Never in doubt. Threw his arm out to block the ball from hitting the stumps. It wasn't self protection, it was a throw directly at the stumps and he wasn't in front of them.
@@giuseppepennisi8699the throw was on target, if it wasn’t hitting it was very close, also Stokes was well short of his crease even dived at full stretch, the ball was nowhere near his body so it’s hard to claim he was doing it for protection - he in fact had to stretch his arm out to block the ball. The rule sucks and it’s disappointing to see this method of dismissal but it’s out according to the laws set out by the MCC - blame England!
@@jonasp6043 the ball was thrown well left and above stumps. The batsman got a fright and was blocking The throw from hitting himself. Definitely not trying to block the stumps. The throw was no where near the stumps.
@@giuseppepennisi8699 Get your eyes fixed. "well left of the stumps''? The ball was coming on from leg stump heading DOWN for the middle!!! "well left"??? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What part of ''you cannot block the ball with your hand in attempt of a run out'' is it you don't understand??? Go do an umpire's course, pass it & come back please. International umpires on the elite board can see it & a keyboard warrior like you can't? LOL, um, OK.
It's in the laws of cricket, you can't change direction to block the ball from hitting the stumps let alone literally palm the ball. Out every day of the week
@MelvynThurlby Look closely my friend -- he tried to make it look like the ball hit his hand. He DEFINITELY used his left hand ON PURPOSE to deflect the ball away from the stumps!! That's Obstruction!
@MelvynThurlby Deliberate or not had nothing to with it. If the batsman makes a movement to block the ball which is travelling in the direction of the stumps while they are short of their ground they are out 100 times out of 100. It’s like a guy getting clean bowled and you saying well he didn’t deliberately get bowled so he’s not out lol
England: "We will make the rules fair and gentlemen like." England Players: "Ok then, We will make sure to get out in weird ways to demonstrate those rules."😂😂😂
As with out handled ball, the deliberate part isn't what we commonly assume deliberate mean. Any movement, reflex or otherwise, that obstructs the ball is out. This is a legitimate appeal and rightly given out.
Interesting point - to outsiders some of the "deliberate hand ball" calls in soccer can seem very harsh... actions are penalised that appear completely reflexive but players are expected to avoid that reflex.
@@BenDRobinson in football they talk about the hand being in an unnatural place. It is difficult to understand as someone new to a sport but these intricacies becomes obvious in time.
he managed to be out for both ways of obstructing the field, by getting in the way of the ball hitting the stumps while he was out of the crease, and doing it with a hand not holding the bat, which is what they used to call handling the ball!
@@bigpoppa1234some good detail there, you are correct, he can actually be given out for two different dismissals (obstruction and handled ball). Watched the video again now, lord knows why Morgan is upset 😅
While I also believe he was watching the ball & that the arm reaction was reflex, the simple fact is that he stopped the ball hitting the stumps while he was out of the crease. Out, every day of the week, intentional or not,
@Raj kumar Khedwal I strongly DISAGREE. READ THIS FULLY EVEN IF IT'S LONG. And if you still disagree, then you're TRULY THE BIGGEST LOSER EVER. To all those who believe that Stokes came in way of the stumps, let me clear that actually you're busy explaining trajectory thing and Stokes coming in the way of the throw. But you're TOTALLY UNWILLING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IDIOT STARC HAS THROWN IT SO VIGOROUSLY THAT STOKES HAD TO TURN BACK QUICKLY ENOUGH TO FALL BACK TO CREASE. There are PLENTY OF MAJORITY IDIOTS IN THE UNIVERSE LIKE YOU. But majority vote NEVER DECIDES JUSTICE AND TRUTH. Truth is that first 3 seconds CLEARLY TELL that Starc threw it very vigorously. And Starc himself bowled it near stump line. So naturally batsman will play near line of the stumps. Slow motion is the MOST DECEPTIVE EVIDENCE HERE. Starc's BERSERK THROW ACTUALLY FORCED STOKES TO TURN BACK QUICKLY ENOUGH TO FALL BACK TO CREASE. AND WHILE DOING SO, HE TURNED SO VICIOUSLY THAT HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER HIS GESTURES. IT WAS PURE COINCIDENCE THAT HIS HAND WAS IN LINE. Actually Starc would have BRUTALLY INJURED STOKES AT THAT MOMENT. Is this a FAIR THROW BY ANY MEANS ??? If Starc wanted to aim the stumps, then he should have gone to his left and thrown it. Or even thrown near the base of the stumps. But instead, he's aimed the bails, so much NEAR STOKES BODY. Bowler DOESN'T HAVE FULL FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. If they wish to run out, then they must move away from batsman's line of body and then throw it. OTHERWISE IT IS PURE THREATENING TO HARM THE BATSMAN AND IN THAT CASE BOWLER MUST BE PENALISED MINIMUM 5 RUNS. My point is - If there's rule against batsman, there MUST be fair rule against bowlers as well. Batsmen are equally important as bowlers. So if they aim near batsmen's body, then THEY MUST SUFFER MINIMUM 5 RUN PENALTY. AND HIS HAND COMING IN THE WAY IS NOT AT ALL A CLEAR EVIDENCE, BECAUSE STARC HAS LITERALLY THROWN IT ALMOST TO THREATEN STOKES' BODY. HE COULD HAVE AIMED IT NEAR THE BASE OF STUMPS BUT HE DIDN'T. AND ALL OF THIS WAS SPLIT MILLISECOND INSTANCE. Actually Starc MUST be penalized for throwing such badly. No one is allowed to harm any player that way. If the bowler himself is bowling in stump line, batsman will NATURALLY PLAY IN THE LINE OF STUMPS. So bowler has NO RIGHT TO THROW ON PLAYER IN THAT CASE. Whatever the case, Stokes is DEFINITELY NOT GUILTY HERE. He had to turn back so viciously because BLOODY LOSER STARC AIMED IT ALMOST ON HIS BODY. So factually speaking. STARC IS GUILTY HERE, NOT STOKES.
