The Australia versus England ODI series, much like the stereotype of the shorter formats, played out its role effectively.
Boundaries were hit, big scores were made, and bowlers had a decent competition with the batsmen. However, the series was not short of any controversies, and the most talked about one was the Ben Stokes dismissal.
After seeing replays over and over again, one might end up with a different conclusion as to whether that dismissal was rightfully given or not. There were several issues with the way the incident was dealt with.
First of all the on-field umpires took the decision up to the third umpire to make the call, even though he did not see the dismissal happening in front of him but from quite a distance away. That third umpire was also watching replays over and over again.
Decisions like these are unique, they need to be made on the spot as technology cannot be relied upon. Sure the replays suggested that Stokes was quite far away from the ball and his reaction looked intentional, but anyone with basic knowledge of cricket would know Stokes was not at fault.
Naturally, when the ball is thrown at someone that person will flinch no matter how far away it may actually be. If a person throws the ball in an aggressive manner and you happen to be really close it’s not unnatural to prevent yourself from getting hit.
Replays, and images of the incident, show that Stokes was quite far away from the ball and that he stopped it from hitting the wickets, however that is not true. When one is 20 yards away from a bowler who throws a ball as hard as he can, the first thing that comes to mind is to defend yourself, and that is exactly what Stokes did.
Obstructing the field can be when a batsman purposely kicks the ball away, or does what Inzamam-ul-Haq did against England. He was quite far away from the ball when it was aimed at the stumps, and had enough time to react and get away from the line of the ball.
However, since he was outside his crease and played at the ball to prevent it from hitting the wickets he was out obstructing the field. Stokes’s case was different, he was trying to defend himself and had no time to react in any other way.
These dismissals have now created an issue that needs to be addressed by the ICC. If umpires start giving those out, bowlers will just start throwing the ball needlessly at batsman after the ball has been bowled. It will create a very hostile environment where batsman will be unjustly dismissed for defending themselves, or they will get hit and get seriously injured which will require them to leave the field.
The worst case scenario would be that a batsman would get hit and die, after the Phil Hughes tragedy, Cricket Australia started investigations on how to prevent accidents like that from ever occurring. New helmets were introduced, yet no matter how protective the protective gear may be, it is never enough.
If the ICC truly want to prevent another immense talent to be lost then these sorts of acts by bowlers should be outlawed as they don’t belong in the game. If players want to hurt others just to win they should take it to the streets and start gambling for their lives. People play cricket for fun, as soon as winning at all costs gets in the way we know that there is a problem.
The Australian way of playing cricket is to be aggressive, stare your opponents down, intimidate them, sledge them and at the end of the day have fun playing a game of cricket. There is a limit to the intimidating antics, and the ICC needs to address the issue of safety.
Once cricket is rid of one hazard we can sit back and watch the game we love, and players can play fairly as well.
Simply outlawing might not work, there are implications that sadly grown professionals today do not understand with their behaviour. If a bowler commits such a heinous act, they should not only be fined a match fee but also cop a ban, preferably one full tour including Tests, ODIs and T20s, as well as one season in all Twenty20 competitions.
Being strict is the way to go. We saw that the Pakistani bowlers of 2010 were sent to jail and exiled from playing the sport they loved. But they have done their time and can now be pioneers of cricket, and show people what their mistakes taught them. Hopefully cricket can have less spot-fixing scandals now.
The case here should be similar, if players are banned for throwing the ball back at batsmen then it will not only fix offending bowlers’ attitudes, but it will also set an example for those around him. Only then will we see less injustice done to batsmen.
JGK
Roar Guru
Maybe we should play with tennis balls.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Probably also need to ban any attacking shots when there are close in fieldsmen as that can result on the ball hitting one of those fieldsmen really hard. Need to also ban the straight drive as that's hitting the ball at the bowler and umpire
Paul D
Roar Guru
Great comments, terrible article. Give yourselves all a pat on the back. "I’d love to hear your opinion on this when someone dies." The only thing dying is your credibility I'm afraid.
Barto
Guest
I suppose the author wants to ban all throwing in a cricket match too. Theres always a chance a throw from the outfield might hit a player, so better not throw at all.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Agreed!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
There are a few up there, but it would certainly be a contender!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
This is so wrong in so many ways. Stokes was out of his ground and Starc threw the ball at the stumps to run him out. You seriously want to ban bowlers for that? And I'm sorry, but your knowledge of cricket must be extra basic, because I've been playing cricket my whole life and I look at this and clearly see Stokes eyes watching Starc and the line of the ball and put his hand out to where it is while pulling away. You get someone to throw a ball almost at you and see where you automatically put your hand. It will be IN FRONT OF YOUR BODY NOT OUT AWAY FROM YOUR BODY! If he was protecting himself then his arm would have been pulled in front of his face as he turned away, not stuck out well away from his body. Starc made a legitimate run out attempt. Stokes had a brain snap and stuck out his hand to stop the ball. He was correctly given out. To suggest the law should be changed to allow the batsman to dance his way down the pitch while the ball is in the bowlers hand and he's not allowed to try and run him out, and he'll get a big fine and lengthy ban if he tries is to have very little understanding of cricket.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Good point. Most people's self-defense mechanisms involve dodging flying missiles, rather than flinging body parts into the way of them.
Barto
Guest
This is easily the single worst article I've ever read on here.
Liam
Guest
"I'd like to hear your opinion on this when someone dies." You are being ridiculous. Phil Hughes' passing was tragic, but in no way should it be co-opted in this way (ie, to score points against someone). If a throw is aimed at the body instead of the stumps, there are already laws in place that are to govern such behavior, but in this instance, there is no suggestion of that. The throw was clearly at the wickets, and not at Stokes. Your attitude suggests someone who, rather than wanting to see the spirit of the game upheld, wants to pot a talent not your own.
Nudge
Guest
Plus another one
Sideline Comm.
Guest
I'm wasn't going to give this pile the credit of a comment, but just because you guys did, I'll add myself to the list.
Frank R
Roar Rookie
the first thing that comes to mind is to defend yourself, and that is exactly what Stokes did. Seriously how on earth would you know what Stokes was thinking? To me it looked like a deliberate act of stopping the ball and noting to do with defending himself. Seen at lot of umpires move out of the way of a ball smacked at them at 100 mph but never seen on trow his hand out to stop it.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
"When I’m defending myself from a ball flung in my general direction I tend to cover up the vulnerable parts with my hands and not fling my hands around in space." Exactly! Where does Stokes think his face is?
AlanKC
Guest
Well I guess we'd better ban players from driving to the ground...
AlanKC
Guest
At the risk of inflaming the spontaneously combustible poms who haunt these pages - nonsense, Stokes was trying it on, as is his wont. When I'm defending myself from a ball flung in my general direction I tend to cover up the vulnerable parts with my hands and not fling my hands around in space. Get over it, next you'll be saying the non-striker can camp outside the crease as far as he likes.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
Make that times three.
really
Guest
Good Call. Batsmen have to be responsible for their own safety. (within reason) If they are within their crease these incidents will never happen.
really
Guest
The only way a batsman will get hurt is if they put their body in between the ball and the stumps. By giving that dangerous action out, the umpires are telling the batsman to try and reclaim their ground safely by moving away from the stumps and out of danger. It was a good decision on the field for the moment and the future. you can't reward batsmen putting their body in dangerous positions to protect their wicket
Sam
Guest
But bowlers aren't doing anything wrong. I could possibly understand the logic (but definitely not agree) if the batsman is in his crease but otherwise he is fair game and anyone is well within their rights to have a shy at the stumps regardless of where the batsman is standing.