I can see why it was given as their were two moves, one the turn and attempt to get back in crease and two the raising of the hand away from the body which appears to be independent of part one.
However not sure we would have appealed in same situation.
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 judgeement.
And the same with run-outs? You can't have it both ways. As I said earlier, this dismissal is a product of the video technology/Hawkeye/3rd Umpire age that so many want to have in all sport. He was out in the modern world. There is nothing in the laws of cricket about benefit of doubt by the way.
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 judgeement.
And the same with run-outs? You can't have it both ways. As I said earlier, this dismissal is a product of the video technology/Hawkeye/3rd Umpire age that so many want to have in all sport. He was out in the modern world. There is nothing in the laws of cricket about benefit of doubt by the way.
No, as a run out is completely different to obstruction as your bat has to be over the line to be in.
How would watching a run out in real time change the decision..??
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)
Watch it in real time, not slow-motion.
Please believe me when I say that a 6' 7" Test fast bowler standing 12 yards away and hurling the ball towards you doesn't leave you any time to react, it's pure instinct.
Inzaman was given out in a similar ridiculous fashion in 2005 against England when Harmison hurled the ball back at the stumps....
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)
Watch it in real time, not slow-motion.
Please believe me when I say that a 6' 7" Test fast bowler standing 12 yards away and hurling the ball towards you doesn't leave you any time to react, it's pure instinct.
Inzaman was given out in a similar ridiculous fashion in 2005 against England when Harmison hurled the ball back at the stumps....
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 judgeement.
And the same with run-outs? You can't have it both ways. As I said earlier, this dismissal is a product of the video technology/Hawkeye/3rd Umpire age that so many want to have in all sport. He was out in the modern world. There is nothing in the laws of cricket about benefit of doubt by the way.
No, as a run out is completely different to obstruction as your bat has to be over the line to be in.
How would watching a run out in real time change the decision..??
You've missed my point, completely, as have most people on here.
The Inzamam one is completely different and I agree a terrible decision. He was in his crease and flinched as a result of the throw. Absolutely not out.
Stokes was 2 or 3 yards outside his crease and fair game for a run-out.
Hurling the ball at a batsman in no danger of being run out is awful sportsmanship, of course. But Stokes was miles out of his ground looking to gain an advantage. If that was an England bowler or a club teammate of mine I'd be livid if they didn't have a go.
The Inzamam one is completely different and I agree a terrible decision. He was in his crease and flinched as a result of the throw. Absolutely not out.
Stokes was 2 or 3 yards outside his crease and fair game for a run-out.
Hurling the ball at a batsman in no danger of being run out is awful sportsmanship, of course. But Stokes was miles out of his ground looking to gain an advantage. If that was an England bowler or a club teammate of mine I'd be livid if they didn't have a go.
Stokes was out of his ground having played a defensive shot but was not "seeking to gain an advantage" as he was hardly going to attempt a run when the ball was in Starc's hands!
This opens up a very nasty can of worms because bowlers are now going to start pinging the ball very hard back at the batsman in the hope that in taking evasive action that the batsman is given out for obstructing the field.
As you saw with the Inzaman dismissal when a ball comes flying back at you its an almost instinctive reaction to jump and, of course, if your feet and bat are in the air then you will be given out if the ball hits the stumps.
I don't think any proper Cricket lover wants to see a game played like this but when the Australians seek to profit from such an occurrence then it is inevitable that other bowlers are going to do the same thing - Smith had better get ready to get peppered.
The correct course of action would have been for Smith to warn Stokes about being out of his ground and withdraw the appeal, pursuing it was wrong as all of the Sky pundits agreed - even that one-eyed wank stain Warne.
No, it doesn't open that can of worms. It is in the laws of cricket that an attempt to avoid injury should result in a not out call. Inzamam shouldn't have been given and I'm certain he wouldn't be nowadays. He was in the crease before the ball was thrown.
Stokes played a defensive shot, huh? Why did he end up 3 yards down the pitch? Even if he wasn't attempting a run (and he was certainly in a position to hare a quick single to mid-off) then this is a vulnerable position and one the fielding side can take advantage of. Why do you think Stumped is a form of dismissal? Advancing from the crease is a risk and should be treated as such by batsmen. This adds to the skill of it.
Watch Roger Harper's run out of Gooch on Youtube. Would you outlaw such brilliance? If so, you're an enemy of good cricket. I cannot believe some of the sanctimonious nonsense I'm reading about 'cheating Aussies'. I'm English but I admire good cricket and that was good cricket by Starc.
You don't have to be in your crease to play a defensive shot, which was what Stokes played, no matter how far down the wicket he was.