@@rajkhedwal No it wouldn't your natural instinct would be to try put something between you and the object. Having actually played cricket I have had this happen in field when fielding close. Put my arms out to protect myself despite ball not being aimed at my body.
I still wonder how many instances can happen to single man in the game of cricket... Benstokes is an unique cricketer.... From world cup super over , Ashes, this match and many more....🥰
How is a batsman allowed to deliberately obstruct the fielders throw when running between the wickets. Batsmen often position themselves deliberately between the thrower and the stumps to obstruct the ball.
@@kooki11 They used to be allowed to do that, but the rules were changed a few years ago. If the batter changes his running line to obstruct the stumps he can be given out. However, I think this was purely accidental in this case, and I don't think it should have been given
This lejhund of England will go down as the best example of obstructing the field! People change the course of a wicket or max a match but this great man changed the World Champions title with such a brilliant technique!
Yes so true....that match result was such a sham robbed the deserving nz of WC. If ben stokes or england would have any shame they would have pleaded to share the cup with NZ
@@competento4024 Very good. I knew you'd be exactly that. Otherwise you wouldn't have accused Stokes who viciously turned back and didn't have his eyes focused when Starc threw the ball, which is the clear proof that it was unintentional. But SCUMS like you are widespread in this world. Hence the uproar.
Intentional or not, that action clearly obstructed the field so that's rules. Sometimes cricket rules are harsh but you have to swallow that hard pill because there's nothing you can do about that.
@@jyotibhawsar4913 the rule is when the batter willfully obstructs the field he/she should be given out. So, the point in case here is whether stokes deliberately tried to stop the ball or just instinctively put his hand up to protect his body from the ball. I think it's the latter!
It's funny how the Poms actually made the rules of cricket - going back to 1744, and codified by the MCC in 1788 - and then make a fuss when they are applied to themselves.
Because that was not deliberate. Video shows that ball has thrown after he bagan running, he ran in a straight line, without changing his trajectory, and didn't look back at the thrower. So, it was just a coincidence.
@@soukaryasamanta8073I agree it wasn’t intentional. But the rule is unfair and should be changed. If the ball when thrown ricochets off a player or his bat, no extra runs should be allowed.
@@soukaryasamanta8073 woh straight line me nahi tha 2nd run ke time woh keeper ko dekh raha tha aud side me gaya. usmein bohot smart move kiya proper woh video aerial view se dekho gey to pata chalega.
@@Govindaclass The rules for that world cup if enforced correctly would have given New Zealand the WC in that match because the second run wasn't completed when the fielder fielded the ball. Unfortunately the official on the day called it 6 runs instead of 5. Like this incident what the official said you have to grin and bear it.
This is rare case in history. Umpires are absolutely right, because batsman has no right to obstruct filder in match. Because a batsman try to get run and filder try to out. So Australian filder has done right thing for his team & country. Well done Mr. P. Cummins, I'm proud of you as sports instinct.
Correctly given out by the umpires when made to make a decision by virtue of an appeal, yes. Good sportsmanship by the opposition captain to not withdraw the appeal for something we both agree was not intentional but instinctive, absolutely not. But we now know Smith’s views on what is fair play and what isn’t anyway, don’t we? 😉🤷🏼♂️ I’d also add, that it’s a disgrace for Smith, as captain, to approach the umpires to try to influence their decision whilst they were mulling it over for any reason other than to withdraw the appeal, which clearly wasn’t his intent because he DIDN’T withdraw the appeal.
@@davidburke2132 I strongly DISAGREE. What would YOU do if a bowler threw bullet speed ball towards you ??? You'll be naturally scared and turn back viciously. And while turning back in that IMPULSIVE INSTANT, one CAN'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER BODY GESTURES. So going by Fairplay and honesty, they could have CUT 4-5 RUNS FOR THAT. But wicket is totally UNFAIR IN THIS CASE.
@@SingNostalgiaWithAmogh try reading my reply again and then decide whether we actually disagree or not 🤷🏼♂️ Per the rules of the game the umpires had no alternative other than to give this out. Let me quote from the laws of the game for you: “37.1.2 The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, he/she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat.” The law 37.2 mentioned basically gives excuses which would result in a “not out” decision in the following circumstances: - the obstruction was accidental. In this case there’s no way Stokes’ act could be considered “accidental”… he moved his hand towards the ball; - the obstruction was to avoid injury. Again, this doesn’t help Stokes as the ball was going to miss him completely until he stuck his arm out. His action was an automatic rather than a conscious action, but I wasn’t necessary to prevent injury in this case; or - in the case of subsequently hitting the ball again with the bat. Again, this doesn’t help Stokes as it’s purely for a scenario where a fielder has not yet intervened and touched the ball. So, as you can see, according to the laws of the game Stokes had to be given out if an appeal was made and was not withdrawn by the fielding captain. And this is where the intervention should have come to bring sanity and fairness to the decision. The person with discretion here was the fielding captain, Smith, not the umpires. He could have withdrawn his team’s appeal at any time. He would have known as well as you and I do that Stokes’ actions were an automatic reaction and not intended to prevent himself being run out. A captain behaving according to the spirit of the game would have withdrawn the appeal, the umpires would have had no decision to make, and Stokes would have continued on with his innings. But this was Steve Smith, so of course he didn’t do the right thing 🤷🏼♂️
@@davidburke2132 Yes, dear friend. I understood after reading your comment properly. Actually I didn't go through your entire comment. Perhaps that's the reason why I presumed that you were in favor of umpire's decision. EDIT : Thank you so much for the eye-opener reply. 👍😊
@@SingNostalgiaWithAmogh Stokes was at least a meter wide of the stumps. And the ball was heading towards the stumps. He could have turned left-wards to avoid the ball. But that means throwing his wicket away. (As the bat was in his right hand, and he was OUT OF HIS CREASE). So, stokes turned right-wards, in the path of the ball. The defensive action (by hand) might be instinctive, but the decision to turn right wasn't instinctive surely.. And the fact remains that, if stocks hasn't handled the ball, he would have been out anyways! Fair call I would say.
it happened in milliseconds, involuntary response of the human mind to protect itself from an incoming projectile. If you look into the replay, the soft signal of the on field umpires was also not out. Staggering lack of game awareness from the third umpire.
