Support NeoGAF

[kmag]

Wasn't it bumble who said "If he was a horse they would take him out the back and shoot him" at one point?

Great innings from MMarsh really showing that Watto's days are numbered. Why he's playing at 6 I'll never know. Though if Warner is out for the series he or maybe wade will open.

Warner's out of the tour with a broken thumb, and Watson is out of the game with a calf strain. Marsh will probably be at 5 now, I'm not sure what they'll do at opener now, Wade? and bring in another bowler probably Agar. It's that or bring another batter in from Australia.

Australia will need two new openers for Bangladesh now as well.

Christ Starc is bowling badly here.

 

[Jezbollah]

Ben Stokes out obstructing the field.

The Aussies should never complain about Stuart Broad ever again.

 

[kmag]

Ben Stokes out obstructing the field.

The Aussies should never complain about Stuart Broad ever again.

Oh fuck off, he looked at the ball and flung his hand up. He was half way down the pitch. If he didn't throw his hand out he'd have been ran out. He never got back in until he landed.

 

[Jezbollah]

Oh fuck off, he looked at the ball and flung his hand up. He was half way down the pitch.

Watch it in real time. Not intentional.

Law of the game says "wilfully", which means with intent. I dont think it was.

 

[War Peaceman]

Oh fuck off, he looked at the ball and flung his hand up. He was half way down the pitch. If he didn't throw his hand out he'd have ran out.

He doesn't have time to think that through. It is bullshit.

 

[Steverulez]

Ben Stokes out obstructing the field.

The Aussies should never complain about Stuart Broad ever again.

This is quite extraordinary, it was a hard throw and it was very reactionary from Stokes. I can't say I think it was a very smart move from Steve Smith to uphold it personally but there we go.

Aussies will win now

Oh fuck off, he looked at the ball and flung his hand up. He was half way down the pitch. If he didn't throw his hand out he'd have been ran out. He never got back in until he landed.

Perhaps you should consider it from the perspective of Ben Stokes who has just had a rocket thrown very close to his body

 

[Antiwhippy]

Still obstructing it. Even if it was accidental he prevented a run out chance.

 

[War Peaceman]

Still obstructing it. Even if it was accidental he prevented a run out chance.

That's not the law. Wilful obstruction.

 

[Antiwhippy]

That's not the law. Wilful obstruction.

Even if it's instinctual you have no problem with people using their bodies to block a run out chance?

If he was hit on the leg as he was running in I'd understand, but nope, you lost me on this one.

 

[kmag]

He doesn't have time to think that through. It is bullshit.

His hand came up and away from his body. It's the same in football where the law states intentional hand ball, you throw your hand away from you at right angles and the ball hits it it's handball. It's no different here. There is no need for his hand to be there.

 

[Jezbollah]

Even if it's instinctual you have no problem with people using their bodies to block a run out chance?

If he was hit on the leg as he was running in I'd understand, but nope, you lost me on this one.

So you're basically green lighting the opportunity to throw the ball at a batsman if he's out of his crease and the ball is driven back to you? Lets do it every over.

 

[War Peaceman]

Even if it's instinctual you have no problem with people using their bodies to block a run out chance?

If he was hit on the leg as he was running in I'd understand, but nope, you lost me on this one.

He was covering his face from it being thrown from a short distance. There was no conscious thought involved in that (I don't think there is any conscious thought in any part of Stokes' life, but that's a different story).

 

[Antiwhippy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZXLsipEYHo

Inzi was protecting himself too.

Still should be out.

So you're basically green lighting the opportunity to throw the ball at a batsman if he's out of his crease and the ball is driven back to you? Lets do it every over.

Fucking duck.

If you're out of the crease, it's fair game.

 

[Jezbollah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZXLsipEYHo

Inzi was protecting himself too.

Still should be out.

Was that at head hight from much shorter distance?

Common sense needs to be used between a legitimate application of the law to a batsman protecting himself from harm.

