time to fight fire with fire. Next match (tues) all the English bowlers should start throwing the ball back at the stumps at any opportunity - maybe try hitting a few of the Aussie c***ts on the foot. Cheating bastards
time to fight fire with fire. Next match (tues) all the English bowlers should start throwing the ball back at the stumps at any opportunity - maybe try hitting a few of the Aussie c***ts on the foot. Cheating bastards
It will happen at some point. I'm sure the England management will tell the players not to do it, but instinct will take over. Hopefully when Steve Smith is batting!
Nah. His instinct was to dive for his crease. He knew he was out if the ball hit the stumps. You don't have time to think these things through, but you do have time to react, and he reacted by sticking his hand out to block a run-out attempt. That is out - the instinct was to preserve his wicket (hence the dive for the crease)
Nah. His instinct was to dive for his crease. He knew he was out if the ball hit the stumps. You don't have time to think these things through, but you do have time to react, and he reacted by sticking his hand out to block a run-out attempt. That is out - the instinct was to preserve his wicket (hence the dive for the crease)
When I first saw the dismissal it was in slow motion and thought that it was clearly out. However, watching in normal speed I thought that there was no way he could have meant that.
Nah. His instinct was to dive for his crease. He knew he was out if the ball hit the stumps. You don't have time to think these things through, but you do have time to react, and he reacted by sticking his hand out to block a run-out attempt. That is out - the instinct was to preserve his wicket (hence the dive for the crease)
So was it obstructing the field or handled ball?
Handled ball is regarding the playing of the delivery, not any subsequent interaction with the field.
Imagine an England bowler did a great bit of fielding off his own bowling and tried to throw the stumps down and say Glenn Maxwell instinctively blocked it. How would you feel?
Nah. His instinct was to dive for his crease. He knew he was out if the ball hit the stumps. You don't have time to think these things through, but you do have time to react, and he reacted by sticking his hand out to block a run-out attempt. That is out - the instinct was to preserve his wicket (hence the dive for the crease)
So was it obstructing the field or handled ball?
Handled ball is regarding the playing of the delivery, not any subsequent interaction with the field.
Imagine an England bowler did a great bit of fielding off his own bowling and tried to throw the stumps down and say Glenn Maxwell instinctively blocked it. How would you feel?
I was out yesterday so did not see it and have heard and read conflicting reports as to the actual nature of the dismissal. The one constant being that the ball hit his hand.
I agree with your analysis that handled ball occurs from a 'bowled' rather than 'fielded' delivery.
People love using technology in sport these days and this dismissal is a product of of it. You want to use video evidence then you have to accept decisions such as this one. Watch it in slow motion and you can not argue with the decision, under today's regime it was out.
I was there and I think it was bloody outrageous. It was dangerous and unsporting by Starc and whilst Stokes, did put his hand out and may have prevented the ball from hitting the wicket. I think Stokes should have been given the benefit of the doubt and Starc warned that his behaviour was ungentlemanly.
The key word in the wording is 'wilfully' - he has to be seeking to block the throw. It seems obvious he was worrying about a) Getting back in his crease and b) protecting himself from the throw, rather than trying to block it from hitting the stumps. Not out.
I was there and I think it was bloody outrageous. It was dangerous and unsporting by Starc and whilst Stokes, did put his hand out and may have prevented the ball from hitting the wicket. I think Stokes should have been given the benefit of the doubt and Starc warned that his behaviour was ungentlemanly.
Ungentlemanly?!?!?
Absolute nonsense. Stokes was miles out of his crease. The run-out was on.
When I first saw the dismissal it was in slow motion and thought that it was clearly out. However, watching in normal speed I thought that there was no way he could have meant that.
That's the point! The third umpire is being criticised because he didn't watch it in real speed only in slow motion...