But his hand is nowhere near his body... Instinctively u keep ur hand cover face/body..in this case he kept his hand away from body, so it's more likely out.. It's right decision
@@twomegapixel353 he instinctively turned his head and defended himself from the ball. I am not saying its not out, I'm saying it's an instinctive reaction.
@@twomegapixel353 I agree with you, but with his turned and his hand going out it was more self preservation than a deliberate act of cheating especially as he was out anyway!
This guy who appealed said the other day that he's "no Deepti". In fact, this Stokes incident looked more like a violation of the spirit of the game, whereas Deepti Sharma was merely following the rules of the game
How is this violation of game? Ball was already delivered and Starc was trying runout throw. Deepti instead faked bowling action so that when Dean goes out Deepti can do runout
@@abhishek-dh3st Well I'm saying the same thing. Starc though it was a chance for runout while Stokes though it was coming at him. This situation ain't comparable to Mankad etc
What does the umpire have to do with this? Yours is a very silly comment...the issue was referred to the 3rd umpire who finally made the decision...it was an unfortunate occurrence, that is all.
It certainly looks like he stopped the ball from running him out. His face was out of the way, why was his hand up there? 100% out. Doesn’t matter what it looks like. His hand stopped him from getting run out, end of story. And the Lords crowd were only booing because the shoe was on the wrong foot.
@@ARSportsHub25 Seems like people are ILL here, both in terms of MIND AND INTELLECT. These idiots don't have the fcuking basic sense to acknowledge the fact that BLOODY LOSER STARC VICIOUS THROW ON STOKES' BODY ACTUALLY FORCED STOKES TO TURN VICIOUSLY AND FALL BACK TO CREASE. So Starc is TOTALLY GUILTY HERE AS HE HAS AIMED IT NEAR STOKES BODY, AND THAT TOO EVEN DESPITE BOWLING NEAR STUMP LINE. Starc HAS TO BE CLEARLY GUILTY HERE, NOT STOKES.
I see nothing wrong with the dismissal. The correct decision was made according to the rules of cricket. If Ben Stokes didn't want to be dismissed obstructing the field he should have stayed in his crease instead of starting to take off for a single. He also he the option to block the ball with this hands. If anyone replies with "oh but it's against the spirit of the game" then my response is simple, make what you deem to be "in the spirit" actual rules.
As someone in there 80s I think Len Hutton was given out obstructing the field against South Africa, the umpire was the famous Frank Chester. I’m sure someone will let me know if I am wrong
England always talks about “spirit of cricket”. Would have liked to the “spirit” in the WC Final when they happily took 4 free runs of Stokes’ bat. If they believe in the Spirit, they would have said we will not take 4 free runs. You either follow the rules or you don’t. So whether its this, or Ian Bell’s runout, or Mankading, England should not be complaining.
You can’t refuse runs like you can recall a batsman or withdraw your appeal, stop winging and move on. Embarrassing that you can’t get over it when it doesn’t even concern your team
It was not out because it's Human Reaction for his protection sudden coming hands un intentionally raised up Second thing whether the ball was going to hit the stump or not
If it wasn't just a "Human Reaction for his protection", then the second point is irrelevant. If he intended to prevent the ball hitting the wicket, it doesn't matter whether it would have done or not.
Ben stokes always seems to be in such "innocent unfortunate" situations!😅 While don't think that this was deliberate... He obviously did not want to get out And his brain sent mixed signals to duck and put his hand up...
Pretty bloody obvious he handled the ball away. Normally English sports commentators like to think their bias is so subtle that it is not detectable but in this instance have abandoned all pretence at subtlety.
At full speed it looks like he's just trying to protect himself. Every cricketer's hand goes towards the ball when they're trying to protect themselves. But in slow motion it looks like he sees the ball coming towards the stumps and decides to dive back while also blocking the ball with his hand. Bit unlucky there Stokes.
If it had hit his body or arm, or even his hand in a more natural position, then I might agree with the batsman. However, his had was trying to stop the ball, 100%. Definitely out.
This is obstructing the field 100%. He had no business sticking his hand out there to catch or block the ball as he did especially with a chance of runout
100 percent deliberate. If we draw parallels from other sports hand ball is not treated as harshly if it is close to the body protecting yourself as against away from the body where it is a straight penalty and a card for handball when hands r away from the body. Even if we ignore other sports exists, it is clearly out whether it was a reflex action or no because he was out of his crease and his hand came exactly in between the ball and the stumps.
I’m just little curious if batsman gets hurt from obstructing or maybe gets seriously injured so what will be the punishment of a bowler and fielding side?
If opponent team is India, They definitely consider this and give another chance to strokes. Better example: once MS Dhoni gave chance to Ian Bell in Test match.
Honestly this type of wicket is a bit unfair cause batsman here have two things in their mind one is saving themselves from the ball and second is ro save your wicket for which he has to turn back.
That is obviously out. Even if it was instinctive, it was to protect the wickets from being hit! Batsman cannot do that, only make sure he is in the crease, which in this case, Stokes was clearly not. If he was inside the crease and this happened, it could be more debatable in my opinion
Out of all the dirty tricks the Aussies try to pull out…I must say this was a fair appeal !!! Stokes was out of his crease and if the ball had hit the stumps on time 🕰️ he would’ve been out !
Hilarious. They literally had to bring in neutral umpires because of Indian cheating. Let's not forget match fixing, ball tampering, pitch doctoring, rioting in the crowd, walking off the field when they don't like umpiring decisions, shoulder charging batsmen and dissent. All hail India, worst cheats in cricketing history.
![AUS vs SA [Sandpaper Series] 2nd Test | Full Match Highlights](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2ModAFbMShw/mqdefault.jpg)
"I think batsmen getting out by obstructing the field is really unfair but if it happens it should be against England" ~ Ellyse Perry
Did she really say this or is it a meme
Source?
