[kuranda_bagman]

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.