Well, an English batsman was given out for obstructing the field. He put his hand out and deflected a ball that was thrown at the stumps (Which if it had hit he may have been given run out).
Now, the neutral umpires made the decision that he was out for obstructing the field. Now the Poms are bitching that Australia should have withdrawn the appeal, he was protecting himself blah blah blah.
In the end it mattered little as England were hammered. And he could have been given out for handled ball anyway.
Nevertheless it is entertaining to see all the angst and trying to take a high moral position. Bodyline anyone?
(And before AK84 weighs in catch up with the Andrew Hilditch dismissal))
Before my time. I will say this, the Poms are becoming more Aussie, as in throwing a hissy fit everytime someone else does what they do as a matter of course!
Yeah, I wasn’t really having a dig at you- more a pre emptive strike.
Honestly though, what was your opinion of the umpires decision? I thought they got it right and hopefully I am not being parochial.
(And I watched that test when Hilditch was given out. The umpires had to give it but as he was such a mediocre player I can’t understand why Pakistan bothered).
Clearly out as per the letter of the law, Inzamam was given out as well a few years ago against India, and unlike Stokes he was not trying to stop the ball going onto the stumps.
I am against the bowler throwing the ball at the batter in a situation like this, if it happens, it should be an immediate removal from the attack, try and hit the striker all you want when actually bowling, but this is beyond the pale. Stuart Broad (aka arsewipe) injured a player doing this a few years ago.
As for Hilditch, wasn’t it Javed Miandad at the center of it? That would explain a lot.
I agree with throwing the ball at the batsman. The person involved should be removed from the game, but that is a dangerous line to tread. Who would want to be the first umpire to ban someone?
I think it was Safraz Nawaz in the Hilditch dismissal. Which was to me strange as he was such a good bowler. Asif Iqbal immediately distanced himself from the appeal saying “We don’t have to stoop that low” It alway seened odd to me because (as I recall it) Hilditch picked the ball up and returned it to the bowler. Legally he was out and shouldn’t have done it.
I think the umpires are right because Stokes cannot use the exemption for avoiding injury in a circumstance where he only thought he could be injured. Had he simply stood there and continued to watch the ball, as he had to the point that his hand was out almost to catch it, the ball would have sailed straight past him.
Len Hutton’s 1951 test dismissal happened because he misconstrued where the ball was going and mistakenly prevented a catch.
It’s a pretty ordinary rule that requires the umpire to guess what the batsman was thinking but would be a far worse one if batsmen could handle the ball and get off by saying, “I thought I was protecting myself.”
Mind you I wouldn’t have appealed having only seen it in real time.
I just think it is a storm in a tea cup. Did it affect the result of the game? We’ll never know. Have there been contentious decisions before? Hell yes.
And this is one reason I rate the Windies sides of the 80’s so good- they never had neutral umpires. I would like to believe the Australian side under Waugh was better due to having a top class spinner (Which the indies never had after Lance Gibbs)
I guess if you have four lethal express bowlers you won’t need a spinner.
Particularly if you can get way with bowling 11 or 12 overs an hour, thus making it virtually impossible for the opposition to score runs at any sort of aggressive rate. Their tactics were only slightly this side of cheating and in fact in 1990 they used deliberate and farcical delaying tactics to deny England a victory at Port of Spain.
Imran Khan and Abdul Qadir could tell you a few tales about how the lack of neutral umpires helped the Windies, in the Carribian; actually Imran does quite a lot in his book.
I actually agree that the umpires were right to give him out, but this section of your OP is really idiotic.
Bodyline? Are you kidding me? That was over 80 years ago. I was in New Zealand recently, and a Kiwi i was talking to made some smart-alec crack about underarm bowling. I thought even that was pretty borderline, considering it happened well over 30 years ago, but at least there are plenty of people around who actually saw it happen.
You sound like the American old-timers who complain about Japanese baseball players because of “what they did to us at Pearl Harbor.”
You got there before me to say the same thing. Ridiculous.
Anyway, I think by the letter of the law he should have been out. It looked instinctive rather than an attempt to not be out and arguably the bowler should not have made the attempt (the commentators were clearly shocked by the effort and commented that the bowler was apologising after it), but in the end it wasn’t close enough, IMHO, to justify stopping it. Dangerous fielding and instinctive defensive response, but by the letter of the law out.
A couple of decades or so ago they’d have agreed to let him stay on the field, but the gentlemanly nature of cricket on all sides is in the dim and distant past I’m afraid.
Got to agree and I’d like to think I’d be equally critical were the nations reversed.
The one thing that really bugs me is when such incidents (in any sport) are run in slow-mo.
If the key factor in deciding guilt is whether it was deliberate or not then full speed is the only way to go. Everything looks deliberate if you run it slowly enough.
Pretty small beer by the standards of intimidatory bowling any other time, especially when the Aussies had the firepower and the other side didn’t. Only Larwood and Voce bowled to a leg-theory field (and Bowes, but he played in only one Test and took only one wicket -
Bradman, dragging on first ball to one that didn’t get up), and the only serious knocks anyone took weren’t caused by it. Woodfull took one over the heart while Larwood was opening the bowling to a conventional field (the new ball was still swinging), and Oldfield pulled one onto his own head and was the first to admit the bowler wasn’t to blame.
So yeah, Bodyline anyone? Bring it. After 82 years it’s time to sack up.
The throw was going to miss Stokes to the right by a couple of feet and he “instinctively” throws his left hand way across his body and into it’s path? Sorry, guilty as charged.
I also think Smith should have withdrawn the appeal before it went to the DRS. Much better material to work with. “Son, you are only out here because we didn’t want to make you look bad on TV”, rather than get a wicket in a meaningless game already won. They have now created a situation where a handy player will be on a mission for the rest of his career. Hopefully that indulgence will cost plenty 'cause I think he’s a cricketer worth watching longer.
Of course, what Stokes should have done was to stand his ground, hit the ball to the cover boundary and then given Starc a spray. Technically just as illegal but to appeal after that would have been a clear sign of weakness as in “Mr Umpire, he’s being nasty to me” and the dust and feathers would have settled before the end of the over.
I don’t like to see it. I’d be happy to give the umpire some discretion though. They are best placed to decide the seriousness of it. Letting the batting team know your fielders are fast, accurate and ruthless is a legitimate tactic, bundling that into an attempt to intimidate the batsmen through a potential impact? That goes over the edge for me.
I must admit to having only seen the incident once in news highlights, but it looked to me like it was a legitimate attempt at a run out by Starc - from his point of view, he has fielded the ball and thrown it at the stumps, so of course he is going to appeal. Surely the fact that it hit Stokes’ hand away from his body indicates that it wasn’t thrown at him per se? On the other hand, I think it was bad luck for Stokes as given he has turned away, I don’t think he is deliberately trying to parry the ball, so he wasn’t “wilfully” obstructing the field and as such should perhaps have been given not out (which would equally be bad luck for Starc, but there we go). I think all the hate is totally unnecessary, it’s just a cricketing incident in the heat of the moment and England should not try to make too much of it.
Anyone who wants another look can see the incident here.
I tend to agree with you: Stokes had advanced a fair way out of his crease, and i don’t really blame Starc for having a shot at the stumps.
I certainly think Stokes’ reaction was instinctive, and he was not deliberately trying to obstruct play, but i also think that the umpires got the call right.