OT Ben Stokes.

[Webbo118 0]

"The spirit of cricket" has been slowly disappearing over the years, e.g. batsmen no longer walk when they know they have hit the ball, bowlers appeal when the ball has hit the pad although they know it is missing the wicket and fielders claim catches when they are fully aware that the ball has hit the ground. In this particular instance, the very small part of "the spirit of cricket" remaining, vanished for good. A sad day for the sport.

[Webbo118 0]

[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]

Four questions with sensible answers (not guesswork):-

1) Not possible to say

2) Not possible to say

3) Not possible to say

4) Yes

One out of four. Not bad!

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

Oh and Theo, the main difference between Smith and Collingwood is that the next day, after having some time to consider it, Collingwood apologised and admitted that he was wrong to appeal. Is Smith big enough to do that? I doubt it, after all he is Australian.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"][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]

Four questions with sensible answers (not guesswork):-

1) Not possible to say

2) Not possible to say

3) Not possible to say

4) Yes

One out of four. Not bad![/quote]....fair enough.But again, all irrelevant when you read the laws of the game. The first 3 of those 4 questions are only relevant to the appeal, not decision. The Obstructing the fielder law in cricket does not stipulate that you need to be sure a wicket was going to happen.The only relevance of this is if it is fair (i.e. in the spirit of the game) for the fielding team to appeal or not. They - as do most people - believe that had Stokes not handled the ball, he would have been run out. That''s why they appealed. They feel they were robbed a wicket by obstruction - which is the exact reason for this law of the game.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]Oh and Theo, the main difference between Smith and Collingwood is that the next day, after having some time to consider it, Collingwood apologised and admitted that he was wrong to appeal. Is Smith big enough to do that? I doubt it, after all he is Australian.

[/quote]True - He did. But then again he had something to be sorry for. There was an accidental collision involving one of his players. A disgraceful appeal. It''s always easier to be sorry after the fact, rather than do the right thing at the time.However this case is completely different. The reason Smith is defiant is because he believes he is right - something backed up by many neutral commentators (e.g. here). Starc throws the ball at the stumps when Stokes is out of his ground - something completely within the laws and spirit of the game, which we see all the time. No Australian player has any control over anything that happens up until the appeal. If Stokes doesn''t block the ball with his hand, he''s going to be out.That''s the reason for the obstruction law.Collingwood said sorry because he should never have appealed. Smith has nothing to be sorry for. That''s the big difference.

[ZLF 275]

much ado about nothing for - we were well beaten on the day and sometimes we get these decisions and sometimes we dont;  its all part of the game.   The calls to suggest the Aussies should have withdrawn the appeal (which were hardly vehement in any event) are a hark back to an age long gone;   some of the appeals and video appeals made by broad for example are a mockery of the phrase just not cricket so we can hardly call foul. 

 

Its a tough call and one of opinion only as we will never know stokes true intentions before making a call.   In the end three umpires took time to assess based on teh evidence in front of them and decided it was.   They could be wrong - who really cares?  It is a game - just like football and the refs decisions.

 

My initial reaction full speed and only reinforced in slo mo , and so my opinion,  was that he had intended to stop the ball rather than protect himself;   I find it an unusual position to put a hand if he was looking to protect himself.  People protecting themselves with arms find them in front of their bodies or head,  not stuck out as a possible impediment for the ball.   It seems my opinion is worng judging by stoKes pronouncements today (the cynic in me challenged whether he ever going to say otherwise) but my viewing remains unchanged - greta reactions,   unfortunate to be given out and the umpires can only call as they see it.  

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]Oh and Theo, the main difference between Smith and Collingwood is that the next day, after having some time to consider it, Collingwood apologised and admitted that he was wrong to appeal. Is Smith big enough to do that? I doubt it, after all he is Australian.

