Aus v Eng ODI series

[SaintPowelly]

It's like an accidental handball being given a penalty. Technically it shouldn't be given but at the end of the day it is a clear obstruction.

I can understand why an umpire would give it out or not out, just a matter of opinion really.

I dont think Stokes was cheating, but was right decision.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Stokes has to be deliberately trying to stop the run out. It does look like he is. I suppose, given the fraction of a second it took to react, you could debate that Ben couldn't be said to make a decision on his action, therefore didn't act willfully. As a marginal decision, it's hard to complain either way. But I would have given it out. Still, some doubt.

[dan08]

Stokes has to be deliberately trying to stop the run out. It does look like he is. I suppose, given the fraction of a second it took to react, you could debate that Ben couldn't be said to make a decision on his action, therefore didn't act willfully. As a marginal decision, it's hard to complain either way. But I would have given it out. Still, some doubt.

"@AlexKlymyszyn: Remember the playing condition was changed so a batsman who changes direction towards the stumps (regardless of hands) and is hit is out"

Not sure it has to be deliberate. But it was the right decision anyway.

[yorker_129-7]

Wonder whether this will lead to an increase in balls being hurled at batsmen by bowlers? Then only a matter of time until one gets hit.

[DiligentDefence]

Stokes has to be deliberately trying to stop the run out. It does look like he is. I suppose, given the fraction of a second it took to react, you could debate that Ben couldn't be said to make a decision on his action, therefore didn't act willfully. As a marginal decision, it's hard to complain either way. But I would have given it out. Still, some doubt.

The slow motion makes it look worse than it is. What annoyed me like, like some of the commentators is that the third umpire did not look at a real time replay.

[SaintPowelly]

Wonder whether this will lead to an increase in balls being hurled at batsmen by bowlers? Then only a matter of time until one gets hit.

Likewise, had it not been given, there would be an increase in batsman catching the ball

lose/lose situation

[Arthur Crabtree]

Stokes has to be deliberately trying to stop the run out. It does look like he is. I suppose, given the fraction of a second it took to react, you could debate that Ben couldn't be said to make a decision on his action, therefore didn't act willfully. As a marginal decision, it's hard to complain either way. But I would have given it out. Still, some doubt.

"@AlexKlymyszyn: Remember the playing condition was changed so a batsman who changes direction towards the stumps (regardless of hands) and is hit is out"

Not sure it has to be deliberate. But it was the right decision anyway.

According to the radio the law says the action has to be willful. So, deliberate.

[SaintPowelly]

Just change the decision from obstructing the field to handling the ball, problem solved.

[hopeforthebest]

If it hadn't hit his hand it probably would have gone for a boundary so England were punished twice.

[yorker_129-7]

Wonder whether this will lead to an increase in balls being hurled at batsmen by bowlers? Then only a matter of time until one gets hit.

Likewise, had it not been given, there would be an increase in batsman catching the ball

lose/lose situation

Except there wouldn't because the natural instinct is self-preservation, whereas throwing the ball is a conscious decision, and therefore not really comparable.

[SaintPowelly]

Wonder whether this will lead to an increase in balls being hurled at batsmen by bowlers? Then only a matter of time until one gets hit.

Likewise, had it not been given, there would be an increase in batsman catching the ball

lose/lose situation

Except there wouldn't because the natural instinct is self-preservation, whereas throwing the ball is a conscious decision, and therefore not really comparable.

His hand was NOWHERE near his body though

[m@tt]

I think giving him not out would of set an awful precedent, that and the fact that ball wasn't in immediate danger of hitting him, makes it a right decision in my book.

Just change the decision from obstructing the field to handling the ball, problem solved.

I don't think Stokes quite had the time to work out the ball was going to hit him or not. It was close, so not surprised that instinctively raised his hand to protect himself. The laws for handling the ball also say it's not out if you're protecting yourself.

I think this decision is more likely to set a precedent (though in reality, like the Buttler incident, will be forgotten quickly) because it could lead to more bowlers hurling it back at the stumps (though I don't think it will).

His hand was NOWHERE near his body though

He's spun round quickly. Naturally his free arm has moved away from his body. Should his arm be down by his side?

[SaintPowelly]

Everyone seems to think his "instinct" was to protect himself, why could his instinct not be too protect his wicket ?

His arm was in an unnatural position

[Arthur Crabtree]

The batter was out of his crease, so Starc was entitled to run him out. It's not like this sends a message that it's ok to throw the ball at the batter. There isn't really any wider context to this.

[dan08]

The batter was out of his crease, so Starc was entitled to run him out. It's not like this sends a message that it's ok to throw the ball at the batter. There isn't really any wider context to this.