Lack of premeditation doesn't excuse the act

By the laws, there was every reason to give Stokes out.

The wording is that a batsman must wilfully interfere with a fielder's work by word or deed, and representations for Stokes centred around the word "wilful". If it was a flinch response, how could that apply?

But on the replay, Stokes reached his hand well outside the line of his body and hit the ball away from the stumps. The ball wasn't aimed at him and wasn't going to hit him.

Stokes is a left-handed batsman. He played the drive down the pitch, then took a couple of steps while expecting that it would beat the bowler. Once it didn't, he urgently needed to get back.

He began to turn towards his right, with the bat handle held in his right hand. The throw was also going past his right hand.

At that point, while turning, Stokes reached his left hand all the way across his body, and extended his arm nearly full length. The ball hit his palm, given by this stage Stokes almost had his back to the bowler.

He was looking back towards Starc until shortly before impact.

This was not the act of someone reflexively protecting his body, it was the act of someone reflexively intercepting the ball.

There's every likelihood that the action was instinctive, and it certainly had no time to be premeditated, but that doesn't change its effect or its intent.

Here's the video

http://zippy.gfycat.com/GorgeousResp...Blackbird.webm

Exactly right John


Pretty obvious why he was given out.

Typical Poms. They invented the game and its rules and when the rules go against them, its bad sportsmanship by the opposition.










If ever England were going to win a one day series against Australia, this was their big chance. Coming off an Ashes series win and top performances against the Kiwis, they should have been full of confidence.


Johnson, Hazlewood, Finch, Faulkner from the WC winning side six months ago are not there. Clarke and Haddin retired as well. In this game, Warner took no part and Watson could not bowl.



And yet, the Aussies continue to win. The machine marches on.





dancing

fair enough if the on field umpire had given it out it was the fact the Aussies went crying with a review

The Aussies wouldn't know about fair play and etiquette of cricket if it came up and hit them with a cricket bat.

I suggest we put Bazza and Bagman in the middle of the Soi and then we throw cricket balls as hard as we can from 18 yards at them and see how they react.

They need to have a word with that fine upstanding sportsman Stuart Broad about sportsmanship.

:bigfinger

it wasn't the Aussies who asked for a review. Starc seemed unsure of what the rule was. Dharmasena called for a review. All of which gave Smith ample time to remember that it was only a one-day match and make a gesture that would have reset the tenor of future games.

Sorry My mistake , starc appealed for out and smith had the chance to withdraw the appeal

Someone in the press box said Stokes is the first non-Indian or Paki given out under this rule.

I'm sure I remember an Aussie handling the ball years ago. Maybe this is a different ruling, or maybe he meant in one-dayers?

Does anybody really think it made such a difference to the outcome ?

We lacked motivation and comittment and were outplayed at all levels. Again

2-2 now. Game on!