Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Ashes 2015

1…6869717374…77

Comments

  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,764
    245 all out

    Morgan out for 85.

    Australia win by 64.
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,764
  • Weegie Addick
    Weegie Addick Posts: 16,521
    Crazy.
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,628
    edited September 2015
    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
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,846
    golfaddick said:

    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!
  • redman
    redman Posts: 5,285
    to think Stokes could possibly think and react that quick is ridiculous.
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,315
    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)
  • CHG
    CHG Posts: 4,529
    Watson has announced that he has retired from test cricket. 4 out of the original 17 Oz Ashes touring party have now retired.
  • LenGlover
    LenGlover Posts: 31,651
    Leuth said:

    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?
  • cafc999
    cafc999 Posts: 4,967
    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.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,315
    LenGlover said:

    Leuth said:

    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?
  • LenGlover
    LenGlover Posts: 31,651
    Leuth said:

    LenGlover said:

    Leuth said:

    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.
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,789
    CHG said:

    Watson has announced that he has retired from test cricket. 4 out of the original 17 Oz Ashes touring party have now retired.

    Isn't it five - Watson, Clarke, Haddin, Rogers and Harris?
  • Riviera
    Riviera Posts: 8,167
    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.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    edited September 2015
    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.
  • North Lower Neil
    North Lower Neil Posts: 22,952
    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.
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,315
    Covered End said:

    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.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 16,915
    cafc999 said:

    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...
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,764
    Stokes wasn't even looking as the ball hit his hand ffs. Do people think the fella has some sort of special powered ball magnet hands?
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,315
    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.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    Leuth said:

    Covered End said:

    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
  • cafc999
    cafc999 Posts: 4,967
    Covered End said:

    Leuth said:

    Covered End said:

    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
    he wasn't bowling the ball though was he..??
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 23,315
    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.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    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.
  • cafc999
    cafc999 Posts: 4,967
    Covered End said:

    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.

    The aussies appealed for obstruction though
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    cafc999 said:

    Covered End said:

    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.

    The aussies appealed for obstruction though
    Good point.
  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    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
  • cafc999
    cafc999 Posts: 4,967
    kentaddick said:

    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.
  • CHG
    CHG Posts: 4,529
    Bairstow in for Buttler in the last three ODIs
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,846
    CHG said:

    Bairstow in for Buttler in the last three ODIs

    Good move, Buttler's clearly needs a break

Categories

“Marketplace”