Ben Stokes’s obstructing the field in the second ODI has proven an old cricketing rule. Namely, that a rare type of dismissal seems to give the green light to ignorant hysteria.
Last year, Geoff Lemon expertly dissected the intrinsic ridiculousness in the protests over Sri Lanka’s Mankad of Jos Buttler.
At the time, Sri Lankan captain Angelo Matthews was blunt and unapologetic. After the Lord’s ODI, Steve Smith rightly followed Matthews’ example.
Now the two incidents are obviously not exactly the same. But the point I need to make about both incidents is this – the criticism of the captains afterwards was nonsensical over withdrawing the appeal.
Stokes’s dismissal was not as clear-cut as the Buttler Mankad. This is shown by the fact it went to the third umpire. Now, the obstructing the field dismissal law requires that the batsman be “wilfully” obstructing the field to be given out.
It came down to a judgement call. If you listen to the third umpire Joel Wilson, he said, “I have enough evidence”.
He judged from the vision that it looked like Stokes was trying to stop the ball from hitting the stumps. You see, umpires aren’t mind readers. Complain all you want about poor decision making, but being a clairvoyant has never been a requirement to be an international umpire.
Wilson made a judgement call. Sometimes, judgement calls can infuriate fans. Even with the DRS, a thin outside edge is a hard decision for the umpire to adjudicate. The decisions that result from such quandaries, such as Kevin Pietersen’s second innings dismissal at Old Trafford in 2013, spark debate.
But there’s no suggestion that a fielding captain should withdraw his appeal and sit in the naughty boy corner with a thin outside edge. There should have been no such demand of Smith either. Wilson would have been able to justify a not out decision. However, the gap between the ball’s trajectory and Stokes’s head was wide enough to allow for an out decision.
Paul Collingwood, a cricketer and man I admire, said on Twitter that Smith would live to regret his decision, citing his own self-confessed mistake in 2008. I can only humbly disagree. Ryan Sidebottom and Grant Elliot collided. Nobody’s fault, collisions between batsmen and bowlers occur. However, no one accidentally prevented Stokes from diving back in the crease; Mitchell Starc didn’t accidentally push him into the line of the ball.
“But Stokes’ reaction was just that – a reaction.”
Yep. After all, batting comes down to reactions, whether it is over what shot to play or whether to run. You don’t have time to consult even a text message before deciding how to counter-act anyone other than Majid Haq.
Sometimes, a batsman reacts wrongly and gets out. That’s cricket. If you think the umpire’s decision was wrong, then say so. It’s not an indefensible position, and I would have had no problem had Stokes got the benefit of the doubt. It was a line-ball decision.
Feel free to criticise Steve Smith’s actions, but also be prepared for me and others to claim you’re wrong. Feel free to criticise Steve Smith’s nationality, but also be prepared for people to completely ignore you. Feel free to criticise Steve Smith’s level of likability, but also be prepared for people to shrug their shoulders and point out that that is irrelevant.
MS Dhoni sportingly called back Ian Bell in 2011 at England’s behest. It was a magnanimous gesture, acknowledged as such by all, and everyone moved on. However, generosity of that type cannot be taken for granted. Matthews and Smith have rightly resented the fact that it has been expected of them.
Now, don’t get me wrong. We have freedom of speech. As such, Eoin Morgan was entitled to state that he thought what happened was wrong. Morgan was entitled to claim that it would never happen under his captaincy.
Yet one hypothetical situation occurs to me. The 2019 World Cup Final will be held at Lord’s. England could be in it, and Morgan could still be captain. Should Morgan face a predicament similar to the one Smith faced on Saturday night to decide the World Cup, he will find out that action is much harder than making statements that could be uncharitably described as populist.
Steve Smith called Morgan’s implication that he should have withdrawn the appeal “disappointing”.
Disappointing, and rude.
JohnB
Guest
JGK, no-one is disputing what you say in your last 2 sentences. It is quite correct that the one common element to any possible obstruction dismissal is "wilful". However, given that no-one is talking about that general question here, and everyone is talking about the Stokes incident and the particular category of obstruction where the batsman has "struck" the ball with the hand not holding the bat, I think the relevance of your observations is debatable, correct though they undoubtedly are. Given that on this thread we are talking about that particular category of obstruction - striking, hand, no bat - and for fear of getting very repetitive, 2 steps are required for the batsman to be out when that has happened - the umpire has to decide the batsman acted "wilfully" (which I interpret as meaning only "not involuntarily", rather than involving any decision as to why the batsman did what he did), and must also decide that the act was not to avoid injury. Forming one of those conclusions only is not enough. Both are relevant and both must be there for the batsman to be out.
