1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

England v NZ & Aust 2015

Discussion in 'Cricket' started by Quick Hands, May 24, 2015.

  1. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,792

    There is no benefit of the doubt in the laws.

    Benefit of the doubt to the batsman comes from question the umpire must answer in order to give something out. Generally this will be along the lines of was the batsman struck in line with the stumps, did it pitch on the stumps, was it hitting the stumps etc. If they can't definitively answer yes to that, it is not out and the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt.

    In this situation, the question is did the batsman obstruct the field? Clearly his actions were intentional because he put his hand in the way of the ball. The question then becomes whether or not the batsman needed to protect himself. I think the answer to that was no and that is the reason Stokes was given out.

    Clearly this all happened in an instant but that is cricket. Stokes misjudged it. I don't see it as being much different to a batsman padding up to a ball they think has pitched outside leg stump only to find out that it didn't and they are out LBW. It's a misjudgement that costs you your wicket.
  2. Lindommer Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,634
    "Clearly this all happened in an instant...". That is the crux of the matter. Any reasonable person would assume Stokes was defending himself from a ball heading in the general direction of his body, the on-field umpires certainly thought so and were inclined to give him not out in the first instance. But, another look on slo-mo showed the direction of the ball not to be anywhere near his body while it WAS headed for the stumps. One can only presume Ben stuck his right arm out to balance his turn, unfortunately for him his hand impeded the flight of the ball: out every time. And I wouldn't grizzle if it happened to one of mine.
    Braveheart81 likes this.
  3. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,570
    Precisely, slow motion completely distorts the event, because these things don't happen in slow motion.
  4. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,792

    I get what you're saying but I don't think it matters.

    I also think slow motion replays are crucial. Cricket utilises replay technology to improve decision making because some things are very hard to see in real time.

    It's an unlucky dismissal but I think a technically correct one.

    If Stokes had only put a hand in front of his body to protect himself he wouldn't have got close to the ball.
  5. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,570
    Had he stuck his hand out and caught or knocked the ball away, while standing still or moving towards the ball, I'd agree with you. It seems to me that the fact that he was turning his body away from the ball and moving away from the ball at the very least casts sever doubt on the "wilful" part of the relevant law. If it's a misjudgement, it's not wilful for example i.e. if he thought he was avoiding injury, but made an honest mistake, that's not wilful. This is a dismissal where intent is the key as opposed to lbw for example where intent is irrelevant and a misjudgement rightly leads to the batsman being given out.

    Slow motion replays are crucial in matters of fact such as run outs, stumpings, no balls, but in matters where reaction time is a factor such as this or obstruction decisions in rugby I think it can lead to more mistakes than correct decisions. Even the leaguies got rid of slo-mo for double movement decisions for this very reason - what is perfectly legitimate in real time looks like an infringement in slo-mo.
  6. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,163
    I don't have an issue per se with what Stokes did. It all happened in an instant and was most likely instinctive. That said, the Australians were within their right to appeal and for it to be upheld. By the same token, I don't have an issue with guys being given out handling the ball or Mankaded either. They're legitimate forms of dismissal, even though in non-professional levels of the game you'd look down on someone appealing for them (I've been Mankaded without warning in a grade game).

    What it does mean though is that turnabout is fair play and Smith's team should expect no favours from their opposition in the future. Fair enough too.
    Quick Hands likes this.
  7. Lindommer Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    3,634
    I fail to understand why a batsman takes offence when given out "Mankaded". Two things: if a batsman's short of his ground at the receiving end he's run out, why is being out of his crease at the other end any different?; secondly, at the bowler's end the batsman staying in his crease until the ball's released is entirely in his power. I take the view a batsman creeping out of his crease before the ball's released is a form of cheating. If there were a few more Mankad wickets batsmen would be a lot more circumspect trying to steal a few inches.
    Quick Hands likes this.
  8. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,570
    AFAIK they changed the Mankad law a couple of years back. It's now more difficult for the bowler - now has to be befoe he has entered his delivery stride.

    2. Batsman not Run out
    Notwithstanding 1 above,
    (a) A batsman is not out Run out if
    (i) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down.
    Note also the provisions of Law 29.1(b) (When out of his ground).
    (ii) the ball has not subsequently been touched by a fielder, after the bowler has entered his delivery stride, before the wicket is put down.

    https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-38-run-out/

    15. Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery

    The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
    If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible.

    https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play/
  9. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,163


    Just one of those conventions of the game I guess. I didn't argue when given out that way. I was out of my ground by the barest of margins (back foot on the line but not behind), but the game up until that moment had been pretty spiteful and I let the guy know he was a dog.
  10. Brumby Runner Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    5,356
    Wasn't Brad Hodge dropped for the next test after he scored a double ton at Perth?
  11. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,792

    No. He played that whole series and then was dropped.
    Brumby Runner likes this.
  12. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,570
    If nothing else, the Stokes dismissal seems to have sparked the Poms back to life. It's now 2-2 with a game to play.

    I want the Aussies to win game 5, but maybe the cricketing gods are setting forth their own version of karma on us.
  13. light Peter Fenwicke (45)

    Likes Received:
    858
    I'd be surprised if we didn't win the next one.

    When we play our strongest XI we are the best in the world. Resting Starc was our biggest mistake.
  14. Strewthcobber Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    3,592
    LBWs galore in the Poms innings, along with some fairly incompetent umpiring and a possible concussion for the English captain after a viscous Starc bouncer.

    Joe Burns out cheaply to finish a disappointing season England for him, and it's off to bed for me.

    Been a pleasure gents
  15. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,570
    England all out 138 after 33 overs. M Marsh 4/27.

    Aussies get the runs in 24 overs, barely raising a sweat. 2/140 - Finch 70.

    ODI series seems to have followed the Ashes pattern - most matches fairly one sided. Game 4 a close finish, game 1 rain-affected.
  16. waiopehu oldboy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    5,007
    It's being reported that Morgan was concussed:



    Poms rolled for 138, Morgan not returning, Aus romping home by eight wickets with ~24 overs to spare. Not much consolation for losing the Ashes but a 3-2 series win nevertheless.
  17. Strewthcobber Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    3,592
    AUSTRALIA SQUAD FOR QANTAS TOUR OF BANGLADESH

    Steve Smith (c), Adam Voges (vc), Cameron Bancroft, Joe Burns, Patrick Cummins, Andrew Fekete, Usman Khawaja, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Marsh, Shaun Marsh, Glenn Maxwell, Peter Nevill, Stephen O’Keefe, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc

    God knows what the 1st XI will look like out of that squad. Will be very inexperienced.

    At a guess
    S Marsh
    Khawaja
    Burns
    Smith
    Voges
    M Marsh
    Neville
    Starc
    Siddle
    Lyon
    O’Keefe
  18. Aussie D Dick Tooth (41)

    Likes Received:
    540
    Good to see Voges get rewarded with the vice captaincy after the mountain of runs he scored during the ashes.
    Quick Hands likes this.
  19. No4918 John Hipwell (52)

    Likes Received:
    2,972
    Lyon is unlucky.

    Amazing how inexperienced that team is. Is Pattinson injured or out of favour?
  20. Highlander35 Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    2,911
    Something something NSW bias.

    In reality though, while he's been somewhat good, Patto probably needs another handful of First Class games to adjust to the new technique over a long period.

    In contrast to Cummins, who's just been "unlucky" or subject to issues arising from an immature body, whose bowling is essentially the same as it ws when he burst onto the scene.

Share This Page