@@farhanyasmin she said it for mankad when deepti sharma did run out
@@anu1466 any video available
@@farhanyasmin she tweeted that ...dont do it,but if you are going to do it ,do it against england...about mankading not about obstructing the field
It seems like he's doing that intentionally but the whole thing happened so fast and I think he was protecting himself.
Totally agreed
Yes But Stark is also a very Harsh way of throwing ball to him
@@Rohit-qn1dm he threw the ball towards stumps because he was out of his crease. He did good to make him out not to hit him
cheater aus bkl
@@xtxo appealing for a valid method of dismissal, obstructing the field, is not cheating.
Never in doubt. Threw his arm out to block the ball from hitting the stumps. It wasn't self protection, it was a throw directly at the stumps and he wasn't in front of them.
A certified Ben Stokes moment 😂
Cheat
At the end of the day, if stokes’ hand hadn’t intervened it appears highly likely he would have been out
The throw was not on target and the keeper was not standing at the stumps.
@@giuseppepennisi8699the throw was on target, if it wasn’t hitting it was very close, also Stokes was well short of his crease even dived at full stretch, the ball was nowhere near his body so it’s hard to claim he was doing it for protection - he in fact had to stretch his arm out to block the ball. The rule sucks and it’s disappointing to see this method of dismissal but it’s out according to the laws set out by the MCC - blame England!
@@giuseppepennisi8699 Not on target?? LOL.
It was heading halfway up the middle stump!!
@@jonasp6043 the ball was thrown well left and above stumps. The batsman got a fright and was blocking The throw from hitting himself. Definitely not trying to block the stumps. The throw was no where near the stumps.
@@giuseppepennisi8699 Get your eyes fixed.
"well left of the stumps''? The ball was coming on from leg stump heading DOWN for the middle!!!
"well left"??? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What part of ''you cannot block the ball with your hand in attempt of a run out'' is it you don't understand???
Go do an umpire's course, pass it & come back please.
International umpires on the elite board can see it & a keyboard warrior like you can't?
LOL, um, OK.
The most brutal thing here to witness is smith explaining morgan about the rules
When it comes to stokes, this was the plan whole time😂
Smith was suspended from the team for one year for spoiling cricket ball for cheap tactics! Such a person do not have any say in the game ! 😈
Absolutely, just like he did in 2019 world cup final, when he he placed his bat before the ball could hit the wickets.
Yeah and he is a cheat himself. How embarrassing.
@@madhusoodananunniyattil9421 Coming from an indian Is keep quiet about ball tampering and match fixing.
@@darrenslawther9075 you're now trying to generalize it for all Indians! Can I do that to Australians too?
It's in the laws of cricket, you can't change direction to block the ball from hitting the stumps let alone literally palm the ball. Out every day of the week
rubbish he was trying to get back in his crease, it wasn't deliberate, the ball hit his hand.
@MelvynThurlby Look closely my friend -- he tried to make it look like the ball hit his hand. He DEFINITELY used his left hand ON PURPOSE to deflect the ball away from the stumps!! That's Obstruction!
@MelvynThurlby Deliberate or not had nothing to with it. If the batsman makes a movement to block the ball which is travelling in the direction of the stumps while they are short of their ground they are out 100 times out of 100. It’s like a guy getting clean bowled and you saying well he didn’t deliberately get bowled so he’s not out lol
@MelvynThurlbythis reminds me of the bloke head-butting Pluggers elbow
England: "We will make the rules fair and gentlemen like."
England Players: "Ok then, We will make sure to get out in weird ways to demonstrate those rules."😂😂😂
And then we will also complain about it 😉
This should get 10000000000000 (I could keep on going) likes!
They won the f**ing world cup with such rules.
The only time they didn't complain about it.
@@manojkumar-by3xm all players were well aware of that rule why they didn’t protested Against it? Cry is free
As with out handled ball, the deliberate part isn't what we commonly assume deliberate mean. Any movement, reflex or otherwise, that obstructs the ball is out. This is a legitimate appeal and rightly given out.
Interesting point - to outsiders some of the "deliberate hand ball" calls in soccer can seem very harsh... actions are penalised that appear completely reflexive but players are expected to avoid that reflex.
@@BenDRobinson in football they talk about the hand being in an unnatural place. It is difficult to understand as someone new to a sport but these intricacies becomes obvious in time.
he managed to be out for both ways of obstructing the field, by getting in the way of the ball hitting the stumps while he was out of the crease, and doing it with a hand not holding the bat, which is what they used to call handling the ball!
@@bigpoppa1234some good detail there, you are correct, he can actually be given out for two different dismissals (obstruction and handled ball). Watched the video again now, lord knows why Morgan is upset 😅
Like the Handball rule of football
He is clearly watching the ball.
As he is a terrific fielder because of which he placed his hand exactly in the projection of the ball.
yes others have been given out who fully had their back to the ball. this was an easy call
Out
While I also believe he was watching the ball & that the arm reaction was reflex, the simple fact is that he stopped the ball hitting the stumps while he was out of the crease.
Out, every day of the week, intentional or not,
He is the perfect “spirit of game” player if this is called spirit of game
That was a reflex.
@Raj kumar Khedwal
I strongly DISAGREE.
READ THIS FULLY EVEN IF IT'S LONG.
And if you still disagree, then you're TRULY THE BIGGEST LOSER EVER.
To all those who believe that Stokes came in way of the stumps, let me clear that actually you're busy explaining trajectory thing and Stokes coming in the way of the throw. But you're TOTALLY UNWILLING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IDIOT STARC HAS THROWN IT SO VIGOROUSLY THAT STOKES HAD TO TURN BACK QUICKLY ENOUGH TO FALL BACK TO CREASE.
There are PLENTY OF MAJORITY IDIOTS IN THE UNIVERSE LIKE YOU. But majority vote NEVER DECIDES JUSTICE AND TRUTH.
Truth is that first 3 seconds CLEARLY TELL that Starc threw it very vigorously. And Starc himself bowled it near stump line. So naturally batsman will play near line of the stumps.
