Ben Stokes Controversial Dismissal - Spoiler Alert

[agchristie]

Was this a correct decision or was Stokes simply protecting himself?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11846667/England-furious-after-Ben-Stokes-controversially-given-out-for-obstructing-field-against-Australia.html

[douglas9401]

Controvesially dismal seems harsh. :-)

[jno]

looked to me like self-protection - he wasn't even looking at the ball by the time it hit him.

However, England have done some equally unsportsmanlike things in the recent past so they can't really take the moral high ground.

[Canary42]

Many batsmen are caught out after "merely protecting themselves".

[Buenchico]

I think that the umpires were guilty of following a 'rule of thumb', rather than the actual law of the game.

As an analogy, when deciding whether to award a free-kick (or penalty) for handball, football referees are often advised to decide whether the ball struck the hand or the hand struck the ball. While that's a useful 'rule of thumb' the ultimate decision should only be made based upon whether the contact was 'intentional'.

I can recall one inter-county match I refereed where a defender, inside the penalty area, could see that the ball was heading for his arm and stood stock still, allowing it to do so. He was none too pleased when I awarded a penalty (on the grounds that the contact was intentional). He was working on the 'rule of thumb', whereas I was working to the actual rule in print!

Similarly, when a cricket ball makes contact with the hand of a batsman (leading to an appeal for 'obstructing the field') umpires are again advised to decide whether the hand struck the ball (i.e. 'Out) or the ball struck the hand (i.e. 'Not Out').

However, once again the 'rule of thumb' doesn't always tie in too well with the actual Law, which states that the obstruction must be 'wilful' in order for a batsman to be given 'Out'. In this case an instinctive reaction has (wrongly, in my opinion) been deemed to be 'wilful', solely because the hand struck the ball, rather than the other way round.

[Everhelpful]

jno,has it spot-on,remember Broad in the last Ashes in England?. I am a big England and Durham supporter but I think Stokes knew what he was doing.

[jno]

despite all the slow-motion replays, the whole thing only lasted a split second. I think Stokes was just trying to stop the ball hitting him - not necessary as it turned out, but he wasn't to know as it was thrown from 18 yards or so - while also turning around to regain his ground.

re Broad, didn't Neville do exactly the same in this year's Ashes?

[Cloverjo]

I didn't see it as it happened, but watching a replay I thought it happened so quickly he didn't have time to wilfully do anything. He saw the ball coming towards his body and instinctively put out a hand. He shouldn't have been given out. The Aussies should have withdrawn their appeal, as should Paul Collingwood when one of his players pushed a New Zealander to the ground a few years ago. Just mentioning that so you know I'm not biased towards England.

[Stephen_G]

I didn't see it as it happened, but watching a slow-motion replay on YouTube this morning, the clincher in the argument is that Ben Stokes' left-hand clenches round the ball and then releases it. Yes, he was trying to make his ground, but he wasn't fully turned and I don't think he could argue that he wasn't looking at the ball.

I hate to say it, but I think the Umpire was right to give him out.

[jno]

if your hand's open and something hits it, it will clench; it's an automatic reflex. Try it and see.

[fiction-factory]

I normally agree with Buenchico but I'm not sure I do this time. In football defenders are expected to keep their hands close to their body in the penalty area- if a defender sticks out an arm and the ball strikes it on the way into goal referees will almost always award a penalty. Stokes's hand was so far from his body that I can understand the third umpire's decision

[THECORBYLOON]

He was not protecting his head or his body and he appeared to be aware of what he was doing and it did not appear to be a reflex action.

[Stephen_G]

Let the people decide. I stand by my view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLepo01Vf5k

[jno]

have a look at it in real time. The entire thing takes less than a second. I don't think in that time frame it could be anything but reflex action.

[angie55]

Chris, my OH tells me they took "intentional" out of the hand ball law some years ago. Not sure whether that makes life easier or not?

[THECORBYLOON]

The ball was being thrown from Stokes' left to right toward the stumps. Stokes was not in front of the stumps so why did he move his hand? I agree he appeared to move his fingers as if to grip the ball but the ball hitting his palm would have caused the fingers to move that way.

He could have swayed to his left if he really thought the ball was going to hit him but instead chose to deflect the ball with his hand.

[jno]

he was pretty much between Starc and the stumps. I say "pretty much" because I don't think he was dead in line - but in a split second he himself couldn't have been sure exactly where the stumps were; even when he'd spun round he was so far off course that he failed to ground his bat anyway.

Slow motion makes it appear he had time to think. Real-time footage suggests otherwise.

[THECORBYLOON]

JNO look at the still in Stephen G's video, the ball is on Stokes' right, heading toward the stumps and must have realised the ball was not going to hit him. As he spun around he stretched out his hand deliberately, why did he not just step to his left? He knew what he was doing.

With regard to having little time to think, batsmen have to react quickly given the very short time between a delivered ball pitching and reaching them. Their reactions have to be good to avoid being struck every other ball and he reacted by deflecting the ball away from his stumps

[Buenchico]

Angie55:
The handball rule in football now uses the word 'deliberately' (which doesn't seem that different to 'intentionally' to me!):
http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/pdf/the%20fa%202014-15/laws-of-the-game-2014-15.ashx