Was Stokes Out?

[AldoRaine18]

I haven't seen the incident and have only read the comments here, correct me if I am wrong but isn't this same as an unintentional handball in football inside the box? There are times when the defender has no time to get his arm out of the way - in that case it is usually seen if the arm was away from the body or not - and it the arm was folded and in the same line as the body, a penalty is not given. The rule is ball touching any part of forearm inside the box is a penalty but in a lot of cases the intention is considered.

Given cricket is a lot more stop-start than football, there certainly should be a chance given to analyze the situation in such cases by the third umpire and consider the intention. Also considering the fact that a lot of times the instinct while looking at a cricket ball heading for your face would be to block it, you shouldn't be given out to protect yourself from getting hurt. It could be difficult to judge whether it was intentional or a reflex but personally this rule shouldn't be black or white, and subjective to the incident.

Sorry if I have gone off topic.

 

[GIMH]

Just pointing out when it was England they were quite happy to take the wicket but somewhere between that incident and this one they have decided that they now would do it differently and because they have changed their stance then everyone should have followed them. But then again we don't know that because if it was them they may still have taken the wicket. England have at some stage changed their view on this matter and just expected that everyone do the same.

But you've missed my point haven't you. They were wearing the three lions but:

Different captain
Different players
Different coach
Different selectors

Trying to badge it as hypocrisy, because let's face it that's what you're doing, is just nonsensical.

 

[Jono]

NZ captain Brendon McCullum criticises Steve Smith over Ben Stokes dismissal

 

[sledger]

Tbf Smith, whilst he's definitely cheated here, it's not as bad as some of the other instances of cheating we've seen in recent times. Butt, Amir, Afridi etc...

 

[Jono]

Tbf Stokes, whilst he's definitely cheated here, it's not as bad as some of the other instances of cheating we've seen in recent times. Butt, Amir, Afridi etc...

yeah but Stokes is uglier.

 

[sledger]

Sop following me around on LinkedIn ****

 

[Jono]

But you've missed my point haven't you. They were wearing the three lions but:

Different captain
Different players
Different coach
Different selectors

Trying to badge it as hypocrisy, because let's face it that's what you're doing, is just nonsensical.

haha yeah, unless the same players or coach are involved its hard to claim hypocrisy. I mean how far do we go back?

Definitely can claim hypocrisy of some fans who wahh about one decision against their team but support the other (all things being equal of course), but I don't think you can blame Morgan for a decision England made in 2005.

 

[Cabinet96]

Don't let logic get in the way of nationalistic dick waving.

 

[Jono]

is it weird that I think of a dick with a southern cross tattoo whenever I read that phrase?

 

[Jono]

aka Peter Siddle's wang

 

[harsh.ag]

@harsh

Personally I don't think the fact that the ball clearly wouldn't have hit Stokes is any more relevant than whether or not it would have hit the wicket had he not stopped it - I think it boils down to whether or not he made a conscious decision to improve his chances by flailing his arm like that - I don't see how he could have done

Yeah, but my whole point is that the letter of the law is silent on intent -

"(i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury."

So maybe if the ball isn't actually threatening injury (as it didn't in Stokes' case), then maybe the third umpire had no choice but to give it out.

 

[GIMH]

haha yeah, unless the same players or coach are involved its hard to claim hypocrisy. I mean how far do we go back?

Definitely can claim hypocrisy of some fans who wahh about one decision against their team but support the other (all things being equal of course), but I don't think you can blame Morgan for a decision England made in 2005.

Have it on good authority that when the Inzy dismissal happened Morgan threw a pint of Guinness at the screen before pissing on a photo of the queen

 

[Jono]

Had a pint of Beamish when I was in Dublin last. Was extremely filling.

 

[honestbharani]

And all the players in that match played this one...

I mean I don't think Smith should have withdrawn his appeal, but it is of zero relevance to what happened in this match.

quite a few commentating and crying about it on sky n other media were though...

 

[GIMH]

quite a few commentating and crying about it on sky n other media were though...

Michael Vaughan. Who else?

Still bears zero relevance to my point anyway.

 

[honestbharani]

I was not refuting your point. That is fair enough. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the guys crying fowl in the media. I think some of the same sky commentators were on duty during that 2005 pak series as well right?

 

[Furball]

I don't buy all this ****e about withdrawing appeals though. As much as I don't agree with the decision, once given why should Smith turn round and say 'nah, carry on mate.' Surely the fact there was an appeal indicates Smith thought it was out?

 

[GIMH]

I was not refuting your point. That is fair enough. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the guys crying fowl in the media. I think some of the same sky commentators were on duty during that 2005 pak series as well right?

Yeah pretty sure most were scathing at the Inzy dismissal though...

 

[honestbharani]

They were but I am pretty sure no one was criticizing Vaughan for not withdrawing the appeal though...

 

[GIMH]

They were but I am pretty sure no one was criticizing Vaughan for not withdrawing the appeal though...

Whatever makes you happy hb. Take what you can get