Aus v Eng ODI series

[GarlicJam]

This from Waugh on the matter;

Waugh though refused to admit that his bizarre mode of dismissal took the match away from them. Speaking to The Daily Examiner, a leading Australian newspaper, Waugh said, “When survival beckons, instincts seem to take over before the brain has time to engage. Next time I will still help the short-leg out, but I will use my boot.”

Huh?

Never heard of it - and I've lived in most of the main cities. The local rag in Luanceston is The Examiner - but it's never had "Daily" in it's masthead, and it's most certainly never been a leading paper.


I know that it matters not a jot (especially now) but the pedant in me couldn't let that pass.

[KipperJohn]

All the stuff about split second reaction time is straying off the point - that's the speed at which decisions are made by players all the time at this level - a decision which Stokes got wrong on this occasion. I totally agree with GarlicJam.

There is a complete and utter difference to being in position anticipating a ball being thrown from 22 yards, and a bowler throwing from 10 yards away when you are already moving your body forward and have yet to react. To suggest in these fraction of a seconds that Stokes realised he was about to be run out, and reacted by successfully throwing his arm in the way of the ball in a mind boggling argument. The rule states wilful, ie Intention to cheat, not reckless, not negligent.... he had to mean to cheat.

Gigi Buffon in his absolute pomp having saved a ball on the floor would not have reacted that quickly and accurately to a second shot, and a football is 10 times bigger.

I have no doubt that Stokes had reacted to knowing he was out of his ground, but how does one turn quickly when their weight is going the wrong way? You see many people in football turning on a six pence with their arms jammed to the side?

You think people who know they are about to be hit, or anticipating they are going to be hit, think with such an accurate clarity in 0.2 seconds?

Its pure instinct. It can be nothing else.

Of course it was instinct - doesn't make it right though. As a batsman, especially at that level, the player knows even before he goes on the field, that handling the ball whilst in play is going to get him into trouble. Stokes prevented a legitimate attempt to run him out. Only Stokes knows whether he was defending his wicket or not - the umpire has to make that decision on the evidence in front of him.

You make no comment about my point about umpires who are In the firing line of some fearsome shots, throws and so on, who have no protection yet simply get out of the way so as not to interfere with play, as well as not getting hurt.

The ball was live, Stokes was out of his ground and his arm was outstretched.

Given Stokes' much talked about undoubted ability I was surprised he didn't catch it!

[braveneutral]

I have only gone back 5 pages or so but perhaps there is another possibility that hasn't been raised.

This is a man who has previously punched a wall.

Perhaps he just has a thing for pain and saw an opportunity.

[The Waugh Twins]

This from Waugh on the matter;

Waugh though refused to admit that his bizarre mode of dismissal took the match away from them. Speaking to The Daily Examiner, a leading Australian newspaper, Waugh said, “When survival beckons, instincts seem to take over before the brain has time to engage. Next time I will still help the short-leg out, but I will use my boot.”

Huh?

Never heard of it - and I've lived in most of the main cities. The local rag in Luanceston is The Examiner - but it's never had "Daily" in it's masthead, and it's most certainly never been a leading paper.


I know that it matters not a jot (especially now) but the pedant in me couldn't let that pass.

Maybe he was talking to his proctologist.

[Arthur Crabtree]

It publishes to Grafton, NSW.

[sussexpob]

Of course it was instinct - doesn't make it right though.

Well yes, it does. Without committing the act "willingly", or in other more common terms, voluntarily, intentionally and on purpose, then he hasnt done anything wrong. This is another contradiction. One does not intentionally act in reflex.

You make no comment about my point about umpires who are In the firing line of some fearsome shots, throws and so on, who have no protection yet simply get out of the way so as not to interfere with play, as well as not getting hurt.

An umpire has died being hit by a ball more recently than a player, as far as I am aware. Umpires do get hit on occasion.

But generally, they are 25 yards away from the batsman and have time to react.... Stokes was out of his crease with Starc halfway down. The reaction time is cut to the minimum.

You cant compare this to a normal ball with reaction times. I wonder how many runs batters would score if the pitch was 10 yards long.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Which is in the Clarence Valley region.

[sussexpob]

The ball was live, Stokes was out of his ground and his arm was outstretched.

The law doesnt say "anyone with an outstretched arm out of his ground is out". This is not relevant to the law in play. He has to do it intentionally, and you have already acknowledge it was a instinctual reaction.

Its like murder and manslaughter. Each has a dead body, doesnt mean a dead body = murder!

[backfootpunch]

The ball was live, Stokes was out of his ground and his arm was outstretched.

The law doesnt say "anyone with an outstretched arm out of his ground is out". This is not relevant to the law in play. He has to do it intentionally, and you have already acknowledge it was a instinctual reaction.