Slow motion is the MOST DECEPTIVE EVIDENCE HERE. Starc's BERSERK THROW ACTUALLY FORCED STOKES TO TURN BACK QUICKLY ENOUGH TO FALL BACK TO CREASE. AND WHILE DOING SO, HE TURNED SO VICIOUSLY THAT HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER HIS GESTURES. IT WAS PURE COINCIDENCE THAT HIS HAND WAS IN LINE. Actually Starc would have BRUTALLY INJURED STOKES AT THAT MOMENT. Is this a FAIR THROW BY ANY MEANS ???
If Starc wanted to aim the stumps, then he should have gone to his left and thrown it. Or even thrown near the base of the stumps. But instead, he's aimed the bails, so much NEAR STOKES BODY.
Bowler DOESN'T HAVE FULL FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. If they wish to run out, then they must move away from batsman's line of body and then throw it. OTHERWISE IT IS PURE THREATENING TO HARM THE BATSMAN AND IN THAT CASE BOWLER MUST BE PENALISED MINIMUM 5 RUNS.
My point is - If there's rule against batsman, there MUST be fair rule against bowlers as well. Batsmen are equally important as bowlers. So if they aim near batsmen's body, then THEY MUST SUFFER MINIMUM 5 RUN PENALTY.
AND HIS HAND COMING IN THE WAY IS NOT AT ALL A CLEAR EVIDENCE, BECAUSE STARC HAS LITERALLY THROWN IT ALMOST TO THREATEN STOKES' BODY. HE COULD HAVE AIMED IT NEAR THE BASE OF STUMPS BUT HE DIDN'T.
AND ALL OF THIS WAS SPLIT MILLISECOND INSTANCE.
Actually Starc MUST be penalized for throwing such badly. No one is allowed to harm any player that way. If the bowler himself is bowling in stump line, batsman will NATURALLY PLAY IN THE LINE OF STUMPS. So bowler has NO RIGHT TO THROW ON PLAYER IN THAT CASE.
Whatever the case, Stokes is DEFINITELY NOT GUILTY HERE. He had to turn back so viciously because BLOODY LOSER STARC AIMED IT ALMOST ON HIS BODY.
So factually speaking. STARC IS GUILTY HERE, NOT STOKES.
@@rajkhedwal nah, you're just dumb asf
@@rajkhedwal No it wouldn't your natural instinct would be to try put something between you and the object.
Having actually played cricket I have had this happen in field when fielding close. Put my arms out to protect myself despite ball not being aimed at my body.
@@thinkingspaghetti1826 this is a game of reflexes 😂 a bad reflex is all you need to get out in this game. That's a nonsense logic
I still wonder how many instances can happen to single man in the game of cricket... Benstokes is an unique cricketer.... From world cup super over , Ashes, this match and many more....🥰
Well many instances mean only two possibilities: Either great coincidence or deliberate actions
He is a cheater
@@jyotikamalsingh9349 undeserving of the Wc
he knocked a guy out in a nightclub ...
Rigged wc 19 winner
Experiences like this make you stronger and let’s just say this happened at the right time to Stokes. What a player he is now…
Like raising hands after ball hit bat in last ball of wc
Absolutely right…
@@msatul1305 don't you saw the T20 wc
@@gouravnegi1165 yes
@@msatul1305 really
any batter intentionally or unintentionally obstructing the fielding team is given out. Good showcase of umpiring over here.
How is a batsman allowed to deliberately obstruct the fielders throw when running between the wickets. Batsmen often position themselves deliberately between the thrower and the stumps to obstruct the ball.
@@kooki11 They used to be allowed to do that, but the rules were changed a few years ago. If the batter changes his running line to obstruct the stumps he can be given out. However, I think this was purely accidental in this case, and I don't think it should have been given
He knows the rules , clear out obstructing the ball , he knew what he was doing .
This lejhund of England will go down as the best example of obstructing the field! People change the course of a wicket or max a match but this great man changed the World Champions title with such a brilliant technique!
No he won't. Nothing compared to what he has achieved.
Yes so true....that match result was such a sham robbed the deserving nz of WC. If ben stokes or england would have any shame they would have pleaded to share the cup with NZ
competento is the biggest leJHUND👍
@@SingNostalgiaWithAmogh zindagi mai chaatna hi seekha hai, kyun?
@@competento4024
Very good. I knew you'd be exactly that. Otherwise you wouldn't have accused Stokes who viciously turned back and didn't have his eyes focused when Starc threw the ball, which is the clear proof that it was unintentional.
But SCUMS like you are widespread in this world. Hence the uproar.
In the words of the great Inzi: I don't understand the rule. I hit the ball and I out, I leave the ball and I out.
I do feel bad for him. He is a nice man. Yes, even his reaction was an instinct.
Lol 🤣🤣🤣
@@darryndsouza7896I hope you're talking about Stokes, because Inzi is a chutiya.
I get my bat down in the crease I is not out !
Seemed more reflex than deliberate but you can get out for those mistakes as well so undeliberate out I reckon 🤷♂️
Intentional or not, that action clearly obstructed the field so that's rules. Sometimes cricket rules are harsh but you have to swallow that hard pill because there's nothing you can do about that.
Exactly
In football many times it's given handball even if it's impossible in many situations for a player to get his or her hands out of the way
@@jyotibhawsar4913 not harsh rules but aus cheating as usual
@@jyotibhawsar4913 the rule is when the batter willfully obstructs the field he/she should be given out. So, the point in case here is whether stokes deliberately tried to stop the ball or just instinctively put his hand up to protect his body from the ball. I think it's the latter!
It's funny how the Poms actually made the rules of cricket - going back to 1744, and codified by the MCC in 1788 - and then make a fuss when they are applied to themselves.
what's also funny is how the Aussies constantly break those rules and cheat on a regular basis, worse team ever for cheating.
I'm English and I don't think it's in any way controversial, he simply had to walk, end of !!!!
Hear, hear!
you must surely blind or mentally retarded?
