England vs Australia 2015 ODI Series

[eddie]

 Warne said Smith was wrong, Merv put the finger up and told Stokes to go, two differing opinions from two very Australian, Australians .

Brendan McCullum of New Zealand suggests that it sets a dangerous precedent, and that in the future Smith will regret his decision. Watch for more of the same tomorrow - there will be bad blood between the sides now.

[Ovis aries]

Brendan McCullum of New Zealand suggests that it sets a dangerous precedent, and that in the future Smith will regret his decision. Watch for more of the same tomorrow - there will be bad blood between the sides now.

The Aussies don't care , remember Trevor Chappell rolling the last ball of the game to stop New Zealand hitting a six to win.

 

[Albert]

The Aussies don't care , remember Trevor Chappell rolling the last ball of the game to stop New Zealand hitting a six to win.

 

That bow's so long I doubt it even has the structural integrity to fire. 

I honestly don't see why anything is directed at Australia for this. Stokes, who is known for his brain snaps, yet again did something utterly stupid, and the umpires made the call. All the whinging by England is what's been against the spirit of the game, and it's sickening that as a side they can't just put their hand up and say "oops". I get deflecting blame away, but wow... I didn't even realise that this was "controversial" for a few days. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

That bow's so long I doubt it even has the structural integrity to fire. 

I honestly don't see why anything is directed at Australia for this. Stokes, who is known for his brain snaps, yet again did something utterly stupid, and the umpires made the call. All the whinging by England is what's been against the spirit of the game, and it's sickening that as a side they can't just put their hand up and say "oops". I get deflecting blame away, but wow... I didn't even realise that this was "controversial" for a few days. 

In my opinion, that's a complete misreading of the situation.

The spirit of the game is very important and was certainly invoked by the Australians when Broad was given not out having edged behind. Who was whingeing then?

Who was the Australian batsman given out handled the ball, having picked the ball up to return it to the bowler? Did the Australians put their hands up and say, 'Oops'? When did any Australian?

And the underarm thing is still widely remembered. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. That it was not against the rules of the competition was probably down to the fact that those that wrote the rules didn't think anyone would be so brazenly disrespectful of the game as to do such a thing. Not even his own players thought so.

None of these was against the laws of the game but all were against the spirit of the game. All were wrong.

[Albert]

In my opinion, that's a complete misreading of the situation.

The spirit of the game is very important and was certainly invoked by the Australians when Broad was given not out having edged behind. Who was whingeing then?

Who was the Australian batsman given out handled the ball, having picked the ball up to return it to the bowler? Did the Australians put their hands up and say, 'Oops'? When did any Australian?

And the underarm thing is still widely remembered. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. That it was not against the rules of the competition was probably down to the fact that those that wrote the rules didn't think anyone would be so brazenly disrespectful of the game as to do such a thing. Not even his own players thought so.

None of these was against the laws of the game but all were against the spirit of the game. All were wrong.

...and it was as ridiculous and as needless a deflection when Australia went on about Broad back then. 

I also wouldn't say any advantage would be gained by returning the ball, but it was a stupid thing to do. However, comparing giving a batsmen out for actually obstructing the field and an oversight of the laws of cricket from 34 years ago is not only ridiculous, but ultimately reveals the massive hole in the centre of the argument you're trying to spin. People argued about the incident then and came to the conclusion that there was an issue in the laws of the game, and they rightfully fixed them. If you are that incensed by this incident, write to the MCC and tell them what you think is wrong, and how it could be fixed. If you're not willing or able to do at least that, then you either don't actually care or think that much of the incident or you can't actually articulate what you think was done wrong. 

Ultimately just like with Mankading, whether you like that particular part of the laws of cricket or not, you have to respect that no better rule been proposed. A batsmen can be given out for obstructing the field, where whether or not there was intent to do so is left to the umpires to adjudge. If you feel the umpires were wrong, that's one thing, but when the opposition captain, the umpires and such were all satisfied that they felt it was "intentional enough", you can't simply scream "spirit of the game" as that is ironically enough going entirely against it. 