Its like murder and manslaughter. Each has a dead body, doesnt mean a dead body = murder!

he was also not looking at the ball when it hit him which suggests it wasnt intentional

[m@tt]

Besides all that has been discussed regarding the mechanics of Stokes' movements, etc. I think little attention has been paid to his previously demonstrated skills.

This is a man who has little trouble in picking the length and the line of deliveries, and choosing to block said delivery or smite mightily, with a 3lb lump of wood in his hands, is generally a straightforward exercise. Yet, last night he had trouble telling that the ball was missing him by 2 feet, yet could reach his hand (with no block of wood in it) out to deflect it?

Batting is largely about muscle memory. You practice against bowling machines and people bowling - you know the ball is coming at a certain time and from a certain place. You don't practice against people randomly chucking it you from a few metres away.

[m@tt]

It a pity that silliness like this overshadows the game. Ultimately it probably made no difference to the final result and is bad publicity for the game.

It also highlights that the players don't know all the rules. Glenn Maxwell compared it to an LBW decision. The law says absolutely nothing about whether the ball will hit the stumps or not. Others have said that it doesn't matter that it was instinctive or self protection, all that matters was the contact. Again, not what the laws say.

The laws ultimately boil down to three parts.

Did he obstruct the field? Well yes he got in the way!

Was it wilful? He wasnt oblivious to it, unlike if he got hit whilst looking in the other direction. The initial will when he raised his hand was probably to block the ball. But he then decides to turn and dive. Difficult to tell if him actually hitting the ball in the act of turning around and diving was his intention or an accident.

Was he trying to avoid injury? Starc was throwing the ball pretty close to him. Had he not turned and dived it would have missed by inches. The dive makes it look further away than it was. I can understand why people say he has brilliamt reactions and should know where the ball is going, but at the same time he trains as a batsman and fielder under specific circumstances and this wasnt one of them.

It's not black and white. I can't understand how someone can say it is 100% out or 100% not out. There's doubt. A lot of it. So surely must stay not out as per the original decision of the umpire?

And whilst I'm on the laws, the part of this obstruction law regarding the ban on returning the ball to the fielder really is stupid, should have been removed from the laws decades ago.

[GarlicJam]

Besides all that has been discussed regarding the mechanics of Stokes' movements, etc. I think little attention has been paid to his previously demonstrated skills.

This is a man who has little trouble in picking the length and the line of deliveries, and choosing to block said delivery or smite mightily, with a 3lb lump of wood in his hands, is generally a straightforward exercise. Yet, last night he had trouble telling that the ball was missing him by 2 feet, yet could reach his hand (with no block of wood in it) out to deflect it?

Batting is largely about muscle memory. You practice against bowling machines and people bowling - you know the ball is coming at a certain time and from a certain place. You don't practice against people randomly chucking it you from a few metres away.

Just as my post was directed a little too far to the Southern Hemisphere, I reckon your rebuttal goes too far the other way.

Sure, to the muscle memory part, but the ball was not chucked at him, it would have missed him by 2 feet if he hadn't stuck out his arm, also not randomly as he was out of his crease, he should have expected it (all very quick, I give you), and it was heading directly for the stumps, AND it was from at least 10 yards away.


I fully agree that it is not black and white, but I am of the view that if Stokes honestly was defending himself from injury, he deserves to be out for being such a poor judge of line/direction.

[hopeforthebest]

Besides all that has been discussed regarding the mechanics of Stokes' movements, etc. I think little attention has been paid to his previously demonstrated skills.

This is a man who has little trouble in picking the length and the line of deliveries, and choosing to block said delivery or smite mightily, with a 3lb lump of wood in his hands, is generally a straightforward exercise. Yet, last night he had trouble telling that the ball was missing him by 2 feet, yet could reach his hand (with no block of wood in it) out to deflect it?

Batting is largely about muscle memory. You practice against bowling machines and people bowling - you know the ball is coming at a certain time and from a certain place. You don't practice against people randomly chucking it you from a few metres away.

Just as my post was directed a little too far to the Southern Hemisphere, I reckon your rebuttal goes too far the other way.

Sure, to the muscle memory part, but the ball was not chucked at him, it would have missed him by 2 feet if he hadn't stuck out his arm, also not randomly as he was out of his crease, he should have expected it (all very quick, I give you), and it was heading directly for the stumps, AND it was from at least 10 yards away.


I fully agree that it is not black and white, but I am of the view that if Stokes honestly was defending himself from injury, he deserves to be out for being such a poor judge of line/direction.

If someone is shaping to throw a cricket ball in your direction from a few yards away, you are unlikely to assume it's going to miss you, self preservation assumes the worst case senario.

[rich1uk]

I suppose it depends if he's exhausted or just out of form.

I said a couple of pages ago if anyone in the team could probably do with a rest its buttler given hes been playing non-stop in all three formats since last august

[from_the_stands]

Peter Handscomb and John Hastings have been called up to the Oz squad to cover injuries.