Was Stokes Out?

[dfrinku]

Was the decision reviewed or did the umpires just send it upstairs?

 

[Midwinter]

So watched it in real time after the comments made here.

Stokes is watching Starc pick up the ball and throw it.

He flings out his hand,he watches the ball almost into his hand before turning his head ,on the side the ball is travelling.


It is understandable that in real time people think he taking avoiding action.

But when you realise he is watching Starc pickup and throw and he knows the path the ball is taking ( ie it is not going to hit him) then why does he reach out with his hand and almost catch the ball ?

Does he turn his face away because he knows he may not catch the ball and it may deflect towards him?
( Also noted in the slow motion that Stokes does not make an attempt to regain his ground, as he is watching the ball, before he turns away and falls, making it appear that he does)

Out.

YMMV

 

[Burgey]

I think the reason people bring handled the ball into this discussion is it's a similar sort of reflex action. When Waugh and Gooch each knocked the ball away, it wasn't a premeditated thing, but their actions were still wilful and in breach of that particular law. I see this incident as something very similar tbh in that Stokes' reactions were very much spur of the moment but were nevertheless wilful.

I can see both sides of this argument tbh, but on balance I think he was rightly given out. The throw was heading towards the stumps and he was stone dead way out of his ground.

 

[the big bambino]

.




( Also noted in the slow motion that Stokes does not make an attempt to regain his ground, as he is watching the ball, before he turns away and falls, making it appear that he does)

Out.

YMMV

That suggests his primary concern was self preservation against the possibility of sustaining an injury. At least in his mind which would explain his action. It seems he abandoned all thought to regain his ground to defend himself. Whereas in the analogy given above this post the intentional first thoughts of Waugh and Gooch, though not premeditated, was to protect the wicket, not the person.

 

[Midwinter]

That suggests his primary concern was self preservation against the possibility of sustaining an injury. At least in his mind which would explain his action. It seems he abandoned all thought to regain his ground to defend himself. Whereas in the analogy given above this post the intentional first thoughts of Waugh and Gooch, though not premeditated, was to protect the wicket, not the person.

Disagree with that

"Stokes is watching Starc pick up the ball and throw it.

He flings out his hand,he watches the ball almost into his hand before turning his head ,on the side the ball is travelling"

His intent, assumedly reflexive, is to deflect the ball from its thrown path.

"Does he turn his face away because he knows he may not catch the ball and it may deflect towards him?"

The deflection would have been off his own hand, as a result of his action.

 

[social]

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

Batsman hasn't received the benefit of the doubt since introduction of DRS

 

[the big bambino]

@Midwinter.That's really assuming a level of forethought not available in real time. Starc picks up the ball on the left side of Stokes' body. From Stokes' vantage a missile is coming across his body and at some quick point he'd reasonably believe its coming for him and at head height. You then throw up your hand as a 1st line of defence.

 

[social]

IMO, if you are not going to give that out then you might as well discard the law as the burden of proof would be too high

 

[cpr]

OK, but that bolded part, your looking at half a second time span there? How quick can a guy snap his neck around? He'd give himself whiplash if he'd managed to turn his head any quicker. Also to know its not going to hit him is a bit much IMO. These people are beaten by a ball bowled at twice the distance that they are intent on hitting, at half the distance a ball thrown (not bowled) unexpectedly and sending a bit of a panic in you... Nah, I think he's reacted to the threat instinctively and not overly bothered to pick up the exact trajectory. As I say, I think the umpires made the right call, but to suggest Stokes is making a concerted effort to catch that is going a bit far.

 

[the big bambino]

@social. Not really. Just an opinion if I was 3rd ump. Can quite understand the out decision. Reckon its open to both interps.