To word it differently, England's behaviour following the incident was an attack on the spirit of the game in it's purest sense, they attacked the umpires, the opposition and the game. They showed a genuine lack of humility and integrity in doing so, and ultimately showed themselves in a poor light. That however is not how the English media are going to show it, as it would ultimately become a nonstory, because "dodgy convicts" sells better than "poorly disciplined allrounded continues to do stupid things", at least so close to his Ashes heroics. 

[RLACML]

Taylor gets 49 (51) and 43 (57) both in slightly different scenarios and guess who moans about him. Ovis does.

[eddie]

Let's put it this way - nobody is ever really surprised when an Australian captain ignores anything to do with the 'spirit of the game', and they will do absolutely anything to win. The side that invented 'sledging', and continue to use it as a 'psychological weapon' to this day despite reprimand after reprimand from the on-field umpires will always play the game 'their way'.

The day England turned the tables on them by introducing Gary Pratt as a substitute fielder, only for him to immediately run Ricky Ponting out, brought howls and wails of anguish from down under about the 'spirit of the game'.

Hypocrites.

[AndyinLiverpool]

...and it was as ridiculous and as needless a deflection when Australia went on about Broad back then. 

I also wouldn't say any advantage would be gained by returning the ball, but it was a stupid thing to do. However, comparing giving a batsmen out for actually obstructing the field and an oversight of the laws of cricket from 34 years ago is not only ridiculous, but ultimately reveals the massive hole in the centre of the argument you're trying to spin. People argued about the incident then and came to the conclusion that there was an issue in the laws of the game, and they rightfully fixed them. If you are that incensed by this incident, write to the MCC and tell them what you think is wrong, and how it could be fixed. If you're not willing or able to do at least that, then you either don't actually care or think that much of the incident or you can't actually articulate what you think was done wrong. 

Ultimately just like with Mankading, whether you like that particular part of the laws of cricket or not, you have to respect that no better rule been proposed. A batsmen can be given out for obstructing the field, where whether or not there was intent to do so is left to the umpires to adjudge. If you feel the umpires were wrong, that's one thing, but when the opposition captain, the umpires and such were all satisfied that they felt it was "intentional enough", you can't simply scream "spirit of the game" as that is ironically enough going entirely against it. 

To word it differently, England's behaviour following the incident was an attack on the spirit of the game in it's purest sense, they attacked the umpires, the opposition and the game. They showed a genuine lack of humility and integrity in doing so, and ultimately showed themselves in a poor light. That however is not how the English media are going to show it, as it would ultimately become a nonstory, because "dodgy convicts" sells better than "poorly disciplined allrounded continues to do stupid things", at least so close to his Ashes heroics. 

Yes, they should have just got on with it, but I don't think anyone should take lectures in humility from an Australian. The game is littered with examples of dissent, especially since replays have been used to question umpires' decisions, which in itself is the biggest contravention of the spirit of the game. But you are right in the sense that contraventions to the spirit of the game do cause changes to the laws - leg side fielders behind square to counter bodyline, for example (when did Australians stop bleating about that?). 

As for the 'if you don't write to the MCC, you simply don't care argument' what rot. You know what was done wrong. The third umpire looked at it in slow motion, which he should not have done. I wonder, in fact whether it should have been referred to the third umpire at all.

[AndyinLiverpool]

Let's put it this way - nobody is ever really surprised when an Australian captain ignores anything to do with the 'spirit of the game', and they will do absolutely anything to win. The side that invented 'sledging', and continue to use it as a 'psychological weapon' to this day despite reprimand after reprimand from the on-field umpires will always play the game 'their way'.

The day England turned the tables on them by introducing Gary Pratt as a substitute fielder, only for him to immediately run Ricky Ponting out, brought howls and wails of anguish from down under about the 'spirit of the game'.

Hypocrites.

Quite. Don't forget, Ponting was also the man who gave a dressing down to Adam Gilchrest for walking. Boo hoo.

