HAVE YOUR SAY

Take sides on the hot topics of the day

September 5, 2015

Should Ben Stokes have been given out obstructing the field?

Yes He was out of the crease, and the throw from Mitchell Starc would've mostly hit the stumps had his glove not stopped it

No It's evident that he was trying to evade Mitchell Starc's throw, and he stuck out his left glove as a reflex action

HAVE YOUR SAY

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

TopTop
. Your ESPN name '' will be used to display your comments. Please click here to edit this.
Comments have now been closed for this article

Posted by Ankit on (September 7, 2015, 1:27 GMT)

It's definitely Out. I know that people like to see and portray the Aussies in a negative light, but in this case, their appeal made sense. Had Stokes moved away from the ball, he wouldn't have been in trouble, and the ball wouldn't have hit him. But what went against him was that during his evasive action, he put his hand up to stop the ball, which can only be interpreted as obstructing the field. It's an unfortunate way to get out, obviously, and it will continue to polarise opinions, but going by the rule book, it had to be given out.

September 21, 2015, 3:09 GMT

Dummy

He was certainly out. And thus was rightly given out

September 7, 2015, 23:44 GMT

Joe

It's definitely out. Stokes was falling one way and extending his hands other way to tip the ball from hitting the wicket. If he is instinctively protecting himself from being hit, the he would be using his has to avoid bouncers also. But he never used hands to avoid bouncers from hitting him. Same thing here, he didn't have to use hands to protect himself from being hit by the ball. He knows that he needs to just move away. But he extends the hands to protect the wickets as we can see very clearly.

September 7, 2015, 3:56 GMT

Vikas

Yes. He was clearly out. Throw was going to hit stumps. Stokes stretched his hand to stop ball. It was not at all hitting him. But he knew he was far outside the crease and going to run out so he did it. Similar incident happened with Hussey in Sydney against India in 2012. But in that case Hussey's hand was not stretched out, it was near body and clearly tried to protect himself from Raina's throw. At that time Dhoni appealed for obstructing the field and third umpire's decision was "not out". So people who are saying Smith shouldn't have appealed should say the same thing to Dhoni. People love to make a negative image and negative portrait of Australian team.

September 6, 2015, 22:04 GMT

Paul

This is a terrible survey. The justification for "Yes" isn't sufficient for a dismissal under the laws and is just perpetuating ignorance. But clearly he was out. From the vision (which is all we have to go on) he was obviously trying to catch the ball. We've been hearing all season about what a brilliant reflex catcher Stokes is... well, there it is again. The only person who knows for sure is Stokes himself and I'm sure we'll hear him come out soon and deny it. And if we don't, if he can't face the media and claim it wasn't intentional...

September 6, 2015, 21:12 GMT

shalal

When Ramiz Raja was caught of a no ball and started walking because he hadnt heard the no ball call , England ran him out- Bill Athey the fielder and Mike Gatting the bowler. And they now talk about the spirit of the game!!!

September 10, 2015, 5:19 GMT

Karthikeyan

In real-time, it looked very much that -anybody - even the most well-intentioned "Custodian" of the Sport of Cricket, would have had the same -gut, reflex-action that Ben Stokes had. (not to say that he is any less, a well-intentioned "Custodian.") In the slow-motion replay, it made his case of being not-out for "obstructing the field of play" look awfully shaky. But, then, we don't live life in slow-motion, do we ? Yes, Joel Wilson should have given the batsman -the benefit of doubt, IMHO, for wilfully obstructing the field of play. Michael Atherton, the commentator, said on live TV broadcast, that it was in the interpretation of the law; that umpires could differ. I felt this was a case of misjudged umpiring decision, because, as another blogger put it, how can we consider interpreting the batsman's overwhelming attempt to evade bodily harm in real-time - a wilful obstruction of the field of play ? I felt that Steve Smith, should have recalled him, but let us not hold it against him.

September 7, 2015, 19:41 GMT

Dummy

I don't think he did it with any intention it was just a reflection

September 7, 2015, 10:47 GMT

Khair ul

The key word in the law is "willful" and there is no way one can adjudge it out when you look at it in real speed not in slow-motion. A lot of things in life would look different when looked in slow motion.

September 7, 2015, 7:34 GMT

Ranganath

Well..Going by the rule its definitely out. What made worse was Strokes clutching the ball and his body no way near.He can only blame himself for that kind of reflex action. But in this era of cricket broadcasting where all cameras capturing batsman playing the shot from every possible angle, as a player no one would want to show themselves in the wrong side of the rule and make themselves as a bad example. Its not football where u act like in pain and fall deliberately when u are just touched and its still on field referee's call to judge their actions...it was unfortunate but also at the same time legitimate decision.One team went by book and another team expected them & umpires to think beyond the rules..trust or spirit of the game whatever we call it..which u can't expect when playing a tough team like Australia and well within the rules...it was 50-50 for me..certainly this decision could have been withdrawn..Glad that England didn't put blame on this dismissal for their defeat..