 

[kmag]

So you're basically green lighting the opportunity to throw the ball at a batsman if he's out of his crease and the ball is driven back to you? Lets do it every over.

Like Broad used to when he was pissed off?

 

[Antiwhippy]

Was that at head hight from much shorter distance?

Common sense needs to be used between a legitimate application of the law to a batsman protecting himself from harm.

The batsmen can protect himself from harm. That's fine. That doesn't protect him from being out though.

Stop fucking running down halfway to give the bowler an excuse to aim for your stumps.

 

[Jezbollah]

Like Broad used to when he was pissed off?

The batsmen can protect himself from harm. That's fine. That doesn't protect him from being out though.

Great. So I'll expect to see more of it then.

 

[Antiwhippy]

As it should be. Batsmen need to learn not to be as dozzy as they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzq7k6ZwOxI

Should bravo not go for it if virat was conveniently blocking the wickets with his body?

Virat got fucking pissed when johnson hit him aiming for the stumps but guess what? He runs down the pitch all the goddamn time. Stay in your crease if you don't want bowlers throwing your stumps down.

Let me be clear though, I am saying this on behalf of bowlers who get a fucking raw deal with the rules in this game. Being able to throw the stumps down is a way to limit what the batsmen can do.

 

[kmag]

Great. So I'll expect to see more of it then.

What exactly was Stokes protecting? His hand was a mile away from his body. If you're looking to protect yourself your arms to your body not away from it.
Even if it's a case of him protecting himself, the wilful action was to raise his hand towards the ball and it stopped a run out. It wasn't as if he was a step out of his crease, he played the ball and continued down the pitch.

 

[Jezbollah]

What exactly was Stokes protecting? His hand was a mile away from his body.
Even if it's a case of him protecting himself, the wilful action was to raise his hand towards the ball and it stopped a run out. It wasn't as if he was a step out of his crease, he played the ball and continued down the pitch.

In my opinion, he puts his hand up at head hight, and moves his head away from the ball when it comes in. it's a natural, instinctive move to protect himself against a cricket ball being thrown right at his face. The fact he moves his head away in my opinion makes it clear that he has no intent to stop the ball hitting the stumps, rather it hitting his head.

This is where I say that the law shouldn't apply as the law is clear in it's definition, that it applies for a batsman who is deliberately and wilfully stopping the ball from hitting the stumps.

This incident needs to be watched in real time, as it happens so quickly. There is literally no time to think of a deliberate action to prevent malicious interference in a run out chance - its over within two seconds..

 

[Steverulez]

What exactly was Stokes protecting? His hand was a mile away from his body.
Even if it's a case of him protecting himself, the wilful action was to raise his hand towards the ball and it stopped a run out. It wasn't as if he was a step out of his crease, he played the ball and continued down the pitch.

You are assuming that he was aware he was going to be able to get his body out the way, for a ball travelling that fast and he was not exactly planted ready to face it.

I often feel in situations like these its easy to look at decisions that benefit your team and decide whatever they choose is right. Perhaps looking at the situation from the perspective of whether that was was Jimmy Anderson or Wood or someone throwing the ball at Steve Smith and how you would similarly feel had the situation gone through like it did.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Then all a batsmen need to do to safely rundown without fear of reprise is put his body directly in front of the stumps then. Great, another advantage for batsmen in a format where they have all the advantages.

I'm not looking at this as an australian fan, I'm looking at this as a bowler pissed at how much this format babies batsmen.

Instinctual blocking should be willful blocking. The only thing I will accept is if the ball struck the batsmen without him having awareness of it. Instinct is a form of awareness.

 

[Antiwhippy]

I will forever be amused at how effective maxwell's jammy bowling is.

 

[Jezbollah]

Then all a batsmen need to do to safely rundown without fear of reprise is put his body directly in front of the stumps then. Great, another advantage for batsmen in a format where they have all the advantages.

I'm not looking at this as an australian fan, I'm looking at this as a bowler pissed at how much this format babies batsmen.