But what about the sand paper?
@@ybet1000Looks like they are still paying the price?
@@ybet1000what about the mints
If this is not fair, how can 2019 ODI World Cup Final Match Four Runs by the hands of Ben Stokes be fair ?
Because that was not deliberate. Video shows that ball has thrown after he bagan running, he ran in a straight line, without changing his trajectory, and didn't look back at the thrower. So, it was just a coincidence.
@@soukaryasamanta8073I agree it wasn’t intentional. But the rule is unfair and should be changed. If the ball when thrown ricochets off a player or his bat, no extra runs should be allowed.
Kiwis were robbed in broad day light, plain and simple...England never won a world cup, never will !
@@soukaryasamanta8073 woh straight line me nahi tha 2nd run ke time woh keeper ko dekh raha tha aud side me gaya. usmein bohot smart move kiya proper woh video aerial view se dekho gey to pata chalega.
@@Govindaclass The rules for that world cup if enforced correctly would have given New Zealand the WC in that match because the second run wasn't completed when the fielder fielded the ball. Unfortunately the official on the day called it 6 runs instead of 5. Like this incident what the official said you have to grin and bear it.
With these sorts of act, Ben Stokes always finds himself in the middle of it.
I think Stokes applied this after 4 years in 2019 World Cup 🤣🤣
You can literally see him look at the ball and put his hand up 😂. He eyes it the whole way down the pitch
This is rare case in history. Umpires are absolutely right, because batsman has no right to obstruct filder in match. Because a batsman try to get run and filder try to out. So Australian filder has done right thing for his team & country.
Well done Mr. P. Cummins, I'm proud of you as sports instinct.
That was instinctive from Stokes but still correctly given out since his body part came into ball's trajectory after throw by fielder.
Correctly given out by the umpires when made to make a decision by virtue of an appeal, yes. Good sportsmanship by the opposition captain to not withdraw the appeal for something we both agree was not intentional but instinctive, absolutely not. But we now know Smith’s views on what is fair play and what isn’t anyway, don’t we? 😉🤷🏼♂️
I’d also add, that it’s a disgrace for Smith, as captain, to approach the umpires to try to influence their decision whilst they were mulling it over for any reason other than to withdraw the appeal, which clearly wasn’t his intent because he DIDN’T withdraw the appeal.
@@davidburke2132
I strongly DISAGREE.
What would YOU do if a bowler threw bullet speed ball towards you ???
You'll be naturally scared and turn back viciously. And while turning back in that IMPULSIVE INSTANT, one CAN'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER BODY GESTURES.
So going by Fairplay and honesty, they could have CUT 4-5 RUNS FOR THAT.
But wicket is totally UNFAIR IN THIS CASE.
@@SingNostalgiaWithAmogh try reading my reply again and then decide whether we actually disagree or not 🤷🏼♂️
Per the rules of the game the umpires had no alternative other than to give this out. Let me quote from the laws of the game for you:
“37.1.2 The striker is out Obstructing the field if, except in the circumstances of 37.2, in the act of receiving a ball delivered by the bowler, he/she wilfully strikes the ball with a hand not holding the bat.”
The law 37.2 mentioned basically gives excuses which would result in a “not out” decision in the following circumstances:
- the obstruction was accidental. In this case there’s no way Stokes’ act could be considered “accidental”… he moved his hand towards the ball;
- the obstruction was to avoid injury. Again, this doesn’t help Stokes as the ball was going to miss him completely until he stuck his arm out. His action was an automatic rather than a conscious action, but I wasn’t necessary to prevent injury in this case; or
- in the case of subsequently hitting the ball again with the bat. Again, this doesn’t help Stokes as it’s purely for a scenario where a fielder has not yet intervened and touched the ball.
So, as you can see, according to the laws of the game Stokes had to be given out if an appeal was made and was not withdrawn by the fielding captain.
And this is where the intervention should have come to bring sanity and fairness to the decision. The person with discretion here was the fielding captain, Smith, not the umpires. He could have withdrawn his team’s appeal at any time. He would have known as well as you and I do that Stokes’ actions were an automatic reaction and not intended to prevent himself being run out. A captain behaving according to the spirit of the game would have withdrawn the appeal, the umpires would have had no decision to make, and Stokes would have continued on with his innings. But this was Steve Smith, so of course he didn’t do the right thing 🤷🏼♂️
@@davidburke2132
Yes, dear friend. I understood after reading your comment properly.
Actually I didn't go through your entire comment. Perhaps that's the reason why I presumed that you were in favor of umpire's decision.
EDIT :
Thank you so much for the eye-opener reply. 👍😊
@@SingNostalgiaWithAmogh Stokes was at least a meter wide of the stumps. And the ball was heading towards the stumps.
He could have turned left-wards to avoid the ball. But that means throwing his wicket away. (As the bat was in his right hand, and he was OUT OF HIS CREASE).
So, stokes turned right-wards, in the path of the ball. The defensive action (by hand) might be instinctive, but the decision to turn right wasn't instinctive surely..
And the fact remains that, if stocks hasn't handled the ball, he would have been out anyways!
Fair call I would say.
I think you instinctively put your hand up to defend yourself. In slow-mo it seems completely different.
it happened in milliseconds, involuntary response of the human mind to protect itself from an incoming projectile. If you look into the replay, the soft signal of the on field umpires was also not out. Staggering lack of game awareness from the third umpire.
But his hand is nowhere near his body... Instinctively u keep ur hand cover face/body..in this case he kept his hand away from body, so it's more likely out.. It's right decision
@@twomegapixel353 he instinctively turned his head and defended himself from the ball. I am not saying its not out, I'm saying it's an instinctive reaction.
@@davewilson9738 problem is his hand is nowhere near his head.. That's why he was given out
@@twomegapixel353 I agree with you, but with his turned and his hand going out it was more self preservation than a deliberate act of cheating especially as he was out anyway!
This guy who appealed said the other day that he's "no Deepti". In fact, this Stokes incident looked more like a violation of the spirit of the game, whereas Deepti Sharma was merely following the rules of the game
How is this violation of game? Ball was already delivered and Starc was trying runout throw.
