Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Herman

OT Ben Stokes.

Recommended Posts

Out or not out?? What do some of the more knowledgable cricket fans think?[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/34165449[/url]

[url]https://youtu.be/CLepo01Vf5k[/url]

The more you look at it in slow mo it looks a deliberate block imo. But then again I''m not the one getting a lump of concrete thrown at me at 100mph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not out, it was effectively self-defence.
This creates a dangerous precedent when a bowler can now hurl the ball at any batsman out of their ground and the batsman runs the risk of being given out if their hand touches the ball while attempting to protect themselves.
Ludicrous decision, poor sportsmanship by the Australians and awful third umpiring.
I hope Steven Finn gets to hurl a few back next game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I missed it yesterday, but that looks out to me. Hand outstretched, then turns head away once he knows the ball''s going to hit it to make it look unintentional.

Big fan of Stokes, but think he got rumbled there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The pertinent law is as follows;

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).

2. Accidental obstruction

It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt.

The issue here IMO opinion is whether it was wilful and was he protecting himself from injury and therefore is very subjective.

Yes, it was wilful, he did deliberately raise his hand but within the split second he had to take protective action with the ball heading his way at considerable speed, I very much doubt his motive was anything other than self protection, it''s not as if the ball was going to hit the stumps anyway. Putting your hands up to protect yourself against (deflect) ''incoming'' is almost a reflex action.

The Aussies had the right to appeal, which they did, however as in other instances perhaps the umpires could have asked the batsman a simple question, why did you do that and then accept his answer as the state of his mind. If the answer was to pretect myself, then not out, the 3rd umpire can watch the slow motion as often as he likes, it will never provide him with the thought process of the batsman.

IMO, was he trying to protect himself, yes, so not out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stretching it a bit, it was just about out based upon the slow-mo, but it was a cheap wicket which arguably turned the game. Stokes and Morgan were beginning to look dangerous.

Real-time indicated that it was mainly a defensive action by Stokes, but then all third umpiring decisions are made based on the slow-motion replay after all.

Smith comes out of the incident with little credit IMO and if he is happy to advance the cause towards a win in that manner then he won''t be a popular captain with the opposition.

Perhaps, with more games under his belt as captain he might not need be so ruthless in need of that win, although he has already captained a World Cup winning side.

Spoilt the game and, to a certain extent, the spectacle and there would probably have been more of a uproar at any other venue than Lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think LDC''s reference to a penalty, no doubt humourously intended, is relevant. If a defender fell with his arm stretched out like that, with his arm well away from his body, I would suspect deliberate handball. In this case, I suspect deliberate obstruction of the ball - out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cricket used to have a thing about batsmen having the benefit of the doubt - there''s enough uncertainty in the actions of Stokes that he shouldn''t have been given out. There''s also a thing about the ''spirit of cricket''. Yes they were entitled to appeal, and perhaps he was out - but does it ''feel'' right? The most telling thing was the reaction of Morgan and his post-match comments: he would clearly have retracted the appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He clearly deliberately blocked the ball with his hand. It looked instinctive in real time and the slow motion was very incriminating. The crux of the matter is whether the umpires were able to decide that he was deliberately stopping the ball hitting the stumps or simply defending himself. I cannot see how they could possibly make that decision one way or the other as there is no way of knowing what was in the batsman''s mind. Yes, the ball would have missed him and may well have hit the stumps, but it was going close enough for him to take evasive action. Without certainty, he should have been given not out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Every time a batsmen is slightly out of his ground , now it''s fair game to throw the ball at the batsmen and claim an "out". Lets hope it happens to Australia in a key moment ."

This Mail comment correctly, IMO, suggests repercussions.

The comment about "benefit of the doubt" muted above also holds water.

That the ''yays'' and ''nays'' of the decision are being widely discussed, at all levels, suggests some doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically speaking, Stokes was out but I think in real time he was protecting himself. Imagine if Broad had thrown the ball back to Smith or Maxwell and they were given out then even the Aussie PM would have had something to say about it.

After the Aussies had their bellies tickled in the Ashes and their slaughtering by the press down under, they are back to their "win at all costs" mentality.

Yesterday''s decision has set a dangerous precedence in future games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ICC announced a couple of years ago they were going to clamp down on ''obstructing the field'' because batsmen out of their ground were cheekily getting in the way of the ball, or a fielder, and making it look accidental.

I''m not sure, in the split second Stokes had to react, what his intention was. You could make good arguments for either case- trying to avoid getting hit, or deliberately blocking the ball.

But, with the rules as they are, I don''t think we can have any complaints. If the boot was on the other foot I would have no problems with an Australian batsman being given out like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that there is doubt on this one. When the ball struck his hand he was in the process of throwing himself out or line, and was not even looking.