JGK
Roar Guru
Here is the wording: Either batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action. In particular, but not solely, it shall be regarded as obstruction and either batsman will be out Obstructing the field if while the ball is in play and after the striker has completed the act of playing the ball, as defined in Law 33.1, he wilfully strikes the ball with (i) a hand not holding the bat, unless this is in order to avoid injury I think the words in bold support my case. They suggest that hitting the ball with your hand unless to avoid injury is just an example of a wilful obstruction. But that doesn't mean "avoiding injury" will always exonerate you.
JohnB
Guest
JGK, sorry, when it comes to striking the ball with the hand not holding the bat, to be out it doesn't just need to be wilful. It needs to be wilful and not to avoid injury. Wilful is like a threshold test. Pass (or perhaps more appropriately fail) that, and you may be out. To be out there is a second criterion - the umpire has to decide that you were not striking the ball in an effort to avoid injury. With respect, to me that makes the "avoiding injury" element the polar opposite of irrelevant.
JGK
Roar Guru
Incorrect. It only needs to be wilful. Batting the ball away with your hand is then basically deemed to be wilful unless it is for protection purposes. But that doesn't mean the umpires can't in any case hold the action to be wilful.
michael johnston
Roar Rookie
Probably because Wade had the best vision of the ball about to hit the stumps!
michael johnston
Roar Rookie
If Smith can be considered to abide by the spirit of the game by calling Stokes back, surely Stokes can abide by the spirit of the game by acknowledging he stopped the ball from hitting the stumps while out of his crease and walking = Bro Hugs All Around.
JohnB
Guest
I think you're almost certainly right that he wasn't deliberately trying to protect the stumps, which would be an incredibly dumb thing to do, and not the reflex of someone who has played a lot of cricket. However if he's wilfully touched the ball he's still out per the law regardless of why he did it, unless he was trying to protect himself - and it seems that what he did doesn't look to a lot of people anything like how someone usually tries to protect himself from a thrown ball.
JWALSO
Guest
Where did this 'Truth' that Broad hit it square to first slip originate? Watch the clip, he snicks it to Haddin who deflects it to first slip - This has been followed by years of outrage and a legend that has grown into it being a full blooded cut shot off the middle of the bat straight to first slip - which he then refused to walk from. Soon it will be come he hit it to point and didn't walk! Interesting aside that there is zero recognition of the fact that Michael Clarke actually did hit the cover off one to first slip against India and stood his ground. This lie about Broad has been told so many times it is an accepted fact in Australia.
Riccardo
Guest
"Stokes clearly did it on purpose". Clearly. With his back to the bowler as he tried to 1) evade the ball & 2) make his ground. The author's point is not lost on me but to assert his intention as deliberate is fanciful at best.
sheek
Roar Guru
Will, I disagree that Smith didn't have the option of withdrawing his appeal. He certainly could have done so, if he wished. Technically, Stokes 'obstructed the field'. Looking at the replay, the ball was never going to hit the stumps. There was room for Smith to move, but he chose to go with the technical right of the decision.
sheek
Roar Guru
Paul, Yeah true. Once the appeal was made, that's the action the umpires had to follow. If I had been captain, I would probably have canceled the appeal. Both decisions are acceptable according to your beliefs. I just don't believe in winning at any cost, unless of course, it's a real war.
sheek
Roar Guru
I'll take the pompous nonsense in my stride. It just didn't look that obvious to me, but of course, I could be wrong.
sheek
Roar Guru
Oh yeah James, I'll seat in my armchair & think about this. I've read how different folk would have taken different evasive action. I think Stokes only had a nano-second to decide what he was going to do.
JohnB
Guest
No, it has to be wilful before it can be out. If it is wilful, it is nevertheless not out if done to avoid injury.
Basil
Guest
I wonder who was captain? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ38P0IYffc
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
And Michael Vaughan encouraging English bowlers to throw the ball at batsmen in their crease. He was skipper in that series.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Spot on Zim Zam. Though I have to say that as the Sri Lankans warned Buttler before they did it, they behaved in a sporting manner which I think a lot of English fans understood even if the rather more wilfully blind commentators and skipper of the English team didn't.
Frank R
Roar Rookie
Youtube the run out of Inzaman by Harmison and will be understand the English hypocrisy.
Frank R
Roar Rookie
Englishman expounding morals. That's an oxymoron.
Frank R
Roar Rookie
Protect himself from being hit where? His hand was 2 foot from his body. Look like he tried to catch it to me.