Instinctual blocking should be willful blocking. The only thing I will accept is if the ball struck the batsmen without him having awareness of it. Instinct is a form of awareness.

AW. I think you and I will have to agree to disagree - even if instinct is a form of awareness, I dont think it's a form of intent.

 

[Steverulez]

Buttler needs to improve his batting, or getting better scores in general. A lot of players in this team are just not doing much

 

[kmag]

You are assuming that he was aware he was going to be able to get his body out the way, for a ball travelling that fast and he was not exactly planted ready to face it.

I often feel in situations like these its easy to look at decisions that benefit your team and decide whatever they choose is right. Perhaps looking at the situation from the perspective of whether that was was Jimmy Anderson or Wood or someone throwing the ball at Steve Smith and how you would similarly feel had the situation gone through like it did.

He was generally aware enough to turn and try to ground his bat. He wasn't exactly in the line of the ball when he flung his hand out. His hand was nowhere near his body, and the ball wasn't directed at him. If you're protecting yourself I don't get why you'd stick your hand out away from your body instead of bring it in to protect your face.

 

[Jezbollah]

Buttler needs to improve his batting, or getting better scores in general. A lot of players in this team are just not doing much

Buttler has pretty much been terrible for the past year. I think he's been working more on his keeping than his batting - and it shows.

 

[Antiwhippy]

In sports there are so many things that rely on instinct. I don't think stoke's intent was on protecting his stumps either, seeing that he ran down in a rather dozy fashion, but I don't think it exempts him from actually blocking it with his body, changing his body, whether purposefully or not, in a way that obstructs the ball. If he was running back and the ball struck him without him reacting to it, I'd understand.

 

[kmag]

Buttler needs to improve his batting, or getting better scores in general. A lot of players in this team are just not doing much

End of a long summer. Buttler's shown his class before. I'm not sure you want to get into the old England trap of chopping and changing at the whims of form. If he doesn't improve in the UAE then it's time to revisit it and maybe go to Bairstow.

 

[Antiwhippy]

He needed to improve his keeping anyway if england actually wanted him to be a full time keeper.

 

[kmag]

This isn't over yet.

 

[War Peaceman]

I think whether or not he was technically out according to the rules as interpreted (I'd argue not) I really think it was unsporting to appeal/not withdraw the appeal. The Ashes was played in very good spirits and it just seems out of place to do this.

 

[Jezbollah]

Not surprisingly there is a major difference of opinion between Morgan and Smith re the Stokes incident - and it's sad that it'll overshadow what was an excellent performance by Australia.

 

[kmag]

Very easy for Morgan to say he'd withdraw the appeal considering he wasn't in the position to do so. Of course England captains of old haven't exactly been so generous...like Collingwood vs NZ or Vaughan vs Pak.

As always it's only 'disappointing' when the colonies do it.

If Stokes hadn't put his hand out into the path of the ball he'd have been out.

 

[War Peaceman]

Very easy for Morgan to say he'd withdraw the appeal considering he wasn't in the position to do so. Of course England captains of old haven't exactly been so generous...like Collingwood vs NZ or Vaughan vs Pak.

As always it's only 'disappointing' when the colonies do it.

If Stokes hadn't put his hand out into the path of the ball he'd have been out.

Given that Morgan is Irish it seems a bit off to make that colonial comment.

Though of course it is easy to say that when you are the victim.

 

[holygeesus]

Very easy for Morgan to say he'd withdraw the appeal considering he wasn't in the position to do so. Of course England captains of old haven't exactly been so generous...like Collingwood vs NZ or Vaughan vs Pak.

As always it's only 'disappointing' when the colonies do it.

If Stokes hadn't put his hand out into the path of the ball he'd have been out.

As soon as you turn your head and aren't even looking at the ball, intent should be automatically withdrawn as an option. It detracts from a terrible England performance again and they would have lost either way, but it was a poor decision by Smith not to withdraw and not the sort of thing you want surrounding your captaincy.