Deepti instead faked bowling action so that when Dean goes out Deepti can do runout
@@redeyexxx1841 sir if you studied science, you should know that it was involuntary action which stokes couldn't control
@@abhishek-dh3st Well I'm saying the same thing. Starc though it was a chance for runout while Stokes though it was coming at him.
This situation ain't comparable to Mankad etc
@@redeyexxx1841 well it's run out and not mankad so go and learn the rules before you watch the game
@@Luffy_xo Well that being runout rule started from October. When Charlie Dean was out it was before October.
That was definitely deliberate. Ball was never going to hit him
At that speed there is no thinking about what you are doing it’s self preservation but it did look bad in the slow motion replay
@@christopherduke8283 Doesn't matter what happened in his mind, offense was committed.
Obviously out. Straightforward decision.
When there is a controversy, always Kumar dharmasena is the umpire
What does the umpire have to do with this? Yours is a very silly comment...the issue was referred to the 3rd umpire who finally made the decision...it was an unfortunate occurrence, that is all.
@@georgesingh5714 I too know that grandpa.. You should understand the difference between a complaint and a joke.
And always stokes is the batsman😂😂😂
Since his name is 'dharmsena' so he has to protect the 'dharm'
Steve Fucknor "Hold my beer Tendulkar"
Sometimes our reflexes react to a situation in weird ways.
Reflexes or not, he was obstructing the field.
OUT!
Mitchell Starc's reaction is priceless 😄☺️
He was preparing for the world cup.
It certainly looks like he stopped the ball from running him out. His face was out of the way, why was his hand up there? 100% out.
Doesn’t matter what it looks like. His hand stopped him from getting run out, end of story. And the Lords crowd were only booing because the shoe was on the wrong foot.
Obviously he tried his best 😀
He was just trying to save himself
@@ARSportsHub25 but he couldn’t
LEGENDFOR A REASON🤣🤣
@@ARSportsHub25
Seems like people are ILL here, both in terms of MIND AND INTELLECT.
These idiots don't have the fcuking basic sense to acknowledge the fact that BLOODY LOSER STARC VICIOUS THROW ON STOKES' BODY ACTUALLY FORCED STOKES TO TURN VICIOUSLY AND FALL BACK TO CREASE.
So Starc is TOTALLY GUILTY HERE AS HE HAS AIMED IT NEAR STOKES BODY, AND THAT TOO EVEN DESPITE BOWLING NEAR STUMP LINE.
Starc HAS TO BE CLEARLY GUILTY HERE, NOT STOKES.
@@SingNostalgiaWithAmogh yup you're right but some of these Aussie fans won't accept it
That wasn't intentional - that was instinctive.
If your instinct is to obstruct the field, you are in trouble every time you go out to bat.
@@kirikcritic3769 so you mean that defending urself when someone is throwing a ball at you isn't instinctive in the right way? Unfortunate....
@@deyonyt yea bro, he should try to catch the ball whenever he’s out to bat 🥶🥶
Do you remember Steve Waughs handling the ball, that was instinctive too
That was intensionally instinctive obstruction as he knew he wouldn't make to the crease. He could have easily got back if he tried to.
It's always been stokes experiencing unusual things
BEN STOKES and WEIRD THINGS IN CRICKET has good friendship.
England advocates both "Not in the Spirit of the Game" and "To the Letter of the Law", delineated at any time only by who would benefit.
I see nothing wrong with the dismissal. The correct decision was made according to the rules of cricket. If Ben Stokes didn't want to be dismissed obstructing the field he should have stayed in his crease instead of starting to take off for a single. He also he the option to block the ball with this hands. If anyone replies with "oh but it's against the spirit of the game" then my response is simple, make what you deem to be "in the spirit" actual rules.
Lmao sure, if it was an Indian then you wouldn't say that.
@@vfamily4396 I would say the same if any team was involved.
@@GameOvais Nope, you wouldn't. You don't have the guts to go against Indians lmfao.
@@vfamily4396 Yep sure.
This also happened in world cup 2019 where where on strike was tamim Iqbal and bowler was Cottrell he did the same thing and get unexpected wicket
He already got the world cup by doing this with NZ
Way before CWC19 DimWit
As someone in there 80s I think Len Hutton was given out obstructing the field against South Africa, the umpire was the famous Frank Chester. I’m sure someone will let me know if I am wrong
Though Chester was an umpire in the match it was Dai Davies that gave it out.
@@chriswatson7965 thanks for that correction , I was actually at the match and remember it well
Stokes is very innocent in world cup overthrow also against Newzealand 😂😂😂
He was not protecting his body but deliberately protecting stumps so OUT, no doubt..
England always talks about “spirit of cricket”. Would have liked to the “spirit” in the WC Final when they happily took 4 free runs of Stokes’ bat. If they believe in the Spirit, they would have said we will not take 4 free runs. You either follow the rules or you don’t. So whether its this, or Ian Bell’s runout, or Mankading, England should not be complaining.
You can’t refuse runs like you can recall a batsman or withdraw your appeal, stop winging and move on. Embarrassing that you can’t get over it when it doesn’t even concern your team
It was not out because it's Human Reaction for his protection sudden coming hands un intentionally raised up
Second thing whether the ball was going to hit the stump or not
If it wasn't just a "Human Reaction for his protection", then the second point is irrelevant. If he intended to prevent the ball hitting the wicket, it doesn't matter whether it would have done or not.
I dont choose the Trouble , Trouble chooses me- Sir Ben Stokes.😂😅
yep you cant put your hand out to stop the ball from hitting stumps illegal Its not the first time this has happened
Thats what happens when you have two teams who play with full of cricket spirit!
Coming from the guy who belongs to Ashwin's country
@@aaqibqadir2578 yes bro you guys made the rule we implemented them
@@aaqibqadir2578 Says the guy who belongs to Afridi and Inzi's country 🤣🤣Kuch khaana mila ya abhi bhi cricket ball chabate ho tum log?
