Steve Smith as Captain

[to1994]

Yeah, it would be a much better start to the captaincy to call Stokes back to ensure the media and people on a forum see him in the 'right' light. I want a captain who wants to win games for his country and doesn't care what people think.

The rules are there for a reason and whether Stokes was unfortunate or not the dismissal was in line with the rules.

 

[Cupid Stunt]

Very happy smith stood his ground with the appeal, clearly out and didn't let any bleeding hearts cloud his judgement.

It shows he's willing to make unpopular decisions if he has to, makings of a great leader!

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I can understand why Smith stayed with it, but that was a reaction to fend off a dangerous throw and not a deliberate obstruction of the throw. In my view the umpires got it wrong. Smith could have called him back, but as players see what they want to see and I can understand how it could be seen as out.

Law 37.i(i) includes a get out (or not out?) clause, where the batsman is out "unless this is in order to avoid injury" which I think should have applied in this case.

 

[Badesumofu]

If the ball had been going to go anywhere near hitting him, I might agree. When he actually blocked the ball it wasn't anywhere close to hitting him.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

It wasn't that far away from the position he was in when the ball was released, though it was never going to strike him. He moved to fend off and get out of the way almost simultaneously. To me, it should have been given not out.

 

[SwampCreature]

Sorry, but anyone who thinks it wasn't out is wilfully ignoring the rule.

It's not like it's controversial - if you deliberately get in the way of a live ball, it's obstructing the field.

The provision for protecting yourself doesnot apply here as the had got himself out of the way.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

They say you set the tone for your captaincy in the early stages, well guess what Steve Smith you are a disgrace to everyone who went before you, continuing on with the Stokes appeal will haunt you in the same manner as Greg Chappell is haunted by the underarm delivery. You will deservedly no carry a reputation that you are a win at all cost captain who has scant regard for sportsmanship.

You know, other people might be haunted by what Chappell did but I'd be surprised if he is.

This 'disgusted of Tonbridge Wells' moral high ground you are taking sounds weird. What's up in your world?

 

[SwampCreature]

Not as disgusting as cheating with sweep shots, imo.

 

[Demosthenes]

It wasn't that far away from the position he was in when the ball was released, though it was never going to strike him. He moved to fend off and get out of the way almost simultaneously. To me, it should have been given not out.

The stumps were fully exposed, and Starc had a clear throw at them. His throw was on target and not in any way threatening the batsman. It was about as clean a runout attempt as you will see a bowler get in those circumstances.

If you give that not out, you're basically saying that the bowler is unable to attempt a runout in that situation - because any attempt can be perceived as dangerous enough to the batsman to allow him to obstruct it with impunity. To me, that's not right.

Whether Stokes genuinely believed he was protecting himself is to me beside the point. Although I must say that I've never seen someone try to evade something thrown at them by watching the ball onto their hand.

 

[western royboy]

Unfortunately - the spirit of the game is a concept that seems lost on many and most probably should be removed. Yes under the rules - Stokes should have been given out and once an appeal was made the Umpire(s) had little choice but to uphold it. The spirit of the game is the preamble to the laws - it should have come first.

In the heat of the moment - most people would have been caught up in the emotion of it all. My thoughts were that Stokes was just trying to evade the ball - not deliberately obstruct the ball. In that case I would have hoped Smith would have called him back. It's a shame IMO that he didn't. I will be interested to here the CA response.

 

[Demosthenes]

My thoughts were that Stokes was just trying to evade the ball - not deliberately obstruct the ball.

Generally the first reaction of a batsman who is genuinely trying to evade a ball is to turn away from it. It's the first reaction of anybody who has something unexpectedly thrown at them - protecting your face and vital organs is instinctual. That's why batsmen keep getting hit in the back of the helmet by bouncers even in the wake of the Hughes incident.

My first reaction was 'that bloke's watched the ball onto his hand, that was deliberate'. If you watch the video again, he doesn't start turning away until after he's palmed the ball.

Given how far away the ball was from his body, and how clearly aware of its location he was, it's hard to argue that he was evading. I'd give him the the benefit of the doubt and call it a brain fade.

 

[PrideOf]

Whether or not Smithy made the right decision to stand by his appeal, it's just luverly listening to Pommie outrage about "the spirit of cricket" - something they believe only exists when it goes against them.

 

[Slax]

You know, other people might be haunted by what Chappell did but I'd be surprised if he is.

