|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Sept 6, 2015 18:07:23 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. Whack your fist into the palm of your other hand, your fingers will close in in a reflex action, this is what happened and why it looked bad in slow mo but in common sense land and real time it is chrystal clear that there was no wilful intent at all. Mark Butcher is a bit of a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this one, blimey, even Shane Warne thinks it's not out |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 19:22:31 GMT
Hardly a lone voice. If you read the comments on cricinfo, it's more or less 50:50 and if anything there is a small majority in support of the umpires.
At least it confirms Stokes' reputation as the best fielder in the England side. I can see him winning awards for the catch of the season for that one. He's got my vote!
But seriously, the most important thing is that the laws of the game have not been compromised. If Stokes had got away with it and had been given not out, it would have changed the game and we would have seen batsmen on a regular basis thinking they have impunity to get between a fielder and the ball to prevent being run out and then claiming a spurious 'self preservation' defence.
Thankfully, the commendable vigilance of the umpires yesterday has ensured that will not now happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Sept 6, 2015 20:16:03 GMT
Lol, I didn't realise you could dislike a post!
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 6, 2015 20:18:36 GMT
Lol, I didn't realise you could dislike a post! This facility was introduced today, Mrs D. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2015 20:32:44 GMT
What is there to dislike? It's a cheap and nasty substitute for intelligent debate and if that's what we've descended to, then count me out My final post is in the 'Off Topic' section about how you can all help to make refugees feel welcome in our country by joining the Brighton & Hove branch of City Of Sanctuary. You can read it here : unofficialsussexccc.freeforums.net/thread/479/city-sanctuary-pledge-support |
|
|
|
Post by fraudster on Sept 6, 2015 20:45:17 GMT
What a difference a day makes indeed HH. Where would we be without controversy? That was a rhetorical question, the answer is nowhere interesting. Proof's in the pudding on that one too.
For what it's worth, and I know it's worth a lot to all on here, I thought it was out in real time, out in slow-mo and I still think it's out now. Stokes was cute, but like all cuties, got found out for the charlatan that he is - no I'm not bitter.
BM, you're just having a laugh with me aren't you? Dieter Reiter, Dieter frigging Reiter? Who's his bird Helga Belga. Come on, it was funny with the other names but please. Good of him to welcome refugees with open arms though - not sure a mayor is quite the class to see a negative side, unless they don't polish his silver properly.
That new dislike button is gonna hit my ego hard. I'm not sure people should be allowed to so readily express their displeasure. I'm not happy about it and I don't mind saying so.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Sept 6, 2015 21:53:44 GMT
Lol, I didn't realise you could dislike a post! This facility was introduced today, Mrs D. Was it really? I thought it was just me being my usual unobservant self! Not sure I'm a fan of it really, perhaps we should do a poll! Has Borderman really left us over a disagreement about refugees? Apologies for going slightly off topic again. |
|
|
|
Post by burgesshill on Sept 7, 2015 6:55:29 GMT
How do you dislike a post then?
I can't see any likes, or dislikes, against any post, or how I can dislike Borderman's post.
If I could, I would!
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Sept 7, 2015 7:35:59 GMT
How do you dislike a post then? I can't see any likes, or dislikes, against any post, or how I can dislike Borderman's post. If I could, I would! The dislike button has been withdrawn! |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Sept 7, 2015 8:59:21 GMT
How do you dislike a post then? I can't see any likes, or dislikes, against any post, or how I can dislike Borderman's post. If I could, I would! The dislike button has been withdrawn! A wise decision, well done mods, I apologise to all if I had any part in Borderman's decision to leave, it certainly wasn't my intention to offend him, I just get riled when people apply blanket criticism to the English people, we aren't perfect, but we are not so bad either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 9:54:11 GMT
Is the 'deleted member' button available only to those in high dudgeon or can it also be accessed by those in low and medium dudgeon?
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 8, 2015 17:40:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Sept 9, 2015 5:59:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Sept 11, 2015 13:47:29 GMT
Oh look! Another score of 300 or so to chase. Wonder what would happen if t'other side bowled them out short of that number?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Sept 11, 2015 18:11:16 GMT
 Well done England, two points though. Whilst I applaud this new, positive England common sense should still apply, I feel with plenty of balls left we should have just seen Pat Cummins off, we didn't need to be chasing 4”s and 6's, all is well that ends well though. Second point, is there an unspoken rule that the MOTM has to come from the winning side, I would have picked Maxwell for his all round performance. Oh, third point, I really like Paul Farbrace, what a lovely chap, must be nice in the dressing room with him there.
|
|
Well done England, two points though. Whilst I applaud this new, positive England common sense should still apply, I feel with plenty of balls left we should have just seen Pat Cummins off, we didn't need to be chasing 4”s and 6's, all is well that ends well though. Second point, is there an unspoken rule that the MOTM has to come from the winning side, I would have picked Maxwell for his all round performance.