 

[cpr]

IMO, if you are not going to give that out then you might as well discard the law as the burden of proof would be too high

Exactly, we've so many analysts watching it over and over again. If you are expecting an umpire to make that call within a minute or two and keep the game flowing, then yeah, he's never going to be able to sufficiently decide whether the batsman is just claiming an accident or not. The games not about analysing the character of a player, its about is a ball going to hit the stumps or not. In this case it was until the batsman somehow obstructed it, intentionally or not. Umpire should give a fair and just call and get on.

 

[social]

Exactly, we've so many analysts watching it over and over again. If you are expecting an umpire to make that call within a minute or two and keep the game flowing, then yeah, he's never going to be able to sufficiently decide whether the batsman is just claiming an accident or not. The games not about analysing the character of a player, its about is a ball going to hit the stumps or not. In this case it was until the batsman somehow obstructed it, intentionally or not. Umpire should give a fair and just call and get on.

Unfortunately, the law mentions "intention" and that is tantamount to requiring the ump to be a mind reader

 

[social]

I fear Ben Stokes dismissal may spark new aggressive approach by captains - Telegraph

Absolute nonsense from Vaughan as batsmen get hit by throws all the time with the difference here being that Stokes' actions was judged to have prevented a dismissal

Some people to take a few deep breaths

 

[Jono]

Vaughan truly is a dip****

 

[Cabinet96]

Look at his face in his telegraph profile picture. Would love to punch him.

 

[honestbharani]

Unfortunately, the law mentions "intention" and that is tantamount to requiring the ump to be a mind reader

Yeah but at least in this case it was obvious that he was not trying to avoid an injury. It might have been his very first reaction but everything after that was a reflex to prevent the ball hitting the stumps.

You guys should really check out the Inzi and Raina obstructing the field dismissal. Inzy even took evasive action as the ball was near him but it was still obvious the reaction was to actually protect his wicket than himself. But both teams handled it far more maturely and better. Heck, even the fans handled it well, esp. the Pak fans. Even here I think there were more comments on Inzy being daft than actual aggro. And Indian fans certainly did not go out of their way claiming Inzy was a cheater or a coward.

 

[Jono]

Respective nation's media reactions to Broad not walking in 2013 and this show just how horrific the cricket media is. So much wahhs.

Imagine if the Indian cricket media were involved somehow. Would have the holy trio of horrendous coverage.

**** em all.

 

[honestbharani]

Respective nation's media reactions to Broad not walking in 2013 and this show just how horrific the cricket media is. So much wahhs.

Imagine if the Indian cricket media were involved somehow. Would have the holy trio of horrendous coverage.

**** em all.

Read my post above yours, Joni.. It happened against Pakistan, FFS and both sides still handled it better.

 

[adub]

All this kerfuffle over the word intent. The ICC has indirectly given the best way to judge intent when they changed the interpretation for players who run down the pitch to block throws. It is simple. If you move to get yourself between the ball and the sticks - that's intent.

There is no reason at all for Stokes to have turned the way he did if he was just trying to protect himself, other than a (reflexive) desire to preserve his wicket. He could have ducked down, he could have turned towards the left rather than the right, he could have stood still and brought his arms and bat up in front of his body. But he did none of those things. He turned in the direction that would give him the greatest chance to deflect the ball away from the stumps. Purely reflexive as I've conceded, no one has time to sort through it, batsmen are conditioned to protect their wicket, but it's still intentional by any sensible interpretation. All this other bull**** about oh he was just trying to stop it hitting him (by sticking his arm a couple of foot out across and past his body) is tosh that if it was accepted makes the rule pointless.

If Stokes had stood still and brought his arms up in front of his face and the ball caught the elbow - sure then no intent. If he'd turned left and brought his hands up over his head in protection and the ball caught the bat - sure then no intent. As soon as he made a move that put him between the ball and the stumps though then that has to be considered intent for the purposes of the rule or else you need psychologists not umpires. A ridiculous situation. The intent is judged from the action - move towards blocking the throw = intent, move away of stay still = no intent.

 

[adub]

once is enough