[/quote]True - He did. But then again he had something to be sorry for. There was an accidental collision involving one of his players. A disgraceful appeal. It''s always easier to be sorry after the fact, rather than do the right thing at the time.However this case is completely different. The reason Smith is defiant is because he believes he is right - something backed up by many neutral commentators (e.g. here). Starc throws the ball at the stumps when Stokes is out of his ground - something completely within the laws and spirit of the game, which we see all the time. No Australian player has any control over anything that happens up until the appeal. If Stokes doesn''t block the ball with his hand, he''s going to be out.That''s the reason for the obstruction law.Collingwood said sorry because he should never have appealed. Smith has nothing to be sorry for. That''s the big difference.[/quote]

"If Stokes doesn''t block the ball with his hand, he''s going to be out". How do you know that?

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]Oh and Theo, the main difference between Smith and Collingwood is that the next day, after having some time to consider it, Collingwood apologised and admitted that he was wrong to appeal. Is Smith big enough to do that? I doubt it, after all he is Australian.

[/quote]True - He did. But then again he had something to be sorry for. There was an accidental collision involving one of his players. A disgraceful appeal. It''s always easier to be sorry after the fact, rather than do the right thing at the time.However this case is completely different. The reason Smith is defiant is because he believes he is right - something backed up by many neutral commentators (e.g. here). Starc throws the ball at the stumps when Stokes is out of his ground - something completely within the laws and spirit of the game, which we see all the time. No Australian player has any control over anything that happens up until the appeal. If Stokes doesn''t block the ball with his hand, he''s going to be out.That''s the reason for the obstruction law.Collingwood said sorry because he should never have appealed. Smith has nothing to be sorry for. That''s the big difference.[/quote]

"If Stokes doesn''t block the ball with his hand, he''s going to be out". How do you know that?[/quote]You''re 100% correct. I don''t. In the physical world we live in, you could never know. He probably will, but we don''t know with 100% certainty.However, for the reasons I''ve explained numerous times on this thread, it doesn''t matter for the decision. The laws of cricket do not say that you need to be sure that a wicket was going to happen for something to be judged as obstruction. The only thing to judge on was - does the batsman ''willfully'' cause obstruction. It''s a complete mute point. But thanks for revisiting it.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]Oh and Theo, the main difference between Smith and Collingwood is that the next day, after having some time to consider it, Collingwood apologised and admitted that he was wrong to appeal. Is Smith big enough to do that? I doubt it, after all he is Australian.

[/quote]True - He did. But then again he had something to be sorry for. There was an accidental collision involving one of his players. A disgraceful appeal. It''s always easier to be sorry after the fact, rather than do the right thing at the time.However this case is completely different. The reason Smith is defiant is because he believes he is right - something backed up by many neutral commentators (e.g. here). Starc throws the ball at the stumps when Stokes is out of his ground - something completely within the laws and spirit of the game, which we see all the time. No Australian player has any control over anything that happens up until the appeal. If Stokes doesn''t block the ball with his hand, he''s going to be out.That''s the reason for the obstruction law.Collingwood said sorry because he should never have appealed. Smith has nothing to be sorry for. That''s the big difference.[/quote]

"If Stokes doesn''t block the ball with his hand, he''s going to be out". How do you know that?[/quote]You''re 100% correct. I don''t. In the physical world we live in, you could never know. He probably will, but we don''t know with 100% certainty.However, for the reasons I''ve explained numerous times on this thread, it doesn''t matter for the decision. The laws of cricket do not say that you need to be sure that a wicket was going to happen for something to be judged as obstruction. The only thing to judge on was - does the batsman ''willfully'' cause obstruction. It''s a complete mute point. But thanks for revisiting it.[/quote]

My pleasure. Two questions:-

If the throw had been obviously going well wide of the stumps and the ball struck his hand, would the decision have been the same? How is it proved that the obstruction was wilful when he appeared, at real speed, to be attempting to take evasive action?

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]Oh and Theo, the main difference between Smith and Collingwood is that the next day, after having some time to consider it, Collingwood apologised and admitted that he was wrong to appeal. Is Smith big enough to do that? I doubt it, after all he is Australian.

