After 31 ODI’s, New Zealander Ben Stokes says he has finally discovered the Laws of Cricket.
“I’ve never really read them to be honest.
I just thought you grabbed a bat and swung at the ball.
If you hit it, you could run to the other end and the scoreboard would display a new fraction.
Something like 100/4 would become 101/4.
I found that difficult, as 100/4 equals 25. But what is 101/4?
Cricket really needs to find a simpler system.”
Stokes was give out Obstructing The Field after getting in the way of a Mitchell Starc throw at the stumps.
For his part, Stokes doesn’t know what all the fuss was about.
“I remembered that if you have the gloves and pads on, that your job is to catch the ball when the bowler let’s it go.
I’m dirty on myself for dropping it.
The Aussies started calling me nasty names like “Brad Haddin” and “Kamran Akmal” and stuff like that.”
English captain Eoin Morgan from County Dublin said that he had to sit with Stokes and explain to him how to use the law properly.
“I had to tell Ben that it is Not Out if he was trying to avoid injury.
He said he forgot to tell the umpires he was attempting to protect the back of his hand from being struck by stopping the ball with the front of his hand.”
Morgan went on further to add that Stokes’ ignorance clearly cost him his wicket.
“We still had a DRS review left.
I don’t know why Ben didn’t use it.
Starc’s throw was clearly going over the stumps. Worst case, it would have been umpire’s call.”
Australian captain Steve Smith said that his team knew the law reasonably well.
“Apparently, you can’t distract the fielding team by action, or even by word.
That’s why we have had to stop sledging the bowler when we bat.
Hasn’t Moeen ever wondered why we don’t engage in serious debate about Gaza on the pitch anymore?”
DennisCricket_ dont know why England are complaining…. Do they remember Harmison to Inzamam????
DennisCricket_ plalor do they have hawk eye to see if the ball was hitting the stumps? Out anyway!
DennisCricket_ plalor can’t not give that out and start a trend. Brain snap…..you’re out, off you go.
FlynnPaschal plalor Then Warner would never be able to be given out
http://youtu.be/DJCh7ir0yrQ
It was legal at the time. Also, bowling originally started as an under arm pursuit.
Think we just done this on Twitter lol
DennisCricket_ This makes far more sense than any of the dribble coming out of England this past day.
DennisCricket_ Why didnt Smith withdraw the decision? Because Stokes pretty much cheated
BoknRoll DennisCricket_ It’s only cheating as much as lbw is cheating, and it is as out as lbw is out.
NickSharland BoknRoll LBW is cheating if you are lucky enough to be bowling to Shane Watson
DennisCricket_ Can’t we have the HAWK-EYE VIEW for the throw? Do they ever check if the situation arises?,not in this case though
DennisCricket_ Look at recent cases of getting out unusual way.Ian Bell,Buttler,Stokes.seems England is habituated to take undue advantages
Dennis did you write this? Someone has copied and pasted the whole thing into a comment on the CA Facebook page.
Yeah I did. Where’s the FB thing?
I’ll find you a link. It’s in the comments on a post on the CA page.
I can’t link it but it’s a comment on the article titled “it’s a big call for Eoin to say that” on cricket.com.au Facebook page. I’ve just noticed he does credit you, but I think he’s added that later.
The legality of the delivery does not justify the poor sportsmanship
Shame this dickhead
I see you found it. As I say, he put your name on the end but I am sure it was not there originally. Cheeky sod.
Blatantly out, no hawkeye needed. ICC ODI Playing Conditions clarifies the MCC law 37.
it shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not.
LAW 37 – OBSTRUCTING THE FIELD
Law 37 shall apply. For the avoidance of doubt, if an umpire feels that a batsman, in running between the wickets, has significantly changed his direction without
probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder’s attempt to effect a run out, the batsman should, on appeal, be given out, obstructing the field. It shall not be relevant
whether a run out would have occurred or not.
If the change of direction involves the batsman crossing the pitch, Law 42.14 shall also apply.
We can’t pick and choose which laws we want to play the game by. We have the MCC Laws of the game , overlaid by the ICC Playign conditions.
AsisPdl07 DennisCricket_ Blatantly out, no hawkeye needed. ICC ODI Playing Conditions clarifies the MCC law 37.
it shall not be relevant whether a run out would have occurred or not.
Everyone knows that Mitch Starc did it deliberately to injure Stokes