I have no problem, with Starc attempting the run-out, but in my opinion it was not out, as Stokes didn't delieberately stop the ball with his hand, he was hit trying to protect himself.
If he was trying to attempt to stop his stumps being shattered, then surely he would have thrown his whole body in the line of the stumps, and not just his hand.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the footage looks worse in slo-mo, but in real time it seems pretty clear that he is trying to avoid being hit.
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 judgeement.
And the same with run-outs? You can't have it both ways. As I said earlier, this dismissal is a product of the video technology/Hawkeye/3rd Umpire age that so many want to have in all sport. He was out in the modern world. There is nothing in the laws of cricket about benefit of doubt by the way.
No, as a run out is completely different to obstruction as your bat has to be over the line to be in.
How would watching a run out in real time change the decision..??
You've missed my point, completely, as have most people on here.
I take it that you are not a fan of using technology in sport?
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 judgeement.
And the same with run-outs? You can't have it both ways. As I said earlier, this dismissal is a product of the video technology/Hawkeye/3rd Umpire age that so many want to have in all sport. He was out in the modern world. There is nothing in the laws of cricket about benefit of doubt by the way.
No, as a run out is completely different to obstruction as your bat has to be over the line to be in.
How would watching a run out in real time change the decision..??
You've missed my point, completely, as have most people on here.
I take it that you are not a fan of using technology in sport?
Whether he is a fan or is not a fan of using technology is of no relevance.
Use of technology gave rise to a dismissal under the letter of the Laws of the game. The umpires had no option but to give the batsman out unless the appeal was withdrawn.
The throw was also nowhere near the stumps, would have been 4 overthrows. 3rd ump could have taken that into account.
Actually, you're wrong on all three counts!
First, the ball was heading very, very close to the stumps. In fact, it was so close that Stokes, standing and turning directly in front of the stumps was in the way. It would either have hit the stumps, or would have gone just over the top.
Second, the 'keeper had the throw easily covered so there is no reason to expect that it would have gone for overthrows.
Third, the "third umpire" should not take into consideration any of the above.
However, there is one point that most people may have overlooked. Law 37 is the law which relates to being out "obstructing the field". There are six parts to that law and, in the respect of this dismissal, parts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 seem properly to have been adhered to. However, part 2 states: "It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt". To repeat this - it is for either umpire to decide whether it's wilful; and the umpire shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt. The on-field umpires consulted. They gave it not out, but asked for the third umpire to review. This contravenes the law, as the on-field umpires determined whether it was wilful (there determination was that it was not, hence their giving it not out before reviewing). The third umpire should only have given his determination based on the facts before him; he should not have forced the on-field umpires to changes their determination (already made) that the act was not wilful .
Your fact is correct @LenGlover. However, it didn't answer my question on the use of technology.
As for the original question on run outs, do you think that technology has improved the accuracy of dismissals or not?
Run outs and stumpings yes although a good umpire gets it right more often than not.
Hawkeye, snickometers etc, etc re lbws, catches and so on more problematic but Sky loves gimmicks and gadgetery so he who pays the piper calls the tune if you sell your soul which cricket has done to its probable long term detriment.
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 judgeement.
And the same with run-outs? You can't have it both ways. As I said earlier, this dismissal is a product of the video technology/Hawkeye/3rd Umpire age that so many want to have in all sport. He was out in the modern world. There is nothing in the laws of cricket about benefit of doubt by the way.
No, as a run out is completely different to obstruction as your bat has to be over the line to be in.
How would watching a run out in real time change the decision..??
You've missed my point, completely, as have most people on here.
I take it that you are not a fan of using technology in sport?
England won the toss at Old Trafford & bat. Bairstow in for Buttler.
Injuries force the tourists into three changes: Aaron Finch comes in to open for David Warner, who broke a thumb in the second game, and there's an ODI debut for Ashton Agar, the left-arm spinner who made such an impact on his Ashes debut a few years ago. Shane Watson misses out along with Nathan Coulter-Nile, whose place in the seam attack goes to James Pattinson
Hales out caught yet again trying to hit the ball through mid wicket. Makes just 9 in 31 balls and as stated previously he really didn't look in any sort of nick.
Hales out caught yet again trying to hit the ball through mid wicket. Makes just 9 in 31 balls and as stated previously he really didn't look in any sort of nick.
52-1 off 9.3
Roy 38 (26)
Not making a very good case for being tried as a Test opener!
Hales out caught yet again trying to hit the ball through mid wicket. Makes just 9 in 31 balls and as stated previously he really didn't look in any sort of nick.
52-1 off 9.3
Roy 38 (26)
Not making a very good case for being tried as a Test opener!
He is very much that sort of player. Some days absolutely everything comes off the middle for him but, on others, like today, the bat looks as if it's made of lead.
