Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 18:37:43 GMT
Well, that was a poor decision to give Stokes out. It is plain he was trying to avoid being hit, you would think in this post Phil Hughes era umpires would be aware a cricket ball coming at you fast is not to be trifled with. He wasn't even looking at the ball, and his simply arm swung round in ready to cushion his fall as he hit the ground. Being given out that way is tantamount to being called a cheat, from the way he marched off I don't think Stokes is best pleased, some anger management is required before the next match. Not sure about that, Mrs D. It's the sort of handball decision that you see in the box every week in football - and 999 times out of 1000, a penalty would be given on the basis it was hand to ball rather than ball to hand. In any case, I though Stokes was moving away from the ball and already out of range - and then stuck his hand back in the opposite direction to the movement of his body and into the trajectory of the ball. But that's not really the point. I don't like England when they moan, whether it was the sledging in the 5-0 Ashes series down under or today's incident. Injustice or not, the better team won on both ocassions. Flower was terrible when it came to taking defeat badly and I hoped we had put that behind us. One of the most admirable things about the Aussies is that they seldom moan or feel sorry for themselves : they just so 'right, you bar stewards, we're going to do you next time', which is the response England should give... |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Sept 5, 2015 18:56:22 GMT
Well, that was a poor decision to give Stokes out. It is plain he was trying to avoid being hit, you would think in this post Phil Hughes era umpires would be aware a cricket ball coming at you fast is not to be trifled with. He wasn't even looking at the ball, and his simply arm swung round in ready to cushion his fall as he hit the ground. Being given out that way is tantamount to being called a cheat, from the way he marched off I don't think Stokes is best pleased, some anger management is required before the next match. Not sure about that, Mrs D. It's the sort of handball decision that you see in the box every week in football - and 999 times out of 1000, a penalty would be given on the basis it was hand to ball rather than ball to hand. In any case, I though Stokes was moving away from the ball and already out of range - and then stuck his hand back in the opposite direction to the movement of his body and into the trajectory of the ball. But that's not really the point. I don't like England when they moan, whether it was the sledging in the 5-0 Ashes series down under or today's incident. Injustice or not, the better team won on both ocassions. Flower was terrible when it came to taking defeat badly and I hoped we had put that behind us. One of the most admirable things about the Aussies is that they seldom moan or feel sorry for themselves : they just so 'right, you bar stewards, we're going to do you next time', which is the response England should give... We will have to agree to disagree, to me it seems he simply flung his body round to avoid being hit and dive into his ground, that action would cause his arm to swing round, try it yourself! I know he is good at catching, but facing the other way is too much surely, even for him. And why not complain if you have been wronged! About time the English started standing up for themselves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 19:14:23 GMT
And I don't approve of booing when your team loses and those MCC members who jeered when Australia walked back through the pavilion should have their memberships suspended.
There's an ugly side to the English at times. I'm just watching on TV the Germans and Austrians cheering and welcoming the Syrian refugees. Can you imagine the English going down to Dover to cheer the arrival of migrants from the camp at Calais? We would be more likely to stone them. Sometimes one doesn't feel very proud to be English (and I'm deliberately not saying 'British' in order to exclude the Scots and Welsh from this...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 20:38:31 GMT
Pretty damning evidence and hardly "facing the other way"...can't honestly see how the third ump could have given any other decision.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 20:55:18 GMT
mark butcher @markbutcher72
Only shocking thing re Stokes' dismissal is that he didn't cling on to it..!
Andrew McGlashan @andymcg_cricket
@markbutcher72 and put it in his pocket
lol...
