Ben 'Stokes' the Wrong Fire?
The cricket world is divided over the Ben Stokes obstructing the field dismissal. If things do get out of hand due to this incident in the remaining three ODIs, neither team will have the right to say, "We didn't start the fire."
- NDTV
- Updated: September 15, 2015 01:32 PM IST
Last Saturday, Ben Stokes became the first non-Asian cricketer to be given out for obstructing the field in an international cricket match. The 24 year old stuck out his left hand as the ball crashed into his glove. The ball had been thrown at missile speed by the bowler, Mitchell Starc who was trying to run Stokes out.(Stokes Maintains Self-Defence)
The 3rd umpire was heard saying, "I have enough evidence to suggest that Ben Stokes is out obstructing the field." With that, Stokes became just the 6th batsman to be given out for obstructing the field in ODIs. The 3rd umpire might have been convinced, but the English fans weren't. Amidst loud booing at Lord's, Steven Smith stuck to his decision to appeal for the dismissal. When asked if he was familiar with the MCC law on obstructing the field, Smith replied, "I probably don't know it right down to the T, but I have been told if you wilfully put your arm out in front of the ball then you are given out and that's the way it went."(McCullum Slams Smith)
For those who might be wondering what the law exactly says, here is law 37 of the MCC law book - "A batsman can be given out for obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action." Smith got the definition of the law right, but the question remains, was Stokes' reaction a wilful one? According to the rules, if a batsman is trying to avoid injury, then this law does not apply.(Stokes Joins Unique List)
It wasn't surprising that Stokes, who was clearly not happy with the decision later, said, "I didn't put my hand there wilfully, it was purely out of human reaction to protect myself." When England ODI captain Eoin Morgan was asked if he would have withdrawn the appeal had he been in Steven Smith's place, Morgan was quick to say, "yes".(Stokes' Dismissal Sparks Lord's Fury)
Morgan's sentiment is not surprising. In fact his sentiments have been echoed by quite a few. Most cricketers and experts seem to feel that Smith made a mistake by not withdrawing the appeal. Brendon McCullum wrote in an article, "By not withdrawing the appeal, Smith showed his immaturity. He may live to regret it." Michael Vaughan tweeted to say, "The more I watch, the more I am absolutely sure Stokes is protecting himself."
But some feel that the umpires got it right, like former Australian cricketer Dean Jones, who told NDTV, "I honestly thought the decision was the correct one and he was out. Something he probably wishes he didn't do but he almost caught the ball. If the ball deflected off his arm or his body, then fair enough to a certain degree but he almost caught the ball. And that to me was wilfully stopping the ball from hitting the stumps."
According to the laws, there is a very thin line between obstructing the field and handling the ball. Mohinder Amarnath in fact is the only batsman to have been dismissed in both ways.
The list of ODI batsmen who have been dismissed for obstructing the field is actually very short. Only 5 cricketers were dismissed in this fashion before Ben Stokes. 4 of them were from Pakistan and one from India. The two batsmen who were dismissed in this fashion recently were Pakistan's Anwar Ali and Mohammad Hafeez vs South Africa in 2013.
Some of the other instances of obstructing the field dismissals show that the wilful nature of the batsman was clearly evident. Be it Inzaman-ul- Haq deflecting a Suresh Raina throw with his bat in 2006, or Anwar Ali running in a way that ensured that his body stopped the ball from hitting the stumps in 2013. Was Stokes' reaction as wilful as that? The jury is still out on that one. One thing that you can bet on though is that the 5 match ODI series now has some added spice. After all, England will not forget this and the Aussies won't back down. If things do get out of hand due to this incident, neither team will have the right to say, "We didn't start the fire." Regardless of who 'stoked' it.