Besides kiwis there aren't teams with full of cricket spirit. 😅
Ben stokes always seems to be in such "innocent unfortunate" situations!😅
While don't think that this was deliberate...
He obviously did not want to get out
And his brain sent mixed signals to duck and put his hand up...
I was thinking the same 😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂.0:35 when umpires said to Smith .."" Abey baat karne de ,kaam kare na ja kr tu apna ,faltu hi mach mach kr raha hai""...😂😂😂.
Serious Chutiyapa by Smith
LOL! Just watch the slow motion replay. It's all right there.
Starc:- appealing for out.
Commentator:- apology from starc
💀💀💀 rip commentator
The commentators living up to their reputation
A 'spirit of cricket' moment from the now England captain.😂
Seems like he has a habit of doing this 😅
He was protecting himself
@@ARSportsHub25 how do you protect yourself by stretching your arm???
@@rishitkhanna336 he wasn't even looking so how can you say he was protecting the stumps?
@@ARSportsHub25 he looked at the ball before turning back
@@rishitkhanna336 so how the ball looking like?It was like it was going to hit him
Pretty bloody obvious he handled the ball away. Normally English sports commentators like to think their bias is so subtle that it is not detectable but in this instance have abandoned all pretence at subtlety.
At full speed it looks like he's just trying to protect himself. Every cricketer's hand goes towards the ball when they're trying to protect themselves. But in slow motion it looks like he sees the ball coming towards the stumps and decides to dive back while also blocking the ball with his hand. Bit unlucky there Stokes.
100 PERCENT OUT.
Nah.
If it had hit his body or arm, or even his hand in a more natural position, then I might agree with the batsman. However, his had was trying to stop the ball, 100%. Definitely out.
he turned 180 degrees and used his left hand to stop the ball. it wasn't going to hit him at all....just the wicket...
My gut feeling is for Steve Smith to say leave it 😂
What planet are you on? He is not Dhoni.
It was reflexes more so than anything but the fact that he tried to catch it was obstruction.
When Steve Smith was aggressive 🔥
He inside his mind " let them deny this wicket, i got a blade in my pocket, i will show how evil ball can look... "
He did the same thing in 2019 final cruisal moment
Who's the commentator who thought Starc was apologizing? Is he new to the cricket World, or just world in general?😂
This is obstructing the field 100%. He had no business sticking his hand out there to catch or block the ball as he did especially with a chance of runout
Exactly
100 percent deliberate. If we draw parallels from other sports hand ball is not treated as harshly if it is close to the body protecting yourself as against away from the body where it is a straight penalty and a card for handball when hands r away from the body. Even if we ignore other sports exists, it is clearly out whether it was a reflex action or no because he was out of his crease and his hand came exactly in between the ball and the stumps.
Out every day of the week and twice on Sundays
It's all about rule ...no matters from which team you are ,if you break it you have to bear the brunt😁
When we watch it for several times ..he's out...
To quote a cricketing Legend "It's a funny old game cricket."
I’m just little curious if batsman gets hurt from obstructing or maybe gets seriously injured so what will be the punishment of a bowler and fielding side?
Steve Smith be like emotional damage 0:35 💔
As a die hard fan of Smith, Feeling sad for him 😭😂😂
@@PrashantShuklasame 😢😢but funny 😂
@@aurora0534 😂 sad this is his last world cup 😭😭
The way he sends Steve smith away 😂
100% out why filling bad
If opponent team is India, They definitely consider this and give another chance to strokes.
Better example: once MS Dhoni gave chance to Ian Bell in Test match.
Thats a normal reaction if someone is throwing a ball towards a player.
Fantastic results
Sportsman spirit gone to the dust bin
lmao when aussies do this its 'it all happened so fast'
Or in Smith's words "It was a brain fade moment" (while asking his team in the Pavilion whether to take DRS)
It seems you should also upload 2019 wc final highlights with tittle controversial world cup winners 😂
Honestly this type of wicket is a bit unfair cause batsman here have two things in their mind one is saving themselves from the ball and second is ro save your wicket for which he has to turn back.
Dude it's just a reflex action which he did in order to protect himself
😆
Australian players can do anything .....
Still better than pakistan or indian players
@@zackryder1510 . . . . 😂 we don't cry for ball tempering !!
Australian players had nothing to with the decision it was the umpires call. And every nation has cheated at one time move on..
Then what makes you better than any other team.....Stop comparing !!
We can’t bite a cricket ball. Or make a pitch made out of granite to hopefully force a draw in a game we can’t win.
PCB has problems
That was so obvious you couldn't get a simpler decision. Deliberate every time.
There is nothing controversial about this. He literally catches the ball! If this isn't an obstruction, then nothing is.
BTW, That Aussie Jersey.
Nothing controversial about it. He stopped the ball hitting the stumps. He’s out
Out all day long
OK a bit harsh on Stokes but still Morgan has no business to argue
That was out. He is well used to reacting to balls heading towards him, far faster than that. His arm and hand movement was deliberate.
Out.
I think he didn't obstruct, he protected himself from the ball.
Just Stokes finding another stupid way to get out...
Steve Smith be like give him out or I will retire from this format🤣😂. Ben Stokes is though out in this video but a legend for England.
That is obviously out. Even if it was instinctive, it was to protect the wickets from being hit! Batsman cannot do that, only make sure he is in the crease, which in this case, Stokes was clearly not. If he was inside the crease and this happened, it could be more debatable in my opinion
Anyone after Jadeja's Obstructing field
He learnt from this to instead deflect it off his bat for four and win a world cup.
Out of all the dirty tricks the Aussies try to pull out…I must say this was a fair appeal !!! Stokes was out of his crease and if the ball had hit the stumps on time 🕰️ he would’ve been out !
Hilarious. They literally had to bring in neutral umpires because of Indian cheating. Let's not forget match fixing, ball tampering, pitch doctoring, rioting in the crowd, walking off the field when they don't like umpiring decisions, shoulder charging batsmen and dissent. All hail India, worst cheats in cricketing history.