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Sept 5, 2015 21:12:48 GMT
And I don't approve of booing when your team loses and those MCC members who jeered when Australia walked back through the pavilion should have their memberships suspended. There's an ugly side to the English at times. I'm just watching on TV the Germans and Austrians cheering and welcoming the Syrian refugees. Can you imagine the English going down to Dover to cheer the arrival of migrants from the camp at Calais? We would be more likely to stone them. Sometimes one doesn't feel very proud to be English (and I'm deliberately not saying 'British' in order to exclude the Scots and Welsh from this...) Now, here I really have to disagree and defend my fellow Englishmen and women. I think we take our fair share of asylum seekers, and treat them well. The inconvenient truth here is that the bulk of these migrants are young men, if they are escaping war why have they left their elderly parents, wives and sisters behind? And having reached the safety of Turkey why are they not just happy, why are they pushing on to EU countries? We and they should be making their own countries better, and FYI I know of what I speak because for years, having seen the distressing pictures of orphans in Romania, I worked in a totally voluntary unpaid basis for a charity that was trying to make that country a good, safe place to live. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 7:41:29 GMT
Now, here I really have to disagree and defend my fellow Englishmen and women. I think we take our fair share of asylum seekers, and treat them well. The inconvenient truth here is that the bulk of these migrants are young men, if they are escaping war why have they left their elderly parents, wives and sisters behind? And having reached the safety of Turkey why are they not just happy, why are they pushing on to EU countries? We and they should be making their own countries better, and FYI I know of what I speak because for years, having seen the distressing pictures of orphans in Romania, I worked in a totally voluntary unpaid basis for a charity that was trying to make that country a good, safe place to live. But what is a fair share? Nothing is "fair" when there is a civil war and you've been barrel-bombed out of your house three times. Since the civil war started in Syria, Britain has taken roughly 5,000 refugees. Germany has taken 98,000, and the influx over the last 48 hours will have pushed that figure over 100,000. "Fair shares" ? And why shoud all Syrian migrants be "happy" to stay in Turkey - or Turkey be "happy" to accept them? They are not a Turkish responsibility. The EU and the entire civilised world has a responsibility in this matter. As for the " bulk" of the migrants being "young men" who have "left their elderly parents, wives and sisters behind", that simply isn't the case. Most of those unfortunate enough to be living under intolerable conditions in Syria seem to prioritise getting their children out - like Alan Kurdi's father. Fair play to you, Mrs D, for supporting Romanian orphans charities. I visited the orphanages in Romania for The Times in 1999 and it was truly distressing. I am also grateful that Britain takes some, if not its "fair share", of refugees and asylum seekers. My daughter-in-law escaped the war in Somalia in 1992; she was 14 at the time and her parents managed to get her on a Danish relief ship in Djibouti, while they had to remain behind in Somalia. She then came from Denmark to Britain but it was not until 2007 - 15 years later - that she was given UK citizenship. I proudly attended her citizenship ceremony at Haringey town hall. She is now a brilliant mother to two wonderful children (who attended their first cricket match at Hove earlier this season) and Britain is privileged that she chose to come here and should be proud to count her as a citizen. |
|
|
|
Post by moderator1 on Sept 6, 2015 7:49:24 GMT
With great sympathy for the debate I must ask posters to please stick to the Cricket topic and conduct other conversations either by Private Message or by opening a thread in Other/Off Topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 8:16:03 GMT
Back on topic, the argument about whether it was an instinctive action is irrelvant. Law 37 only talks about the difference between "accidental" and "wilful", nothing else. "Wilful" is the word that's used and Stokes' action was, without any question, wilful, even if it was "instinctive". The ball would have missed him and he stopped the ball from potentially hitting the stumps. Where do you draw the line in future if someone sticks a hand out to stop a throw from a bowler or fielder and claims "I'm protecting myself" when the ball would have missed him? That's why the rule is there. Similar to Gooch handling the ball against Australia at Old Trafford in 1993, a natural thing to do but still against the laws of the game.
Stokes' hand was thrust out to his side by an arms length, while his body was moving away from the ball in the opposite direction; the trajectory of the ball was not in line with his body. And he was several feet out of his crease, thus inviting Starc to throw at the stumps - a throw that Stokes them blocked with his hand. He probably could have been given out twice, under law 37 for obstructing the field and under law 33 for handled ball. It surprises me that anybody can even dispute the decision.
|
|
wally
2nd XI player
Posts: 178
|
Post by wally on Sept 6, 2015 13:01:51 GMT
In slow motion it looks as if stokes is blocking the ball. ....in real time...ie a ball thrown at the wicket at 100 miles an hour from 14 yards it is very clear to me that he was turning back to the crease and put his hand up in self defense...when the ball strikes him he is not looking at it. Even Shane warne agrees with that and so did all the sky panelists.
Interesting that the third umpire DID NOT EVEN SEE A REPLAY IN REAL TIME and quickly made a decision on extra slo mo. Certainly his action was deliberate and in football would be handball. But it was not willful...the ball hit him.incidentally swing quickly round with a bat in your right hand and see where your left hand goes.?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 13:58:55 GMT
Interesting points from Mark Butcher. He's just been on TV saying "Out, out out, all day long". He elaborated as follows:-
1. If that had been given not out, then nobody can ever again be given out 'obstructing the field' when a bowler or fielder throws at the stumps and the batsman gets in the way.
2. Umpires have a duty to uphold the laws of the game not to make subjective interpretations based on whetheer they think the law is 'fair' or 'just'. Under the laws as currently written, they were corect to give Stokes out.
2. The 'I didn't mean to do it, I was taking evasive action' defence is irrelevant: can a batsman question a catch when defending the ball off his body by saying 'I didn't mean to glove it, I was trying to get out of the way in self defence because the ball was coming at me very fast'
3. The third umpire watches every disputed decision in slo-mo for one very good reason : he is charged with dissecting what exactly happened. There is an established protocol; are we now saying it should apply to all referals, except those for obstruction?
If you look closely at the screen grab above, you can see the ball is actually lodged deep in the palm of Stokes' glove - if you were a keeper you'd be proud of that as a perfect one-handed pouch. In effect, Stokes catches the ball before it can hit the stumps and then deliberately drops it or throws it away, because he is aware of the consequences. It's flagrant.