[eddie]

Quite. Don't forget, Ponting was also the man who gave a dressing down to Adam Gilchrest for walking. Boo hoo.

At the end of the day, Stokes said "I was protecting myself" - and the Aussies are calling him a liar.

[eddie]

That bow's so long I doubt it even has the structural integrity to fire. 

I honestly don't see why anything is directed at Australia for this. Stokes, who is known for his brain snaps, yet again did something utterly stupid, and the umpires made the call. All the whinging by England is what's been against the spirit of the game, and it's sickening that as a side they can't just put their hand up and say "oops". I get deflecting blame away, but wow... I didn't even realise that this was "controversial" for a few days. 

The on-field umpires gave it 'not out', only for the decision to be overturned. The on-field umpires only saw the incident in real time, the third umpire only watched the replay in slow motion.

[Albert]

Yes, they should have just got on with it, but I don't think anyone should take lectures in humility from an Australian. The game is littered with examples of dissent, especially since replays have been used to question umpires' decisions, which in itself is the biggest contravention of the spirit of the game. But you are right in the sense that contraventions to the spirit of the game do cause changes to the laws - leg side fielders behind square to counter bodyline, for example (when did Australians stop bleating about that?). 

As for the 'if you don't write to the MCC, you simply don't care argument' what rot. You know what was done wrong. The third umpire looked at it in slow motion, which he should not have done. I wonder, in fact whether it should have been referred to the third umpire at all.

Are you seriously basing a central part of your rebuttal around me being Australia? Seriously?

Australians don't mention bodyline... well... ever really. But it appears a central theme to the English whinging is "but they did it [enter time period longer than the Australian captain has been alive]", which is actually quite funny. 

How is giving the umpires some assistance, something that the game begins with full knowledge of against the spirit of the game? If they decided to just start using it half way through a match, that's a bit different, but something discussed and decided beforehand is hardly something you can complain about. 

So you say your issue with it was the third umpire? That he looked at it in slow motion? At full speed it was pretty damn clear that he stuck a hand out. It issue was whether or not it was a willful act, how did the slow motion make any difference? 

Again, if you're concerned, contact the MCC and tell them what you feel should be changed and why. 

[Albert]

At the end of the day, Stokes said "I was protecting myself" - and the Aussies are calling him a liar.

Who's called him a liar, and why is that even relevant to the decision? This is about the laws of cricket and what the umpires (including the third) decided, not what the Australians felt about it. 

The on-field umpires gave it 'not out', only for the decision to be overturned. The on-field umpires only saw the incident in real time, the third umpire only watched the replay in slow motion.

The umpires did not give it "not out", where on Earth did you pull that from? They sent it upstairs. It was their call to do so. 

[eddie]

Who's called him a liar, and why is that even relevant to the decision? This is about the laws of cricket and what the umpires (including the third) decided, not what the Australians felt about it. 

The umpires did not give it "not out", where on Earth did you pull that from? They sent it upstairs. It was their call to do so. 

I quote…..

 

Match report, Guardian….

“My interpretation of it was that his reaction wasn’t deliberate,” said Morgan. “I feel the ball was thrown so fast you can only react in a way that defends yourself. He put his hand up to protect himself and it followed the ball. How you interpret that is open but I didn’t think it was deliberate.”

In real time, this viewpoint is understandable. Starc’s throw, from halfway down the pitch, gave the batsman little time to react and Morgan confirmed the on-field umpire, Kumar Dharmasena, had given it not out on the field before his colleague in the TV booth, Joel Wilson, overturned it.

Match report, The Daily Telegraph….

Morgan also confirmed in the aftermath that the on-field umpires had originally given Stokes not out, only for the decision to be overturned by the third umpire.

Match report, Daily Mirror….

Morgan said that on-field umpire Dharmasena intuitively felt that Stokes was not out, Mirror reported.

As per Morgan’s statement Dhamasena disagreed with the video umpire as he felt Ben Stokes tried to defend him from the Mitchell Starc throw.

