Aus v Eng ODI series

[ianp1970]

Shane Watson has retired from test cricket

He probably review that though...

[Arthur Crabtree]

It least Steve managed to sleep in.

[The Waugh Twins]

If it's instinctive it's not out. It has to be wilful! I was spelling that the American way yesterday because of the spellcheck.

Which word is that Arthur, having gone to school in England, Australia, and America my spelling is about as messed up as it could ever get.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Wilful v willful.

[Aidan11]

Wars have been started for less.

[Aidan11]

It is not known if Hitler would have appealed.

[The Waugh Twins]

Wilful v willful.

Ha, I had no idea.

[Aidan11]

Goering almost certainly would.

[The Waugh Twins]

Always wondered where the spelling went tits up and pear shaped? Considering that the Brits were here for so long. Well technically they never left, but rather just changed their citizenship.

[Aidan11]

Churchill would have stood his ground and said they've come to watch me bat, not to watch you bowl.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Sometimes I think we changed, and you stayed the same.

[GarlicJam]

Nope.the ball wouldn't have hit him unless he didn't put his hand out,

Nope, the ball and he were on a path that would have intersected. Sure, the ball would not have hit him where he was, but he was moving (and unable to stop that). Stokes was standing still, and the ball was always going to miss him (and hit the stumps), until he intervened.

I can certainly understand Raina's appeal though - even an Australian would have done the same thing, in the circumstances.

[Gingerfinch]

Stokes war rightly given out, imo. He may have been protecting himself, but it was technically out.

Technically, he couldn't have been out protecting himself, so this post contradicts itself

Them the rules?

[GarlicJam]

Them the rules?

Yep: willfull = out, but not when protecting themselves.

[Making_Splinters]

Stokes war rightly given out, imo. He may have been protecting himself, but it was technically out.

Technically, he couldn't have been out protecting himself, so this post contradicts itself

Them the rules?

Law 33:

In the act of playing a ball delivered by the bowler, he wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat. This will apply whether No ball has been called or not and whether it is the first strike or a second or subsequent strike.

(a) the striker will not be out Handled the ball if the strike with a hand not holding the bat is in order to avoid injury.

(b) the striker will not be out Handled the ball but will be liable to be out Obstructing the field if he makes a strike with a hand not holding the bat

(i) unless trying to avoid injury, as a lawful second or subsequent strike which prevents a catch. See Law 37.3 (Obstructing a ball from being caught).

(ii) unless trying to avoid injury, after he has completed the act of playing the ball, as defined in 1 above.

(iii) at any time while the ball is in play, to return the ball to any fielder, without the consent of a fielder. See Law 37.4 (Returning the ball to a fielder).

The controversy over the Stokes dismissal is over the word wilfully. The batsman should only be given out if they deliberately move their hand or bat into the way of the ball to prevent it hitting the stumps, it is important to note that they can not be given out if they are preventing themselves be injured.

It's a tough call, Stokes was not in danger of being injured, but it could be argued that an instinctive reaction is not a wilfull one. For me, given he was in no danger of injury, Stokes was correctly given out.