The lesson Stokes and anyone else who is complaining about the umpires' (correct) interpretation of the law needs to learn is a very simple one: until the ball is dead, it belongs to the fielding side and if the batsman touches or otherwise interferes with it, then he is likely to find himself on his way back to the pavilion.
As for the claim "his action was deliberate...but it was not wilful", we are now in Alice in Blunderland territory. Look it up in the dictionary: DELIBERATE: adjective:dɪˈlɪb(ə)rət/ : done consciously and intentionally; wilful..."
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 6, 2015 15:16:28 GMT
Interesting points from Mark Butcher. He's just been on TV saying "Out, out out, all day long". He elaborated as follows:- 1. If that had been given not out, then nobody can ever again be given out 'obstructing the field' when a bowler or fielder throws at the stumps and the batsman gets in the way. 2. Umpires have a duty to uphold the laws of the game not to make subjective interpretations based on whetheer they think the law is 'fair' or 'just'. Under the laws as currently written, they were corect to give Stokes out. 2. The 'I didn't mean to do it, I was taking evasive action' defence is irrelevant: can a batsman question a catch when defending the ball off his body by saying 'I didn't mean to glove it, I was trying to get out of the way in self defence because the ball was coming at me very fast' 3. The third umpire watches every disputed decision in slo-mo for one very good reason : he is charged with dissecting what exactly happened. There is an established protocol; are we now saying it should apply to all referals, except those for obstruction? If you look closely at the screen grab above, you can see the ball is actually lodged deep in the palm of Stokes' glove - if you were a keeper you'd be proud of that as a perfect one-handed pouch. In effect, Stokes catches the ball before it can hit the stumps and then deliberately drops it or throws it away, because he is aware of the consequences. It's flagrant. The lesson Stokes and anyone else who is complaining about the umpires' (correct) interpretation of the law needs to learn is a very simple one: until the ball is dead, it belongs to the fielding side and if the batsman touches or otherwise interferes with it, then he is likely to find himself on his way back to the pavilion. As for the claim "his action was deliberate...but it was not wilful", we are now in Alice in Blunderland territory. Look it up in the dictionary: DELIBERATE: adjective:dɪˈlɪb(ə)rət/ : done consciously and intentionally; wilful..." 1.That's nonsense, BM - every situation is different. We can both conceive of a batsman wilfully obstructing the field, surely? 2. Their job is to decide whether Stokes wilfully stopped the ball hitting the stumps - they are required to make a subjective interpretation. 2.duplicate) If your priority is the act of taking evasive action then this instinct of self preservation would be so paramount that you would not also be able to wilfully grab at the ball. I don't follow your gloved catch analogy - there is no requirement that a catch has to be wilfully given!! 3. I don't believe the 3rd umpire's training would have covered the Stokes incident. The whole point of this situation is that Stokes reacted instinctively and very quickly, fearing for his life, not his wicket. Slow motion is misleading when it comes to analysing high speed incidents - look at a car crash in slow mo and it totally robs the scenario of its speed and intensity. The photo you show merely confirms that the ball hit Stokes' hand. This is the screen grab that the prosecuting counsel would have selected. No-one is disputing that the ball hit his hand - my view is that his arm flew out in an unco-ordinated manner as he flung his body out of the way. This is what it looks like in real time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 15:42:58 GMT
Don't tell me - tell Mark Butcher, his thoughts not mine. Although I suspect he is correct.
But the photo does not merely confirm that the ball "hit" Stokes' hand. Blow it up and you can clearly see it fully lodged in his palm. It's a brilliant catch!
Once the appeal was refered, the third umpire really had a very simple decision to make and had no option but to give him out unless the Australians had withdrawn their appeal.
As for "fearing for his life"... no. I'll stay schtum. All that matters is that the scorebook says he was out, the correct decision was made, the laws of the game have not been compromised and Stokes will have learnt an important lesson that until the ball is dead it belongs to the fielding side and you interfere with at your peril. I'd hope we can all be content with that as a satisfactory outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 6, 2015 15:47:30 GMT
So England lost yesterday, mainly thanks to their new aggressive attitude. They won the T20 before that though, mainly thanks to their new aggressive attitude. Tricky one. Does this still count as the Ashes? If not someone should open up a new thread, given the traffic and posting about it on here. As you didn't say, fraudster, it does seem to be attracting almost universal disinterest. Perhaps it is the "job done" attitude of the media that this is an irrelevant sideshow to the main contest, or perhaps it actually is quite irrelevant except to the ECB as a source of revenue. Does anybody on this forum actually go to watch these matches?
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 6, 2015 15:56:21 GMT
Klinger scores his eighth hundred of the season for Gloucestershire in 30 innings. With Rogers retiring he must be in with a shout of being selected for the tests in Bangladesh especially with Watson another player with previous experience as an opener in test cricket retiring from tests. Who will open for Australia? Warner (if fit) and one from Bancroft, Burns, Klinger, S Marsh, Maddinson or Silk.
|
|