 

[Moobabe]

Very easy for Morgan to say he'd withdraw the appeal considering he wasn't in the position to do so. Of course England captains of old haven't exactly been so generous...like Collingwood vs NZ or Vaughan vs Pak.

As always it's only 'disappointing' when the colonies do it.

If Stokes hadn't put his hand out into the path of the ball he'd have been out.

The bolded is my first take away here - it's easy for Morgan to say that.

As for the dismissal itself... it doesn't look good for Stokes - especially in slow motion (I'll come on to real time)

He charges down, well out of his crease (which I, like Smith it seems, think is crucial) and turns to "protect himself" yet the ball hits the outstretched hand, which is well away from his body. It looks dozy, lazy and it looks out.

Real time tells a different story though. It happens SO quickly - firstly Starc bowls at 85+ mph, Stokes bats it back and has seconds to react to a throw from the bowlers - who I do think is well within his rights to throw it back. It's... harsh.

Bowlers are ALWAYS throwing the ball back at the stumps though - let's not jump on our high horses here - whether the batsmen are in the way or not. Ben Stokes IN THIS VERY GAME did it in an over where he was getting spanked all around the ground. It's frustration, it's aggression and it's supposed to defy the batsman who has been charging down the ground at you.

 

[kmag]

Given that Morgan is Irish it seems a bit off to make that colonial comment.

Though of course it is easy to say that when you are the victim.

I was more meaning about the English cricket press and the England fans. Lots of chat about 'not cricket' until their lot do it (and they do it often) then it's mouths and pens shut.

 

[hamchan]

Stokes seems to have problems when people throw the ball near his body. Just another dreadful brain fart from him after that terrible run out in the second test.

 

[Steverulez]

End of a long summer. Buttler's shown his class before. I'm not sure you want to get into the old England trap of chopping and changing at the whims of form. If he doesn't improve in the UAE then it's time to revisit it and maybe go to Bairstow.

I don't think we should drop him by any stretch of the imagination, he has been a great wicket keeper for us since he came in and there is no doubt about that in my mind but he still needs to do more with the bat because when he does he's great but we've not seen that for a while

 

[kmag]

I don't think we should drop him by any stretch of the imagination, he has been a great wicket keeper for us since he came in and there is no doubt about that in my mind but he still needs to do more with the bat because when he does he's great but we've not seen that for a while

Looks like he's been concentrating on his keeping, which has came on leaps and bounds the last 18 months, and probably hasn't been as focused on his batting. The bat is away from his body now.

 

[Steverulez]

At least we know the next ODI is going to be a fiery match.

 

[kmag]

The law by the way states wilful

In cricket wilful is used in cases where there is no intent to play the ball by the action but it happens anyway see

http://www.lords.org/news/our-blogs/the-laws-blogs/the-laws-blog/buttlers-costly-glove-drop/

"A fielder may field the ball with any part of his person, but if, while the ball is in play, he wilfully fields it otherwise,

(a) the ball shall immediately become dead.

and (b) the umpire shall,

(i) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side."

Buttler took his glove off to catch a ball thrown into him, and dropped the glove. He then fumbled the ball onto the glove without intending to, but gave up 5 penalty runs.

Wilfully’ is a key word in Law 41.2. Unfortunately it does not have a single simple interpretation. The umpire has to recognise different degrees of wilfulness, according to the situation.

"If a fielder’s cap falls off and the ball touches it, the Law has not been broken and the ball remains in play.

"The same would be true of a pair of spectacles or any other item (difficult to imagine) capable of falling off, except the fielder’s helmet.

"If, however, he had pushed his cap off, or had taken off a sweater, even though he may not deliberately manoeuvre the object to intercept the ball, because he had removed it deliberately he is to be considered as wilfully fielding the ball otherwise than with his person."

