England v Australia, 2nd ODI, Lord's - Were the Australians wrong?

So,  what happened at Lord’s yesterday?

While chasing Australia’s competitive total, England were well poised at 141 for 3 in the 26th over. In the fourth ball of over 26. Mitchell Starc banged in a fuller delivery at pace on the stumps to Stokes. Stokes hit the ball straight back to Strac who flung the ball back to the stumps at the batting end and Stokes, who was out of the crease, stopped the ball from hitting the stumps with his left glove. Or, it might be described in this way, Stokes tried to protect himself from Starc’s throw with his left glove, lost his balance and fell on the ground.

Mathew Wade went up. Starc appealed and after a bit of discussion, Ben Stokes was given out obstructing the field. The whole scenario has triggered a massive debate around the cricketing world and of course, there were boos around Lord’s yesterday regarding the matter.

Let us see what the Law says. According to Law 37, “Either batsman is out obstructing the field if he willfully 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 willfully 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).”

Well, what the law states that, if the batsman intentionally tries to distract the fielding side in any manner, he will be regarded as “Obstructing the field.”

Perhaps the word “intentionally” has torched the fire of anger among the fans. The more you see the whole scenario in real time, you always think that, Stokes was trying to save himself and his action was not intentional. But in professional sports, you don’t wish to be that soft towards your opponent and utilize each and every opportunity  that shows up.

In my opinion, Australia had the right to appeal against Stokes and then it was up to the umpires to decide the matter. It was clear that Stokes hand was away from his body when he stopped the ball thrown at him with the same hand and according to the law, such an act performed by the batsman will be given out regardless of any other fact, or following event.

The umpires were well within the laws to declare Stokes out yesterday and if that is the matter, then what is the reason for pointing finger towards Smith and his men?

Just imagine yourself as a bowler in place of Starc. What would you have done if you notice the batsman out of his crease? Just think calmly. Wouldn’t your reflexes force you to throw the ball at the stumps to run the batsman out? Now, if the batsman stops the ball with his arm intentionally or unintentionally, wouldn’t you appeal? Yes, you would have appealed and in my opinion, you should appeal. Why shouldn’t you appeal when there is a term in cricket called “Obstructing the field.”

Think again!

Thank You

Faisal Caesar