He saw the ball leave Starc's hand and then stuck his own hand out. It was instinctive but I'm also sure the instinct was to stop the ball with his hand, whether or not he then looked away as he dived for the crease. He's an international sportsman - he probably had a good idea where the ball was going. Was it a natural movement of the arm? Not on your nelly.
I was there and I think it was bloody outrageous. It was dangerous and unsporting by Starc and whilst Stokes, did put his hand out and may have prevented the ball from hitting the wicket. I think Stokes should have been given the benefit of the doubt and Starc warned that his behaviour was ungentlemanly.
Ungentlemanly?!?!?
Absolute nonsense. Stokes was miles out of his crease. The run-out was on.
Yet, if an above waist height, full toss is bowled, this is called a no ball, because it is deemed dangerous and unfair.
IMO Starc's throw was dangerous and unfair as well as being unsporting and ungentlemanly.
Law 42 6
(b) Bowling of high full pitched balls (i) Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker. (ii) A slow delivery which passes or would have passed on the full above shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker
I was there and I think it was bloody outrageous. It was dangerous and unsporting by Starc and whilst Stokes, did put his hand out and may have prevented the ball from hitting the wicket. I think Stokes should have been given the benefit of the doubt and Starc warned that his behaviour was ungentlemanly.
Ungentlemanly?!?!?
Absolute nonsense. Stokes was miles out of his crease. The run-out was on.
Yet, if an above waist height, full toss is bowled, this is called a no ball, because it is deemed dangerous and unfair.
IMO Starc's throw was dangerous and unfair as well as being unsporting and ungentlemanly.
Law 42 6
(b) Bowling of high full pitched balls (i) Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker. (ii) A slow delivery which passes or would have passed on the full above shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker
That's about bowling, not fielding. Your argument dumbfounds me. Are you saying that throws at the stumps are unfair now? You'd maybe have a point if the throw wasn't homing directly in on the bails, but rather at the back of Stokes' head.
Well sitting there, watching it live. It looked very much like, he threw the ball recklessly and could well have hit Stokes in the face, if he hadn't taken evasive action. If I was the umpire I would have had a quiet word with Starc and then continued, with the game.
Well sitting there, watching it live. It looked very much like, he threw the ball recklessly and could well have hit Stokes in the face, if he hadn't taken evasive action. If I was the umpire I would have had a quiet word with Starc and then continued, with the game.
Well sitting there, watching it live. It looked very much like, he threw the ball recklessly and could well have hit Stokes in the face, if he hadn't taken evasive action. If I was the umpire I would have had a quiet word with Starc and then continued, with the game.
Benefit of the doubt should always be with the batsman. Think there was enough doubt about it being him protecting his stumps to be not out
I do not think the benefit of the doubt applies to obstruction though as a player is deemed to have obstructed play deliberately. Its not like LBW, a thin edge through to the keeper or a catch not carrying to a fielder.
I think that the 3rd umpire should now be made to watch the replay in real time before making a judgement.
Comments
Morgan out for 85.
Australia win by 64.
Imagine an England bowler did a great bit of fielding off his own bowling and tried to throw the stumps down and say Glenn Maxwell instinctively blocked it. How would you feel?
I agree with your analysis that handled ball occurs from a 'bowled' rather than 'fielded' delivery.
It was dangerous and unsporting by Starc and whilst Stokes, did put his hand out and may have prevented the ball from hitting the wicket.
I think Stokes should have been given the benefit of the doubt and Starc warned that his behaviour was ungentlemanly.
Absolute nonsense. Stokes was miles out of his crease. The run-out was on.
IMO Starc's throw was dangerous and unfair as well as being unsporting and ungentlemanly.
Law 42 6
(b) Bowling of high full pitched balls
(i) Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have
passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the
crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to
inflict physical injury on the striker.
(ii) A slow delivery which passes or would have passed on the full above
shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the crease is to be
deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical
injury on the striker
I think that the 3rd umpire should now be made to watch the replay in real time before making a judgement.