[/quote]True - He did. But then again he had something to be sorry for. There was an accidental collision involving one of his players. A disgraceful appeal. It''s always easier to be sorry after the fact, rather than do the right thing at the time.However this case is completely different. The reason Smith is defiant is because he believes he is right - something backed up by many neutral commentators (e.g. here). Starc throws the ball at the stumps when Stokes is out of his ground - something completely within the laws and spirit of the game, which we see all the time. No Australian player has any control over anything that happens up until the appeal. If Stokes doesn''t block the ball with his hand, he''s going to be out.That''s the reason for the obstruction law.Collingwood said sorry because he should never have appealed. Smith has nothing to be sorry for. That''s the big difference.[/quote]

"If Stokes doesn''t block the ball with his hand, he''s going to be out". How do you know that?[/quote]You''re 100% correct. I don''t. In the physical world we live in, you could never know. He probably will, but we don''t know with 100% certainty.However, for the reasons I''ve explained numerous times on this thread, it doesn''t matter for the decision. The laws of cricket do not say that you need to be sure that a wicket was going to happen for something to be judged as obstruction. The only thing to judge on was - does the batsman ''willfully'' cause obstruction. It''s a complete mute point. But thanks for revisiting it.[/quote]

My pleasure. Two questions:-

If the throw had been obviously going well wide of the stumps and the ball struck his hand, would the decision have been the same? How is it proved that the obstruction was wilful when he appeared, at real speed, to be attempting to take evasive action?[/quote]The answer to your first question is yes. If the throw was going wide of the stumps, and if Stokes was judged of willfully handling the ball, and Australia appeal, then yes, he would have to be given out. However in this instance, it would be very unlikely that Australia would have appealed. That would be very unsporting.To clarify this point - in the laws of cricket, if a batsman blocks the ball, the ball lands at his feet, and he picks up the ball after it has stopped to hand it back to a fielder, he can be given out for obstruction if the fielding team appeals. This is why you never see this happen at top level. The fielding team will always be made field the ball in such an instance.Your second question - IMO - is the only contentious thing of the whole incident. The umpires judged that Stokes was ''willful'' in the hand movement towards the ball. I happen to agree with this decision. Even though I think he was instinctively trying to do something in way of avoiding the ball, I still think it was a willful move of his hand towards the ball. Others may disagree with this - which is fine, but it was the 3rd umpires call that it was - which is why he was given out.

[ZLF 275]

The trouble with wilful is that it can only be an opinion from the umpires as to what Stokes intentions were - they made a judgement call,  and whichever decision was made was going to be wrong to many 

 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,864]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

The trouble with wilful is that it can only be an opinion from the umpires as to what Stokes intentions were - they made a judgement call,  and whichever decision was made was going to be wrong to many 

 

[/quote]

This is exactly it. We see it in football with penalty decisions and such like: it is a 50-50 call that will no doubt infuriate one side if the decision is given, and do likewise if the decision is not.

For this reason, I don''t think either side could have had real complaints either way, but if I''m looking at it objectively, I think the umpires made the correct decision.

[Webbo118 0]

To clarify this point - in the laws of cricket, if a batsman blocks the ball, the ball lands at his feet, and he picks up the ball after it has stopped to hand it back to a fielder, he can be given out for obstruction if the fielding team appeals. This is why you never see this happen at top level. The fielding team will always be made field the ball in such an instance.

I am fully aware that it is possible to be given out in this instance but it will not happen. It would be against "the spirit of cricket". You are wrong that you will never see this happen at top level. I have attended dozens of test matches and ODIs and have seen batsmen pick up the ball when it has dropped at their feet and pass it/lob it to a fielder on a number of occasions.

[Webbo118 0]

The following may (or may not) be of interest:

An addition was made to the law in 1950 to allow umpires to give a batsman not out if the ball should strike the hand after "an involuntary action by the striker in the throwing up of a hand to protect his person". For a time, the act of handing the ball back to the fielding side was listed as not out under Law 33, and instead was considered to be part of a different method of dismissal: obstructing the field, covered in Law 37. The illegal nature of this offence was later returned to Law 33. In 1948 the MCC issued a reminder to batsman, advising them not to handle the ball for any reason at any point during a cricket match, but it is relatively common for batsmen to pick the ball up and return it to the fielding side. Charles Wright was the first player to be dismissed for returning the ball to a fielder in first-class cricket; albeit wrongly. Brodribb relates that in an 1893 match, W. G. Grace influenced Wright to return the ball to him, and upon doing so, appealed. The umpire dismissed Wright, despite a clause added to the law nine years previous stating that a batsman would not be ruled out if they were returning the ball at the request of the fielding side.