Slow motion replays can be misleading. The ball was thrown at him from about 15 yards, and at about 60 m.p..h, and in this situation your only concern is your safety. There is not time to make a decision, position your hand and also jump out of the way. In a sense he was lucky even to make contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would expect better from a team that has lost one of their players to a crack on the head from a cricket ball. It was clearly dangerous and was closer to hitting Stokes than it was the wicket. Stokes movement is instinctive and I think that anybody who had a cricket ball thrown at them from 10 yards away at 80-90mph would react in a similar manner.Poor sportsmanship from the Aussies, but that''s what you should expect from them as they are terrible losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 questions you need to ask;Was the ball going to hit the stumps? ProbablyWas Ben Stokes going to be out of his ground? ProbablyIf Stokes had have missed the ball, would he have been out? ProbablyDid Ben Stokes''s action stop the ball? Yes.Regardless of if it was an impulse reaction or not - they got it right based on the above, and the laws of the game.I also disagree the above claim that Steve Smith comes out not looking very good. What did he do wrong? Appealed and got the umpires to make a decision? If anyone comes out of this looking bad - it''s Morgan. The claim that England wouldn''t have appealed in such a situation is just BS. England have done it before! He''s only saying that to get the home crowd onside and make Smith into a new pantomime villain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure what all the fuss is about, it didn''t effect the match out come. Once again England allowed them to get 300 plus runs and once again we couldn''t anywhere near that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong on very many levels.

Cricket is a game where the captains hold the power to call a player back and there is no doubt at all that Morgan would have retracted the appeal. None at all.

It''s not an Eng/Aus thing, it is a cricket thing: the fact that many people disagree means there is doubt. In cricket that means not out, and has done since the game began.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought there was enough doubt for it to be "not out" but the follow up question here is.What would have happened if Stark had miss thrown the ball and hit Stokes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All those saying out.... go into your gardens and throw a bouncy ball as hard as you can against a wall that looks like it''ll hit you at about neck/shoulder height. See what your reactions are. Now imagine that balls a lump of concrete.

No doubt when Starc released the ball it was travelling towards Stokes'' body. He reacts to this, turns his back and puts his arm out and it''s only via slow mo it looks like a deliberate attempt to block the ball. In real time an instinctive reaction to defending himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]4 questions you need to ask;Was the ball going to hit the stumps? ProbablyWas Ben Stokes going to be out of his ground? ProbablyIf Stokes had have missed the ball, would he have been out? ProbablyDid Ben Stokes''s action stop the ball? Yes.Regardless of if it was an impulse reaction or not - they got it right based on the above, and the laws of the game.I also disagree the above claim that Steve Smith comes out not looking very good. What did he do wrong? Appealed and got the umpires to make a decision? If anyone comes out of this looking bad - it''s Morgan. The claim that England wouldn''t have appealed in such a situation is just BS. England have done it before! He''s only saying that to get the home crowd onside and make Smith into a new pantomime villain.[/quote]I''m smelling an awful lot of "probably" coming off of your post Theo, and probably means that the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman.In real time (which is what the batman is dealing with) the ball looked equally as likely to hit Stokes as if it was going to hit the stumps. So that leads on to some further questions to ask.1. Can Ben Stokes be certain that the ball thrown at him at 80mph from 10 yards away is going on to hit the stumps in the 0.5 of a second he has to react? Probably not.2. Can Ben Stokes be certain that the ball thrown at him at 80mph from 10 yards away

is not going to hit him in the 0.5 of a second he has to react?Probably not.3. Does the movement look instinctive?Definitely at full speed.4. With the force it was thrown, if the ball had hit Stokes is it likely to have caused injury?More than likely.5. Is the appeal then within the spirit of cricket?No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I have analysed the incident, the more, reluctantly as an England fan, I have to admit that although Stokes could have been given the benefit of doubt, the correct decision was probably made. Starc gets a perfect bounce as he collects the stokes drive; the momentum of Stokes''s follow through takes him quite a bit out of his crease. Starc instinctively seizes the opportunity to shy at the stumps, not deliberately at the batsman. If Stokes was thinking of purely taking evasive action from the ball thrown from 15 yards, he would have moved all of his body toward his (left hander''s) off-side (slightly away from the stumps) leaving his stumps exposed. Instead, His left hand moves toward the path of the ball, and to me it looks as if he could have even caught the ball, but he lets it out of his grasp to make it seem unintentional. Batsmen know they only have one chance and hate the disappointment of getting out. Even in split second decisions to take evasive action, they can also make more deliberate decisions (a survival instinct to avoid being out). This can happen in real-life as well as on the cricket field. What I think could have been an even more controversial incident would have been if Stokes had taken purely evasive action, and the ball had hit the stumps and he was run out. I wanted them to show ball tracking for the path of the throw (hahaha). I think it was just going over off stump. I think ex-umpire David Lloyd''s comments about looking at it in real-time were a bit of a red herring. I think even at normal speed the Stokes''s left hand moves in a direction that arouses suspicion; hence the appeal from Starc. The 3rd ump took the movement of Stokes''s left hand to indicate willful intent. Probably fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100% not out. Dreadful, hypocritical and very poor from Australia and Smith, as per usual. Very hypocritical after the Broad feather edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]4 questions you need to ask;Was the ball going to hit the stumps? ProbablyWas Ben Stokes going to be out of his ground? ProbablyIf Stokes had have missed the ball, would he have been out? ProbablyDid Ben Stokes''s action stop the ball? Yes.Regardless of if it was an impulse reaction or not - they got it right based on the above, and the laws of the game.I also disagree the above claim that Steve Smith comes out not looking very good. What did he do wrong? Appealed and got the umpires to make a decision? If anyone comes out of this looking bad - it''s Morgan. The claim that England wouldn''t have appealed in such a situation is just BS. England have done it before! He''s only saying that to get the home crowd onside and make Smith into a new pantomime villain.[/quote]I''m smelling an awful lot of "probably" coming off of your post Theo, and probably means that the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman.In real time (which is what the batman is dealing with) the ball looked equally as likely to hit Stokes as if it was going to hit the stumps. So that leads on to some further questions to ask.1. Can Ben Stokes be certain that the ball thrown at him at 80mph from 10 yards away is going on to hit the stumps in the 0.5 of a second he has to react? Probably not.2. Can Ben Stokes be certain that the ball thrown at him at 80mph from 10 yards away

