• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Was Stokes Out?

Was Stokes out?

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 66.2%
  • No

    Votes: 16 22.5%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 5 7.0%
  • That bloke from emmerdale

    Votes: 3 4.2%

  • Total voters
    71

WalkingWicket

State 12th Man
By the rules? Yeah, probably. I'll probably get chewed out for saying that the Aussies were unsporting etc., but I reckon Aussie still would have won comfortably without the whole debacle. It reflects poorly on Smith & Co., but they were entitled to do so.

Fun being in the crowd, though.
 

Red

The artist formerly known as Monk
The argument on the interweb is that Stokes wasn't protecting himself and should be out.

I'd argue that in the split second that it all happened Stokes was protecting his face with his hand in spite of the fact his face wasn't behind his hand. If a projectile comes at you in that fashion/speed, you protect yourself with your hands by following the trajectory of the projectile as it comes at you (not necessarily by covering your face), It's all split second stuff, but Stokes, as weird as it sounds, was "protecting" his head with his hand 3 feet away from it.

All that said, I've no issue with it being out obstructed because of where his body was and the fact he did obstruct.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, but it was pretty clear all he did was instinctively try to protect his face. Technically out, but intent should matter too
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Of all the arguments I don't get, the withdraw-the-appeal one makes no sense to me. You think it's out, the umpires have given it out, and now because the crowd and some journos are unhappy you should just call a legitimately-out back to the crease?
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Of all the arguments I don't get, the withdraw-the-appeal one makes no sense to me. You think it's out, the umpires have given it out, and now because the crowd and some journos are unhappy you should just call a legitimately-out back to the crease?
So where do you stand on the infamous Grant Elliott incident?
 

Spark

Global Moderator
So where do you stand on the infamous Grant Elliott incident?
I honestly don't remember it.

IIRC I was less than comfortable with the appeal for the Ian Bell dismissal at TB a few years back, but that's more because it happened in a manner that was completely outside the normal bounds of the game, with everyone but Dhoni assuming the ball to be dead. A legitimate run out attempt of a batsmen three metres outside his crease is a different matter.
 
Last edited:

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Tbf I am not remotely saying the Elliot and Stokes dismissals are comparable.

Just more querying your take on withdrawing the appeal I guess.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Tbf I am not remotely saying the Elliot and Stokes dismissals are comparable.

Just more querying your take on withdrawing the appeal I guess.
Yeah it's just that I've seen some comments already saying that "it was probably out by the law, but the appeal should have been withdrawn because ????" which makes no sense, unless you're opposed to the very existence of obstructing the field + handled the ball as dismissals.

For what it's worth I think the taboo on giving a batsman out obstructing the field is really, really weird and shouldn't be there, because it's why we had that silly scenario a few years back where batsman after batsman would deliberately run zigzags to make sure the ball didn't hit the stumps when taking a run. These are professional sportsmen; give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Mankading too. Apparently cricket has convinced itself that just because a mode of dismissal is abnormal or rare, it should basically never happen, whilst forgetting that those modes of dismissal exist for a reason.
 
Last edited:

Compton

International Debutant
I think they got to the right decision. If that doesn't qualify as out, they're as well removing the rule from the books.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah it's just that I've seen some comments already saying that "it was probably out by the law, but the appeal should have been withdrawn because ????" which makes no sense, unless you're opposed to the very existence of obstructing the field + handled the ball as dismissals.

For what it's worth I think the taboo on giving a batsman out obstructing the field is really, really weird and shouldn't be there, because it's why we had that silly scenario a few years back where batsman after batsman would deliberately run zigzags to make sure the ball didn't hit the stumps when taking a run. These are professional sportsmen; give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Mankading too. Apparently cricket has convinced itself that just because a mode of dismissal is abnormal or rare, it should basically never happen, whilst forgetting that those modes of dismissal exist for a reason.
Exactly. Why not let everyone who is going to be run out catch the ball away with their hands. Whether or not it was deliberate or not (debatable) doesn't matter for mine. He would have been run out and by sticking his hand out illegally he saved his wicket.

How fair would it have been if he had been not out? Starc sees the batsman way out his crease so throws the ball at the stumps and the batsman sticks his hand out well away from his body and blocks it. If he was given not out Starc (and Australia) would have had genuine and well-founded grievances, whereas Morgan and England's complaints are simply childish and embarrassing.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
stokes was out but don't you guys think starc wasn't aggressive enough? Needed to go and assert his alpha male dominance on stokes
 
Last edited:

vandem

State Vice-Captain
Tbf I am not remotely saying the Elliot and Stokes dismissals are comparable....
There is a comparison between the Elliot and Stokes dismissals, when you consider how the rules of cricket consider the intent of the fielder / bastman, and it highlights a gap in the rules. Law 37 (obstructing the field) includes these words "batsman is out [...] if he willfully attempts". But there is no corresponding law about a fielder willfully obstructing the batsman.

My 2c on the Stokes dismissal - watch it in real time (not slo-mo) and the Stokes's intent is obvious ...
 

Top