"Kumar told me that they didn't think it was out ... and the third umpire has disagreed. I feel the ball was thrown so fast you can only react in a way that defends yourself."

 

It's interesting that you should bring the 'Laws of the Game' into the equation, because Law 37 clearly states the following...

1. Out Obstructing the field

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.  See also Law 33.2 (Not out Handled the ball).

(ii) any other part of his person or with his bat.  See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).

2. Accidental obstruction

It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not.  He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt.

What is relevant to the decision is the word 'wilful', meaning 'intent'. 

Stokes said that it was accidental - you clearly do not believe that, therefore he must, in your eyes, be a liar because if it is accidental, then clearly he should have been given not out. He was given out, you categorically state that it was the correct decision, yet you are uncomfortable with joining up the logical dots to the inevitable conclusion (that Stokes must be, therefore, a liar).

With regard to what Morgan has said, it looks like you are calling the England captain a liar on that one too.

[AndyinLiverpool]

Are you seriously basing a central part of your rebuttal around me being Australia? Seriously?

Australians don't mention bodyline... well... ever really. But it appears a central theme to the English whinging is "but they did it [enter time period longer than the Australian captain has been alive]", which is actually quite funny. 

How is giving the umpires some assistance, something that the game begins with full knowledge of against the spirit of the game? If they decided to just start using it half way through a match, that's a bit different, but something discussed and decided beforehand is hardly something you can complain about. 

So you say your issue with it was the third umpire? That he looked at it in slow motion? At full speed it was pretty damn clear that he stuck a hand out. It issue was whether or not it was a willful act, how did the slow motion make any difference? 

Again, if you're concerned, contact the MCC and tell them what you feel should be changed and why. 

The whole premise of the review is based on questioning the umpire's decision. 

I explained my opinion about how watching it in slow motion gives an entirely different slant on it in an earlier post. If watching it in slow motion doesn't make any difference, why does the facility exist for the third umpire? He's not looking for an edge or whether the ball pitched in line, he's looking at the player's reaction to the ball being hurled in his direction.

[AndyinLiverpool]

I have never been involved in a game or been close enough to the umpires where the option to withdraw an appeal is an issue.

Do the umpires say, 'Do you want to withdraw?' and the captain just gets one chance? Do they  follow up with, 'Are you sure? Are you really really sure?' or do they not bother at all?

I know that Paul Collingwood regrets not withdrawing an appeal in a match with New Zealand but in the heat of a match, the first reaction of any player is not necessarily the one they would choose given time. Will Smith regret it?

[Albert]

I quote…..

 

Match report, Guardian….

“My interpretation of it was that his reaction wasn’t deliberate,” said Morgan. “I feel the ball was thrown so fast you can only react in a way that defends yourself. He put his hand up to protect himself and it followed the ball. How you interpret that is open but I didn’t think it was deliberate.”

In real time, this viewpoint is understandable. Starc’s throw, from halfway down the pitch, gave the batsman little time to react and Morgan confirmed the on-field umpire, Kumar Dharmasena, had given it not out on the field before his colleague in the TV booth, Joel Wilson, overturned it.

Match report, The Daily Telegraph….

Morgan also confirmed in the aftermath that the on-field umpires had originally given Stokes not out, only for the decision to be overturned by the third umpire.

Match report, Daily Mirror….

Morgan said that on-field umpire Dharmasena intuitively felt that Stokes was not out, Mirror reported.

As per Morgan’s statement Dhamasena disagreed with the video umpire as he felt Ben Stokes tried to defend him from the Mitchell Starc throw.

"Kumar told me that they didn't think it was out ... and the third umpire has disagreed. I feel the ball was thrown so fast you can only react in a way that defends yourself."

 

It's interesting that you should bring the 'Laws of the Game' into the equation, because Law 37 clearly states the following...

1. Out Obstructing the field

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.  See also Law 33.2 (Not out Handled the ball).

