble, oh too late' would explain an outstretched hand without impinging on Stokes character). I am not saying Stokes' 100% intended on his hand being there, but he's made a wilful movement based on his assessment of the situation, and his body has ended up in that position solely because of that.

For B), It's clear Starc wanted the ball to go the way it did, no hitting a foothole/fielders shoe/low flying pidgeon and diverting.

Its also very safe to presume for C) that Starc was trying for a dismissal through run not, not obstruction, nor was he trying to hurt Stokes.


As such, I back the umpires decision to call this as a dismissal. Stokes had every right to stand his ground and even appeal it was an accident to the umpire (talk of him walking is stupid), however if the umpire decides 'you may not have intended to break the rule, but your actions did break it, so I'm dismissing you' then the team should accept that and seek any discussion over the rules after the game.


I know some will argue the word wilfully means that the batsman must've had intent to cause the outcome that occurred, but I disagree. The rules are to govern the playing of a match, and as such an action may be accidental but still breaks the rules. An intent is an outright attempt to distort the 'spirit of the game' and are dealt with elsewhere, such as match referee's and disciplinary panels. I believe the spirit of the wording is that the word wilfully is to be applied as 'anything that's not an uncontrollable event (such as falling over, ball hitting a divot etc etc). Furthermore IMO arguing over the semantics of a word in the rules and its interpretation is probably more against the spirit of fair play than anything. Writing a set of rules that are clear is very tough, to get them brief enough to be understood doubly so – there has to be a level of implied meaning in there, otherwise rule books would be the size of dictionaries to cover every single scenario and interpretation, and thus inaccessible for a person wanting to learn.

Obstruction sounds such a negative and deliberate attempt to break the rules, and I can understand a batsman upset at being label as this. However an obstruction is just a blockage in fancy letters, and Stokes can have no shame in the way he acted, it's just fate dealt him a ****ty hand and ended up leading to him being dismissed.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

if stokes was given not out, then that basically gives batsmen a free license to block run-outs as long as they flinch convincingly.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Eh, cricket umpiring decisions don't have the same burden of proof as a court decision.

I could imagine Watto appealing against a DRS decision in some form of international court, though.

He'd still be out and then appeal to god.

 

[the big bambino]

Even if it was just "instinctive" the fact remains that the ball was not going to hit him and he stuck out his hand, preventing it from possibly striking the stumps, i.e he obstructed the field. Out.

Fair enough though the law is conditional and I don't think the conditions were met.

 

[mr_mister]

Out every day of the week

 

[hendrix]

Why are people bringing up "handled the ball"?

He was out obstructing the field.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

if stokes was given not out, then that basically gives batsmen a free license to block run-outs as long as they flinch convincingly.

I've not read through the whole thread but the above is a wrong view.

The key word in the laws (not rules people) is 'wilful'.

I've only briefly seen the incident but that would be the question I would ask myself, and my colleague.