Intent doesn't always come into it which muddies up the idea that an instinctual action is ok. Stokes may have instinctually flung his hand out, but since the ball wasn't hitting him until he flung his hand out I'm not sure the protecting yourself/evasive action part comes into it at all

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

The cheek of Vaughan to moan about the Stokes dismissal after this shit happened on his watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMI4o2SZp2Y

 

[kmag]

The cheek of Vaughan to moan about the Stokes dismissal after this shit happened on his watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMI4o2SZp2Y

The spirit of cricket only ever seems to be one way, England are always bleating on about it but have shall we say an elastic relationship with it when it's in their control.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

The spirit of cricket only ever seems to be one way, England are always bleating on about it but have shall we say an elastic relationship with it when it's in their control.

Sounds like Australia when they were the best team in the world too. It was "hard but fair" cricket and everyone else was just crying because they were losing.

lol Inzi. Never has there been a person so ill suited for sport, yet somehow still able transcend physical limitations and be so brilliant at it. Probably in my personal Top 5 cricketers of all time. That was a douche move back then, and it still looks douchey now.

Yup, one of my favourite Inzi stories (and there are many) is this bit from Mike Selvey:

Pakistan, then under Javed Miandad's tutelage, began their session with warm-ups and some strenuous training. It all bypassed Inzy, who had yet to leave the airconditioning of the dressing room. Fielding drills followed, during which he emerged, tracksuited and padded up. He wandered across to a large wicker chair by the nets and slumped down to observe the efforts of his team-mates.

Then came a net session that he also viewed nonchalantly for a while before deciding it was time for a spot of batting. So he unzipped his top, removed it, placed his green Pakistan helmet on his head, and strolled into the nearest net, where for 20 minutes he proceeded to bat like a prince, before deciding enough was enough. Out he came, collecting his extraneous gear on the way, and disappeared back to the dressing room, not to be seen again. Next day, of course, he made a century.

 

[Porcile]

The cheek of Vaughan to moan about the Stokes dismissal after this shit happened on his watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMI4o2SZp2Y

lol Inzi. Never has there been a person so ill suited for sport, yet somehow still able transcend physical limitations and be so brilliant at it. Probably in my personal Top 5 cricketers of all time. That was a douche move back then, and it still looks douchey now.

 

[bomma_man]

Sure it was quick... But batsmen somehow manage to avoid balls quicker than that all the time.

'Wilful' shouldn't be a crutch, by running halfway down the pitch he put himself in the situation where it followed that the bowler or a fielder could throw it back. And it's not like it's a particularly uncommon accordance. I don't think 'it was an unconscious reaction' should be an excuse in a game based on making decisions very very quickly. From the example k mag posted above, wilful should cover everything that results from an action whether it was unconscious or conscious, as long as it isn't compelled, and as long as player has knowledge of the situation (although even in that case a lot of the time you could argue that they should reasonably know where the ball is). A low bar is the only one that's workable in a game built on fast paced reactions, just like handball in soccer (the Australian press' reaction to that harry kewell handball in the 2010 WC was embarrassing).

 

[bobnowhere]

Fell asleep before the incident but having seen it this morning, it just looks bad. Had he hit it away from his body, I would have had no problem with it not being out. But he didn't, while instinctually, he reached for it and hit it away from the stumps and there has to be repercussions for that

It's an interesting debate, willful vs. instinct. Have a look at Gooch getting out Handled Ball (different I know, but similar in instinct to the situation):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF5ddM5Mmv4

There's is no way he deliberately tried to cheat, it was instinct, but he still interfered with the ball. There is no way Stokes deliberately tried to cheat either but his action interfered with the play in a way that looks like it would have saved his wicket. Coupled to the fact that players are trained and continually willfully, with knowledge, run or stand in between the ball and the stumps I don't have any issue with it being given out.

The next few games should be fun, anything to liven up this turgid series!

I do agree with what Gideon Haig said this morning, Kumar Dharmasena is a terrible umpire.

 

[Antiwhippy]

Also look at it this way, why should the bowler be punished for having a legitimate go at the stumps (and now watching further replays of it starc was nowhere near aiming at stoke's body) just because the batsman was a dozy tit?