Ben Stokes was given out Obstructing the Field under Law 37 in the 2nd One Day International at Lord’s on September 5, 2015. The decision caused great controversy and made headlines. Some reports even suggested that Australia’s win had been “overshadowed” by “drama” or “controversy”. In fact, there is no controversy. The law is clear, as are the amendments to the law and guidance provided by the ICC’s cricket committee about how the law should be interpreted. Disagreement in this instance exists only because some people don’t know the law.
The decision against Stokes was governed by 2 sets of laws. Law 37 defines “Obstructing the field” as a mode of dismissal. And 2.4 of Appendix 6 of the 2014-15 ICC Playing Handbook. This is the rule which governs how Law 37 is to be evaluated in the case of an Umpire Review.
Several facts have to be considered.
1. The actions of the on-field umpires reveal that they were not sure that Stokes was out, but leaned towards not-out (Eoin Morgan revealed this after the match). This is normal in the case of an “Umpire Review”. In a “Player Review” under DRS, the Umpire makes a final decision on the field which the players then have the option of reviewing. In the “Umpire Review” a final decision is withheld, but a “soft” decision is made to give guidance to the TV Umpire.
2. When the TV Umpire reviewed it, his decision was governed by clause 2.4. The original “soft” decision by the umpires on the field would have stood only if the TV Umpire reached found that the TV evidence was “inconclusive”. This is what the rule specifies and there is no reason to think that the umpire did not follow the rule.
3. In 2011 the ICC made Obstructing the Field stricter by changing the way it was to be interpreted by Umpires. According to the new interpretation, the batsman could be given out Obstructing the Field even for changing direction while running in response to the throw. The ICC’s June 27, 2011 media release stated that the ICC had decided that “batsmen should be dismissed (obstructing the field) if they change their course while running to prevent a run-out chance”
In the flurry of reaction from reporters and former players (BBC, ESPNCricinfo, Mirror, Telegraph, Cricket Country, Sky Sports and dozens of others), no reference to the ICC’s amendment of 2011 is to be found. Ben Stokes’ comments on the matter have been contradictory. ESPNCricinfo’s story about Stokes’ reaction starts with the following amazing sentence
England allrounder Ben Stokes has insisted there was no wilful intent when he gloved away Mitchell Starc’s throw at the stumps at Lord’s and that he was purely thinking of protecting himself.
So Stokes was trying to protect himself from being hit by a cricket ball, but only accidentally thrust his hand out to stop the ball!
The point here is not to poke fun at Stokes. Its entirely reasonable to think that someone in his position, caught 5 feet outside the crease after having hit the ball back to the bowler and finding the alert bowler trying to throw the stumps down with him in the way, would instinctively brace himself to be hit by the ball. Its irrelevant whether or not Stokes was actually trying to prevent being run out by stopping the ball.
If Stokes is in the way of the stumps and the ball hits him, and there is any evidence at all that Stokes changed direction and thereby interrupted the path of the ball, then he’s out, no matter what his intentions.
Evasive action must involve trying to get out of the way of the ball. In this specific instance, the facts are as follows:
- Stokes (left hand batsman) hit a ball back to the bowler (left arm over) down the off side of the pitch.
- The bowler threw the ball at the stumps.
- Stokes, in the process of turning back towards the stumps, slapped the ball away with his gloves.
- The ball was not thrown back at Stokes, it was thrown back at the Stumps.
Under Law 37 (keeping in mind the 2011 guidance), this has to be considered a case of Stokes setting off for a run and getting back into his crease to avoid being run out. In the process of trying to get back into his crease, Stokes tried to stop the ball. Therefore he’s out.
Was Stokes unlucky? Yes. In the same way that a non-striker who is run out at the non-striker’s end after a straight drive deflects off the bowler and hits the stumps is unlucky. He was unlucky that his follow through dragged him so far out of his crease. He was unlucky that the ball was hit back to Starc at a height which was perfect for Starc to make a quick throw at the stumps. All these things happened too quickly for them to be deliberate either.
But was the decision correct? Under Law 37 it was, especially keeping in mind the 2011 guidelines which have made the interpretation in favor of the fielding side. The worse that can be said about the decision that it could, under certain intepretations of what Stokes did, be considered
What of the reaction? The fact that dozens of eminent, professionally employed, full-time cricket reporters did not even mention an amendment to the interpretation of the rule which was made just 4 years ago (while nearly every story includes the text of Law 37, often with very nice formatting), does not say very good things about these people’s professional abilities. Does it?