(ii) any other part of his person or with his bat.  See also Law 34 (Hit the ball twice).

2. Accidental obstruction

It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not.  He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt.

What is relevant to the decision is the word 'intent'. 

Stokes said that it was accidental - you clearly do not believe that, therefore he must, in your eyes, be a liar because if it is accidental, then clearly he should have been given not out. He was given out, you categorically state that it was the correct decision, yet you are uncomfortable with joining up the logical dots to the inevitable conclusion (that Stokes must be, therefore, a liar).

With regard to what Morgan has said, it looks like you are calling the England captain a liar on that one too.

The issue is that the Australian players' interpretation, and the umpire that made the decision's interpretation of it was that he did mean it. It is a call somebody had to make, and if it's left up to the players we're back to the "did Broad hit it" and "if Ponting said he caught it" nonsense. There are umpires for a reason and if you're unhappy with how it was done, contact the MCC. 

What I'm confused about with that though is why he made the decision to go up stairs then. Did the third umpire contact him and ask him to do that. Whatever the reason though, it was something that was decided by the onfield umpires, whether they would have given it out or not out live. From the wording of the article though it seems to be largely clever wordplay, with the statement "Kumar told me that they didn't think it was out ... and the third umpire has disagreed." That wouldn't constitute being given not out, that would constitute Kumar thinking one thing, but being unsure enough to go upstairs (which again, is the on field umpires choice to my knowledge). 

That all however comes back to it being a disagreement between the English players and the umpires, which against raises the question of why the English are whinging about the Australians in this. It would be like someone crashing into the back of your car, only for you to go and shout at tree about it. 

[Albert]

The whole premise of the review is based on questioning the umpire's decision. 

I explained my opinion about how watching it in slow motion gives an entirely different slant on it in an earlier post. If watching it in slow motion doesn't make any difference, why does the facility exist for the third umpire? He's not looking for an edge or whether the ball pitched in line, he's looking at the player's reaction to the ball being hurled in his direction.

The point I'm trying to get at is why does it matter, and why does it make the call inaccurate to you. He had the ability to watch it live or in slow motion. 

I have never been involved in a game or been close enough to the umpires where the option to withdraw an appeal is an issue.

Do the umpires say, 'Do you want to withdraw?' and the captain just gets one chance? Do they  follow up with, 'Are you sure? Are you really really sure?' or do they not bother at all?

I know that Paul Collingwood regrets not withdrawing an appeal in a match with New Zealand but in the heat of a match, the first reaction of any player is not necessarily the one they would choose given time. Will Smith regret it?

Why would he regret it, Stokes did obstruct the field, and the umpires were satisfied it constituted a wicket. Should we start berating captains for not withdrawing caught behind appeals because the batsmen said he actually didn't hit it? Who cares if the umpires are satisfied, just get rid of them, the players should umpire the game eh?

[Ovis aries]

The only thing wrong with you bringing bodyline into the argument is that when Jardine introduced it , it was within the laws of the game.

Also bodyline had very little effect on the result of the series and there was only one serious injury resulting from it.

Brian Close took far more punishment from Michael Holding and never moaned at all , Aussie pussies .

[AndyinLiverpool]

The point I'm trying to get at is why does it matter, and why does it make the call inaccurate to you. He had the ability to watch it live or in slow motion. 

Why would he regret it, Stokes did obstruct the field, and the umpires were satisfied it constituted a wicket. Should we start berating captains for not withdrawing caught behind appeals because the batsmen said he actually didn't hit it? Who cares if the umpires are satisfied, just get rid of them, the players should umpire the game eh?

The onfield umpires were not satisfied. Had they been, no referral would have been necessary.

This is what I wrote in a previous post regarding why I think looking at it in slow motion was an error:

In real time, you see an object coming towards you, you make evasive action. You swerve out of the way if you have enough time to think about it and have full control of your body. If you don't you try to protect yourself, perhaps with your hands. If you are doing so and move your hand towards the object, you block it regardless of whether it's going to hit your body or not.