Mitchell Starc

Ben Stokes no fury at his obstructive dismissal

Was it obstruction or was it self-defence?

Was it deliberate or was it instinctive?

Preservation of one’s self is an instinctive response in any living creäture.

Was Ben Stokes any different?

There is no one way to decide it—it all depends on which side you’re rooting for.

The third umpire’s decision is final. And Joe Wilson adjudged the left-hander out.

And that’s how it should have stayed.

Sure, Stokes was the first English batsman to be dismissed in such a fashion in an ODI.

Sure, he was only the seventh batter in cricketing history to be kayoed so cruelly.

Sure, to be run-out is the unhappiest and unlikeliest  way any cricketer expects or wishes to be dismissed and to be considered wilful in obstructing the natural course of a game is worse.

The opposing skippers have their viewpoints.

Steve Smith called for a referral after appealing and has no qualms about his decision. He will not be losing any sleep over it.

Smith said:

“If you’re out of your crease and put your hand up to stop the ball, it’s out.

It might have looked a bit worse because it went back to the bowler, but it’s exactly the same as me turning for a second run, putting my arm out and stopping the ball.

The ball wasn’t going to hit him, he was out of his crease, he put his arm out and got in the way of the ball. The ball was going very close to hitting the stumps.

If you read the rule book, we’re well within our rights to appeal and the umpires have given it out.

Not at all. I’ve got no dramas with that (his decision to appeal).

I thought it was the right decision at the time and I still think it’s the right decision.”

The English were united in deriding Smith’s characterisation of his act.

English skipper, Eoin Morgan, said:

“A guy throws the ball in your direction and all you can do is flinch.

You don’t have time to think. It was a natural reaction to avoid the ball. Mitchell Starc was about five yards away from Ben Stokes.

The decision was made. It would have been a lot different if we were fielding.”

(Would it, Morgan, would it, really? Easier said than done, Eoin, easier said than done.)

Michael Vaughan said :

“Anyone who has played the game knows that when the ball is thrown at you from close range like that you put your hand up to protect yourself. When you see it in real time he fears the ball is going to hit him. It was obvious. It was a poor decision.”

Alec Stewart added:

“He was taking evasive action; he’s looking the other way. Show me someone who can catch the ball looking the other way?

You would have thought between the three umpires that common sense would have prevailed.”

Shane Warne was not quite rooting for Smith and his side.

Law 37 (Obstructing the field) states quite categorically:

“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.”

Stokes himself is not chuffed about the manner of his exit.

Team-mate, Steve Finn, was quite vocal with his antipathy.

He said:

“I think everyone in the dressing room, when we saw it in real time, we all thought he was taking evasive action. When you watch it in slo-mo, the fielding team were entitled to appeal if you’re going by the letter of the game. The fact that it was in slow-motion didn’t help Ben’s cause.

How often does the bowler feign to throw the ball but doesn’t actually do it? But this time he did let the ball go and, by the time you realise the bowler has actually let the ball go, then first and foremost you’re worried for your safety rather than worrying about where your stumps are.

Everyone in the dressing room was disappointed but I don’t think the game was won or lost at that moment. In the dressing room, we weren’t overly happy.”

If there was any doubt in Smith’s mind about the mode of dismissal, he should have retracted his appeal and let the game continue. This would have been within the ambit of the Spirit of the Game. He need not have looked further than former India Test skipper MS Dhoni and his recent magnanimity in rescinding his appeal against Ian Bell’s dismissal for walking out for tea before the bails were whipped off by the on-field umpires. But I guess, no one, least of all Steven Smith, wishes to be termed a sucker in this ultra-competitive day and age.

ICC World Cup 2015: It’s Australia versus New Zealand

It’s final.

The home sides will face-off in another Transmanic match-up on Sunday the 29th of March 2015 at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG).

The Australians clinically demolished Team India’s cup hopes with an all-round display of aggression and intent with the bat and ball. They backed it up with tight fielding barring a few hiccups,

Who will it be?

New Zealand can take comfort from the fact that this is probably their best side ever and that they have beaten the Aussies in the league phases.

Now the crucial encounter is in their arch-foes’ backyard.

Do they have the gumption to seal off their World Cup campaign with a zealous kiss of victory?

The demeanor of their gum-chewing skipper Brendon Mcullum in the field against South Africa suggests so. He reminded me of tough-as-nails Steve Waugh. Will Australia drop the cup that cheers?

Michael Clark rebuilt the crumbling edifice of Oz following the exit of the best and brightest of their 3-Cup wizards.

Can Clark win his first World Cup as skipper?

Fortune favors the brave and the brave are not easily felled at home.

My pick: Australia. Can McCullum and his chums spell otherwise?

Shane Warne: What he said, really meant and definitely didn’t

Shane Warne is a hard man to please.

What he said:

“He has to change his body language, it needs to be stronger – he looks a bit soft. He needs to puff his chest out a bit, look harder.”

Shane Warne stirred up a storm with his criticism of Mitchell Starc in the second Test at Brisbane against India.

The former Australian leg-spinner and all-time great was commentating for Nine Network.

Darren Lehmann was among those to react.

Lehmann said:

“Soft. He used those words? That’s very harsh…I will take it up with Shane myself.”

Starc’s girlfriend Australian women’s cricketer Alyssa Healy was quick to come to his defence on Twitter.

She said:

Any danger of something positive….

—
Alyssa Healy (@ahealy77) December 17, 2014

Shane Warne, forced to back-pedal, responded on Twitter:

What rubbish reporting & sensationalism re my comments on Starc. I said he needs a better presence & stronger body language when bowling...

—
Shane Warne (@ShaneWarne) December 17, 2014

And that it looks a bit soft & a bit easy after he bowled 3 overs, nothing to do with heat or anything else. Poor journalism, facts plse !

—
Shane Warne (@ShaneWarne) December 17, 2014

Starc appeared to respond positively to the brouhaha scoring a fifty in Australia’s batting essay and cleaning out first innings centurion Murali Vijay for 27.

What Warne really meant:

“Fast bowlers are meant to intimidate the opposition, look them in the eye and stare them down. That’s the body language I’m referring to. I was able to do that and I was no pacer!”

What he definitely didn’t:

“Cricket used to be a gentleman’s game. What has the world come to?”