In total, there have been 59 occasions on which a batsman has been given out handled the ball in first-class cricket and 4 instances in List A cricket. The most recent dismissal of this fashion in first-class cricket occurred during a County Championship contest between Derbyshire County Cricket Club and Leicestershire County Cricket Club in September 2014, when Derbyshire''s India Test batsman Cheteshwar Pujara was dismissed for the infraction. Brodribb suggests that it is likely that there should have been a significant number more dismissals than there have been for handling the ball: in addition to the cases where batsman have returned the ball to the fielding side without permission, there are records of cases in which the umpires have been reticent to uphold an appeal. On one such instance, the umpire David Constant rejected an appeal against Younis Ahmed, saying that he thought the appeal was not serious.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]To clarify this point - in the laws of cricket, if a batsman blocks the ball, the ball lands at his feet, and he picks up the ball after it has stopped to hand it back to a fielder, he can be given out for obstruction if the fielding team appeals. This is why you never see this happen at top level. The fielding team will always be made field the ball in such an instance.

I am fully aware that it is possible to be given out in this instance but it will not happen. It would be against "the spirit of cricket". You are wrong that you will never see this happen at top level. I have attended dozens of test matches and ODIs and have seen batsmen pick up the ball when it has dropped at their feet and pass it/lob it to a fielder on a number of occasions.[/quote]I call BS on that! You NEVER see it. In fact fielding teams get very possessive over the ball, as they want to shine it, manage it and get it swinging. Next time you watch a game on TV, have a biscuit every time a batsman picks up the ball with their hand. You''ll go very hungry..... and I too watch a lot of cricket, have played at a pretty high level and am also an ECB level 1a qualified umpire - however I rarely umpire these days.But we''re getting pedantic now, and way off the point.

[Webbo118 0]

I am sorry but you are absolutely wrong. It doesn''t happen every five minutes but to say that it NEVER happens is completely untrue. You watch your t.v. a bit more closely next time and when it happens, smack yourself in the head. You might get fed up a bit quicker than you think.

[Webbo118 0]

I respect your cricket involvement but will resist the temptation to tell you mine !

[Legend Iwan 30]

Hell hath no fury like cricket fans quarrelling over the concept of ''the spirit of cricket''. If only those that clearly care so much about the sport spent their time on more useful pursuits, such as asking how the ICC was allowed to be taken over in a coup by the three richest nations, who are subsequently shrinking the game, and now give their own countries a bigger share of the organisation''s income, for example.

[Herman 9,837]

The blokes on fire. 232 so far. And well done Bairstow.

[? 0]

Playing amazingly, the run rate is incredible too.

[Herman 9,837]

When to declare is the question. Keep going till he''s out or get to 600+ and let the bowlers at them?

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

[quote user="Ron Manager"]Playing amazingly, the run rate is incredible too.[/quote]Don''t we need to wait to see what grefstad''s statistics are on that?

[? 0]

This is more like T20 than a test! Thoroughly demoralising for the No1 test team in the world!

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Now Bairstows moment

[Icecream Snow 762]

Surprised they declared to be honest, especially at the rate they were scoring at.

[Katie Borkins 1]

A flat pitch and hot conditions and you still have to get 20 wickets to win. Makes sense to declare early and give your bowlers as much time as possible.

[Legend Iwan 30]

Declare early? We were only mid-way through the 2nd session of day two. There''s another three-and-a-half days to go.

South Africa haven''t scored above 250 in a Test innings since January last year, and, while drawing this Test isn''t beyond them, it would probably go down as one of their most impressive performances if they managed to bat for that long.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Legend Iwan"]Declare early? We were only mid-way through the 2nd session of day two.[/quote]

Yes, that counts as an early declaration by most standards of test cricket.