Stokes Controversy 24


I was watching the match yesterday live on television. Had Ben Stokes not stuck out his had to stop the ball, it would not have passed within twelve inches of any part of his body. The notion that he was defending himself is a nonsense. It was plainly out. If that was not out, then nobody could ever be out obstructing the field. All this bad loser stuff is embarrassing.

It does however distract from a much more interesting discussion about the rubbish Stokes was bowling at the end of the Australian innings and how that led to England’s defeat by increasing the run rate pressure.

A depressing sporting weekend. I wish I could get back all the money I spent while I was in Georgia recently, they plainly weren’t grateful at all.


24 thoughts on “Stokes Controversy

  • Jemand

    This is a total scandal. Worse than the JFK assassination, the Russian annexation of the Crimea and imported Chinese motorcycles destroying local manufacturing – combined! Appalling!!

  • Mary

    Typical Aussie bad sportsmanship here. I remember seeing it in 1981 in the good old days before Packer and Murdoch got their paws on the game when we could ALL watch cricket on terrestrial TV. I still will not give Murdoch a penny, either for his paywalls or for Sky. I do watch his Sky News on Freeview though.

    Hear what Richie Benaud had to say about it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K65_spUU05s

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Mary
    06/09/2015 4:24pm

    I haven’t bought a Murdoch newspaper since Milly Dowler, and never will again. I don’t have any of the Sky stuff either.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Chris
    06/09/2015 4:43pm

    I know nothing about cricket but I’m curious. I have just found Law 37:

    “1. Either batsman is out obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. In particular, but not solely, it shall be regarded as obstruction and either batsman will be out… if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball… he wilfully strikes the ball with (i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury, or (ii) any other part of his person or with his bat.

    2. 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.”

    As I understand the word “wilfully”, it means “deliberately”. So if it was an accident, why should he be given out, as you imply when you say “Whether deliberate or not matters not”. Am I missing something?

    Thanks,

    John

    PS Yes I think I am. It says “In particular, but not solely”. Correct?

  • Bob Smith

    The key word in the law is wilfully, and the third umpire thought that it was. I’m not so sure but the umpire made his decision. End of discussion. All the controversy serves to mask the fact that England were very poor yesterday and I would be tempted to play Bairstow instead of Buttler, although Bairstow just played a stinker against Gloucestershire. At least the England team won the Ashes and hasn’t lost an ODI to Afghanistan like your adopted Scotland.

  • Vronsky

    With an enormous and inexplicable sense of relief, I must report that I don’t understand a single word of that post.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Bob Smith
    06/09/2015 5:15pm

    So let’s suppose the following. A fielder throws the ball at the wicket, and it is on target and therefore the batsman will be out if nothing gets in the way of the ball. The batsman, running for his wicket with the ball behind him so that he cannot see it, is struck on the arm by the ball while some distance away from his wicket, and the ball deflects and he gets back into his crease.

    You seem to be suggesting that the correct umpire’s decision is “not out”. Am I correct? You seem to be contradicting Chris, if so.

    Many thanks,

    John

  • Republicofscotland

    JSD.

    Two positions sum up Jimmy de Cricket

    Silly mid on, and Silly mid off.

    Of course occasionally cricket can be interesting, especially when India meet Pakistan.

  • Mary

    RoS Yes. But how come Israel is classified as being in Europe?

    Even ZBC put it in the Middle East.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    Mary, RoS

    I don’t much enjoy watching it.

    Paul Foot was a tremendous cricket fan and wrote enthusiastically about it. Almost inspired me to watch it, but not quite.

    Mind you, two highlights of my year are Wimbledon and The Crucible. Think it’s something to do with the green.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • craig Post author

    Wales disappointing. Tactically baffling, with Robson-Kanu a lone striker, and Bale playing pretty deep in centre midfield occasionally drifting to the left.

    Wanted them to qualify today – I still feel guilty about Joe Jordan/Davie Jones handball

  • John Edwards

    The umpire’s decision was very harsh, It looked like ball to hand rather than wilful obstruction as required by the laws . Stokes was in the process of turning round and probably couldn’t see the ball. Try the same movement at home and notice where your left arm naturally ends up

  • Unciviliised

    Considering what the Israelis are doing daily to the Palestinians with complete impunity, they should be banned from ever playing cricket by way of a UN Resolution.To include sanctioning of Henry Blofeld if he is found to have a home there.

  • Bob Smith

    John, all I am saying is that I always accept the umpires decision. I am still undecided on the Stokes decision and think it was perhaps harsh, but it happened so we move on. Irrespective of the Stokes decision England were completely out played. I hope we can come back for the next two.

  • jkick

    Funnily enough I’ve just been reading about corruption in cricket.

    For example, there are 105 countries that play cricket. Only 10 are allowed to play Test cricket. Three of them – Australia, England and India – receive 52% of all revenues between them.

    Anyone seen Death of a Gentleman?

  • eddie-g

    The umpires got this one wrong. I don’t blame the Aussies appealing, the idea they should have withdrawn the appeal was silly, but under the laws of the game, Stokes has to have been willfully obstructing the ball to be given out.

    For me, the telling factor is how close Starc was to Stokes – 9 or 10 yards away maybe? I cannot in those circumstance imagine that a batsman is doing anything but putting his hand up in self-defence. In either event, the standard the umpires have to apply is to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, and there was plenty here. Especially when viewed at full speed.

Comments are closed.