is not going to hit him in the 0.5 of a second he has to react?Probably not.3. Does the movement look instinctive?Definitely at full speed.4. With the force it was thrown, if the ball had hit Stokes is it likely to have caused injury?More than likely.5. Is the appeal then within the spirit of cricket?No.[/quote]I only answered the questions ''probably'' being objective. Obviously I think the answers to my questions are yes. As did the umpires.However to your questions above;1. I think you''re right, but that''s irrelevant to the laws of the game here. He moved his hand stopping it from heading towards the stumps. The law states that;"Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.""Willfully". If I instinctively try to catch a ball, am I willful in that action? I''d say yes.2. Again, I think you''re right, but again, irrelevant.3. Yes, but it''s instinctive to put his hand on the ball, not instinctive in the action of turning to try and make his ground.4. Unlikely at that height in my opinion. He didn''t break his hand even though it hit a part unprotected by a glove. However, that''s largely a side issue. We see throws like that all the time. They are neither illegal, or unsporting.5. This is the part that confuses me. It is neither illegal of unsporting to attempt to run out a batsman after the ball returns. All teams do that. Including England. We''ve seen Stokes himself try the same thing multiple times. You see this throw at least once every few games. Once Starc throws the ball, he is not in control of anything that happens. If the ball hits the stumps (which we''ve already established it ''probably'' will), Stokes will be out. Why is it unsporting to appeal when, if Stokes had not put his hand there to block the ball - whether instinctively or on purpose - he would have been out? That''s why the obstruction law is there!Either way I think this point will be argued for a while. Personally I think it''s a good thing. I love it when there is a bit more feeling in these matches. The summer was starting to wimpier out after the Ashes. This has put a little more into it again. I bet more people will be tuning in for Tuesday''s game as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]Cricket is a game where the captains hold the power to call a player back and there is no doubt at all that Morgan would have retracted the appeal. None at all. [/quote]Right - just like how Collingwood retracted his appeal in the link I posed above (again, here for your convenience).I guess we''ll never know for sure. However, it''s very easy to take the moral high ground and throw the oppo captain under the bus when you get beat and have the home crowd on your side. Personally, I think all Morgan has done has dug a little hole for himself for the next time something like this happens. I''d like to see what he''d do now if he''s on the fielding side of a similar situation in a world cup semi-final against India. It may be a little harder to take the moral high ground then. And if he does, then kudos to him - but I bet he get''s slated by everyone if England then go on to lose the game.It''s going to be interesting to see, won''t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you consider the fate of Phil Hughes, it seems rather silly for any captain, never mind the Australian captain, to be suggesting a valid way to get wickets is to hurl a ball in the direction of a batsman from around ten yards away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re my previous post. Seems like I have forgotten everything I learnt at school about paragraphs. Sorry to anyone who had the patience to trawl through it.

Starc was having a shy at the stumps, not the batsman. In fact, if Stokes had been run out, it would have been deemed a great piece of instinctive fielding. Agree with everything The Ghost has just written. The best thing for England to do is move on. Think the appeal from Starc was fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pains me to say so but definitely out.

If the ball hadn''t hit Stoke''s hand he would have almost certainly been run out. He moved his hand to the ball, clearly we can''t know if this was done instinctively or deliberately, but whichever it was this prevented his dismissal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at the incident over and over at full speed, the arm comes out first, then he tries to turn back to his crease. If his initial movement had been to turn round towards his crease, he would have been not out, but because his hand comes out and with the palm facing the ball, it looks like a deliberate attempt to block the ball.  He knows full well the ball is heading for the stumps so his instinct was to put his arm out first, then turn back towards his crease. A desperate attempt to not get run out.  Out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...