Australia have overcome the loss of two stars to win a controversial and at times spiteful one-day clash with England at Lord’s.
On the second ball of the day, the world champions lost opener David Warner to a broken thumb which will keep him out for four to six weeks, and they finished the match without luckless allrounder Shane Watson, who looks set to be sidelined with a calf strain.
But they recovered to prevail by 64 runs, having bowled England out for 245 – in part thanks to the controversial dismissal of allrounder Ben Stokes.
The dynamic left-hander was given his marching orders over the little-used ‘obstructing the field’ law when he stuck out a hand to deflect a shy at the stumps from Australian quick Mitchell Starc.
The Laws of Cricket state that a batsman must be trying to “wilfully attempt to obstruct or distract the fielding side” to be dismissed obstructing the field.
Stokes, who was on 10, was not looking at the ball when he blocked it – and his movements appeared to be more of the self-preservation variety rather than having any intention of protecting his stumps.
Wicketkeeper Matthew Wade immediately appealed, along with Starc, and umpire Kumar Dharmasena referred the decision to the third umpire Joel Wilson, who saw enough evidence to give Stokes his marching orders.
Australian captain Steve Smith could’ve retracted the appeal and recalled Stokes, but he chose not to – a move which divided opinion.
“He is perfectly entitled to (leave it to the umpires),” said former England skipper Michael Atherton.
Champion Australian legspinner Shane Warne felt differently.
“The correct decision was made by the umps re Stokes even though I didn’t like it,” he wrote on Twitter.
“Cricket would’ve been the winner if Smith called him back.”
The dismissal reduced England to 4-141, and triggered a collapse of 5-46 before a 55-run partnership between Eoin Morgan (85 off 87) and Liam Plunkett (24 off 12) pushed Australia to the end.
The incident enraged the typically sedate Lord’s crowd, who booed loudly for a solid half hour after the incident and hurled abuse following Starc’s every involvement for the rest of the match.
Their feelings were not lifted when Wilson also overturned an LBW decision off Glenn Maxwell against Jos Buttler for a duck to exacerbate the collapse.
Starc responded to the boos by clean bowling Plunkett to end England’s resistance and silence the crowd.
Maxwell finished with two wickets, while Pat Cummins claimed 4-56.
Earlier, Mitch Marsh blasted a blistering half century to carry Australia past 300 after Steve Smith (70) and George Bailey (54) had set the platform.
Albatross
Guest
Wishful thinking on your behalf there ES. That, along with hope make for a useless strategy. Stokes has way more potential than Watto ever did, but perhaps that's not immediately recognisable to all. Which is probably what makes the game so interesting.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Oh come on Don, he was probably told not to say anything till he'd calmed down by more mature heads than him. He has come out and given a fairly sensible statement which I assume he was helped with as the word wilful worked its way into it more than once.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Not only that but I've read some commenters elsewhere saying that he wasn't aware where his stumps were and therefore could not have been protecting them. I know Ben Stokes comes across as a bit thick but far out, he can't be stupid.
Don Freo
Guest
"People sharing there (sic) opinion about yesterday,including some Australian players...I want to share mine but I don't want to get fined" -Ben Stokes What a petulant, dumb and unsportsmanlike comment. Have you heard of umpires Ben? Do you know rules Ben? Why not just dive back into the crease like a proper cricketer? What a wh1nger!!! Re-claim the Kiwi because the Pom in you is ugly!
Birdy
Guest
I think game, set and match for “against the spirit of the game” was the famous underarm bowling, wasn't it? Probably, we can reopen the debate some time in the 2060s when that one has faded from memory.
Jameswm
Guest
It is still out. Where do you guys get that idea? He wilfully hit it with his hand. Out. Doesn't matter why he blocked it with his hand - still out.
AlanKC
Guest
I just think it's funny how when the Poms are given out when pushing the rules to the limit they cry "against the spirit of the game". Jos Buttler shouldn't have been mankaded when stolling down the pitch and Stokes shouldn't have been given out while defending his wicket with his mitt... Against the spirit of the game old man, not cricket I say...
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Rob, by your definition of deliberate, nobody could ever be given out handling the ball or obstructing the field. All they'd have to do is tell the umpire "sorry, I wasn't meaning to do that, it was an accident" and they couldn't be given out. That isn't what the word "willful" in the law is referring to. It's referring to the difference between him standing with his arm out and a ball is thrown straight into his arm which either doesn't move, or he is clearly trying to get out of the way of the ball but isn't able to, compared to having his arm in a position where the ball would miss it and then moving the hand directly into the line of the ball, which is what happened here. No intention has to be proved beyond the fact that he moved his hand into the line of the ball which blocked it.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Stokes did one of those movements where for a fraction of a second he must have thought the ball got past Starc and took a couple of steps down the pitch. Starc saw this and threw at the stumps to run him out. That's totally legitimate, not a threatening action or out of frustration, but trying to run out a batsman who's taken a couple of steps forward out of his ground. Stokes stuck his hand away from his body in the line of the ball. A protective reflex would be to pull your hand in front of your body or face, not stick is away from your body. In the end it doesn't really matter what he was thinking. He moved his hand away from his body into the line of the ball which was being thrown at the stumps to try to run him out. That's textbook Obstructing the field and should be given out 10 times out of 10. People are only complaining because it's a rare type of dismissal.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
But Rob, that doesn't actually matter. When a bastman half-blocks a ball, looks back and sees it heading towards the stumps, then as a reflex knocks it away with his hand, there is no excuse that it was just a reflex reaction and they weren't thinking clearly. It was clearly out. And the same here. I think people are misinterpreting the term "willful". All of cricket comes down to split second actions. Willful can never be about a well thought out decision, it's more about the difference of whether he was standing with his arm out and the ball was thrown at it, versus he moved his arm into the line of the ball. What was going on in Stokes head at the time doesn't come into it, whether his change of body motion blocked the ball in a way that wasn't simply the consequence of trying to get back into his ground is the issue. The point is that it's very clear from the replay that he was looking at the ball and moved his hand away from his body to the line of the ball. He wasn't just standing with his hand out and had the ball thrown into it.
Eski
Guest
Birdy pot calling kettle black
Eski
Guest
it does matter if it was self preservation if he was trying to avoid injury it is not out
jameswm
Guest
No it does't. Intentionally touch the ball with his hand. Might have been a reflex, but the ball didn't hit his hand by accident. He pawed at it. It was intentional, even if a reflex. The hand hit the ball, not the other way round.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
If anyone has ever been taught anything, it's when you are looking to get out of anything you do so by making yourself a smaller not a bigger target by chucking your arm out which is exactly what Stokes did.
Don Freo
Guest
I think Robbie has cornered the market for wisdom here. If there was a prize, you'd win it Rob.
Don Freo
Guest
You are using "hubris" incorrectly. Sounds impressive though.
Don Freo
Guest
#6.
Don Freo
Guest
Smith should have recalled Hales. That catch was unfair to mere mortals.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
You mean bowlers try to run out the batsmen once they've fielded the ball and they see the batsman out of his crease? Yes, they do, though I can't see anything to be ashamed about when an Australian bowler does it anymore than when a bowler from any where else does it?
Don Freo
Guest
Campbell Watts, in what way is Smith a better man than Clarke? You're weird.