Cricket: Stokes dismissal a disgrace

Ben Stokes' controversial dismissal in the second ODI against Australia was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen in a game of cricket.

So what happened? After playing a Mitchell Starc delivery straight back to the bowler, Starc threw the ball straight back at the stumps but instead catching a diving Stokes on the hand. Australian wicket keeper Matthew Wade appealed and the umpires refer the decision upstairs. Third umpire rules that Stokes has obstructed the field and gives him out.

Problem 1: The third umpire only used slow motion replays.

The slow motion replays do make it seem like Stokes deliberately handled the ball to stop himself from being run out. He has already been stupidly run out this summer so he perhaps wanted to avoid the same fate.

In real time, its clear that Stokes is taking evasive action from taking some serious damage from a 6ft8 fast bowler throwing the ball at him (not on purpose).

Why then did the third umpire not get both perspectives plus also use a little bit of common sense? There is no way Stokes was thinking of stopping the ball at that moment. He was only thinking of protecting himself whilst also trying to get back into his crease.

Problem 2: Would the ball hit the stumps?

Starc's attempted run out  was speculative and it seemed clear that the ball was going to miss the stumps anyway. So if Stokes was trying to obstruct the field, surely he should only be given out if the ball is going to hit the stumps?

Problem 3: He is not looking at the ball when it reaches him

Stokes is not looking at the ball as it hits him. How could he know the ball was going to hit his hand?

         ********************************************************************


It's clear that the decision made was the wrong one. I am not saying that this decision would have effected the overall result of the match, Australia bowled and batted better than England and they deservedly won the match. This decision, however, has set a dangerous precedent and I hope that we now don't see bowlers chucking the ball at batsman in order to grab a quick wicket. It also raises the issue over the usage of technology in sport. When is too much? When do we need to use it? Who knows. An argument for another time perhaps.