This 'disgusted of Tonbridge Wells' moral high ground you are taking sounds weird. What's up in your world?

I heard Chappell speak at a function about a decade ago and he was asked if there were things he regretted in his career and things he was proud of. He straight of said he should never of asked his brother to bowl that ball.

It has meant that his career is as remember for that as ,uch anything else, which is a bit sad considering he was the best batsmen in the world in his era. (I rate him better than Viv Richards)

 

[The_Reaper]

This is in no way comparable to underarm bowling or the Elliott run out.

Remember this is the same English media who whinged about the Sri Lankan spinner mankading Buttler last year (after giving him a warning the previous over)

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I heard Chappell speak at a function about a decade ago and he was asked if there were things he regretted in his career and things he was proud of. He straight of said he should never of asked his brother to bowl that ball.

It has meant that his career is as remember for that as ,uch anything else, which is a bit sad considering he was the best batsmen in the world in his era. (I rate him better than Viv Richards)

I rate him better than Punter.

That's interesting to hear that he did regret it, he always seems such a **** though obviously knows cricket inside out.

I don't think that they are remotely comparable by the way. IMO ,Smith did nothing wrong.

 

[corbies]

They say you set the tone for your captaincy in the early stages, well guess what Steve Smith you are a disgrace to everyone who went before you, continuing on with the Stokes appeal will haunt you in the same manner as Greg Chappell is haunted by the underarm delivery. You will deservedly no carry a reputation that you are a win at all cost captain who has scant regard for sportsmanship.

Thoughts on AB De Villiers as a captain? Because he has successfully appealed for the wickets of two batsman for obstructing the field during his captaincy. Both times the batsman was given out for adjusting their line while running with their backs to the ball, both said they didn't mean to get in the way of the ball. De Villiers had no hesitation in appealing. I hope he now carries a reputation as a win at all cost captain who has scant regard for sportsmanship.

Last time I checked he is actually universally admired.

 

[SwampCreature]

Universally? Not amongst the anti-sweep shot crowd, that's for sure.

He's a dirty sweeper.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Thoughts on AB De Villiers as a captain? Because he has successfully appealed for the wickets of two batsman for obstructing the field during his captaincy. Both times the batsman was given out for adjusting their line while running with their backs to the ball, both said they didn't mean to get in the way of the ball. De Villiers had no hesitation in appealing. I hope he now carries a reputation as a win at all cost captain who has scant regard for sportsmanship.

Last time I checked he is actually universally admired.

Oh please, what fantasy narrative does that fit into? You don't understand how this works.

 

[Juddy88]

Sorry, but anyone who thinks it wasn't out is wilfully ignoring the rule.

I'm guessing the majority don't actually played cricket and are just armchair experts.

Pretty embarrassing a) they are saying it's not out and b) that it somehow reflects badly on Smith.

Laughable to all of us who actually play cricket regularly and understand the rules.

 

[PrideOf]

Remember this is the same English media who whinged about the Sri Lankan spinner mankading Buttler last year (after giving him a warning the previous over)

Would that be the same English media calling for Stuart Broad's head after he smashed a drive to first slip, got caught and stood there while the umpire gave him not out?

 

[Retzlaff]

I see signs of Smith being a little immature and belligerent, but he'll learn. He's certainly coming off a better base than Ponting

 

[Richard Cranium]

I'm guessing the majority don't actually played cricket and are just armchair experts.

Pretty embarrassing a) they are saying it's not out and b) that it somehow reflects badly on Smith.

Laughable to all of us who actually play cricket regularly and understand the rules.

Sorry, just to clarify, do you play cricket? You post was a little ambiguous on that point.

 

[Juddy88]

Sorry, just to clarify, do you play cricket? You post was a little ambiguous on that point.

Sure do mate. Since I was 4.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Anybody see McCullum's comments? What a flog. Shouldn't expect anything more from a bloke who was so terrified of Starc in the first over of a WC final.

 

[western royboy]

I'm not hard on Smith - but it depends where you sit on the spirit of the game- I've been playing for 30 years - I would have called him back - McCullum is not a flog - someone asked him a question- he gave his answer - next time your batting in the nets - just walk thru the position Stokes was in - off balance with a ball being thrown in his direction- my natural reaction is to do what he did. He was trying to protect himself - that was his intent - thus not out