Comments
However not sure we would have appealed in same situation.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=87m2d6cV4F0
How would watching a run out in real time change the decision..??
Please believe me when I say that a 6' 7" Test fast bowler standing 12 yards away and hurling the ball towards you doesn't leave you any time to react, it's pure instinct.
Inzaman was given out in a similar ridiculous fashion in 2005 against England when Harmison hurled the ball back at the stumps....
Let's see how Smith likes it - and how he reacts - when Stokes and Co start hurling the ball back at him from 12 yards, the bloke is an utter prat.
Stokes was 2 or 3 yards outside his crease and fair game for a run-out.
Hurling the ball at a batsman in no danger of being run out is awful sportsmanship, of course. But Stokes was miles out of his ground looking to gain an advantage. If that was an England bowler or a club teammate of mine I'd be livid if they didn't have a go.
This opens up a very nasty can of worms because bowlers are now going to start pinging the ball very hard back at the batsman in the hope that in taking evasive action that the batsman is given out for obstructing the field.
As you saw with the Inzaman dismissal when a ball comes flying back at you its an almost instinctive reaction to jump and, of course, if your feet and bat are in the air then you will be given out if the ball hits the stumps.
I don't think any proper Cricket lover wants to see a game played like this but when the Australians seek to profit from such an occurrence then it is inevitable that other bowlers are going to do the same thing - Smith had better get ready to get peppered.
The correct course of action would have been for Smith to warn Stokes about being out of his ground and withdraw the appeal, pursuing it was wrong as all of the Sky pundits agreed - even that one-eyed wank stain Warne.
Stokes played a defensive shot, huh? Why did he end up 3 yards down the pitch? Even if he wasn't attempting a run (and he was certainly in a position to hare a quick single to mid-off) then this is a vulnerable position and one the fielding side can take advantage of. Why do you think Stumped is a form of dismissal? Advancing from the crease is a risk and should be treated as such by batsmen. This adds to the skill of it.
Watch Roger Harper's run out of Gooch on Youtube. Would you outlaw such brilliance? If so, you're an enemy of good cricket. I cannot believe some of the sanctimonious nonsense I'm reading about 'cheating Aussies'. I'm English but I admire good cricket and that was good cricket by Starc.
I have no problem, with Starc attempting the run-out, but in my opinion it was not out, as Stokes didn't delieberately stop the ball with his hand, he was hit trying to protect himself.
If he was trying to attempt to stop his stumps being shattered, then surely he would have thrown his whole body in the line of the stumps, and not just his hand.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, the footage looks worse in slo-mo, but in real time it seems pretty clear that he is trying to avoid being hit.
Use of technology gave rise to a dismissal under the letter of the Laws of the game. The umpires had no option but to give the batsman out unless the appeal was withdrawn.
That is a fact not an opinion.
As for the original question on run outs, do you think that technology has improved the accuracy of dismissals or not?
First, the ball was heading very, very close to the stumps. In fact, it was so close that Stokes, standing and turning directly in front of the stumps was in the way. It would either have hit the stumps, or would have gone just over the top.
Second, the 'keeper had the throw easily covered so there is no reason to expect that it would have gone for overthrows.
Third, the "third umpire" should not take into consideration any of the above.
However, there is one point that most people may have overlooked. Law 37 is the law which relates to being out "obstructing the field". There are six parts to that law and, in the respect of this dismissal, parts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 seem properly to have been adhered to. However, part 2 states: "It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt". To repeat this - it is for either umpire to decide whether it's wilful; and the umpire shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt. The on-field umpires consulted. They gave it not out, but asked for the third umpire to review. This contravenes the law, as the on-field umpires determined whether it was wilful (there determination was that it was not, hence their giving it not out before reviewing). The third umpire should only have given his determination based on the facts before him; he should not have forced the on-field umpires to changes their determination (already made) that the act was not wilful .
Hawkeye, snickometers etc, etc re lbws, catches and so on more problematic but Sky loves gimmicks and gadgetery so he who pays the piper calls the tune if you sell your soul which cricket has done to its probable long term detriment.
Injuries force the tourists into three changes: Aaron Finch comes in to open for David Warner, who broke a thumb in the second game, and there's an ODI debut for Ashton Agar, the left-arm spinner who made such an impact on his Ashes debut a few years ago. Shane Watson misses out along with Nathan Coulter-Nile, whose place in the seam attack goes to James Pattinson
44-0
Roy 32 (23)
Hales 7 (25)
52-1 off 9.3
Roy 38 (26)
86-2 off 15
Someone is going to have to drop out of the side for Joe Root in future. If I was Alex Hales, I'd be starting to feel the pressure.