Any news or views on International Cricket
User avatar
By TWrex
#29042
Well Ben Stokes was found not guilty by 12 good men/ women and true, so being discarded by England would have opened another legal can of worms. He was fined and left out of the touring squad so some action was taken. As for a conspiracy, does that include the jury? A conspiracy would have meant it all being hushed up, not a public trial in a crown court.
Of course he may have gone a bit too far, and Alex Hales apparently called for him to stop, but without some intervention there would have another homophobic attack to report. Doubtless the two were not expecting someone to stop them, but the men they were tormenting are extremely glad that he did. I am not making a definitive judgement as I was not at the trial and know from Jury Service how the two versions of the same story can be completely different, but the verdict was innocent so without new evidence that is the end of the matter. To be honest if I was being mugged by a couple of yobs I wouldn't be too concerned if anyone intervening gave them a good hiding, might well thinking scaring them off would have been enough in hindsight, but not in the moment. I don't advocate vigilantism as invariably the wrong people are targeted, but intervention is a different matte, then it is down to reasonable force etc.
Whether Stokes and Hales should have been out and about and 'in drink' at that hour is another matter, but cricket does have a history of players being out late the worse for wear and sometimes being rather admired for it. Let's just hope that Ben Stokes has learnt his lesson and in the future will settle for the odd pint followed by an early night with a good book to read, or perhaps this Forum. I suspect the bottom line of all this is the British habit, favoured by so many, of getting tanked up for the slightest excuse, on the pretext of it being the only way they can enjoy themselves. Look how amusing it was thought after the 2005 Ashes that the England players looked so hung over for the bus parade, and every sporting success calls for those who won to get completely and hopelessly drunk are called for by commentators et al. Finished now I'm starting to depress myself, and I'm normally such a happy soul.
Vetchetarian liked this
By johnwales
#29114
Don't the idiots who continue to boo realise that the more booing they do, the more runs Mr. Smith scores.

I am not sure who was batting, or who was close to the bat, but there was an incident where the batsman shovelled the ball away with his bat , and made a second nudge behind the wickets In what I believe was a genuine attempt to help the fielder retrieve the ball. The way Johny Bairstow reacted was appalling and does not improve the image of our game.
User avatar
By TWrex
#29115
The booing is definitely counter productive. An initial show of disapproval was understandable and not undeserved, but has got rather silly and childish now. Steve Smith's style is unusual and slightly hypnotic, so many balls look likely to lead to his demise but then the bat appears out of nowhere, not just keeping the ball out but scoring, remarkable.
Mind you the treatment the ball tamperers have received is nothing compared to how the Aussies treated Stuart Broad who after all was only the happy beneficiary of a wrong umpire decision.
As for Johnny Bairstow, I expect Jack Russell put his paint brushes down for a moment to applaud his reaction after all he got up to during his playing days.
By notgoingoutreprise
#29123
johnwales wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:10 am Don't the idiots who continue to boo realise that the more booing they do, the more runs Mr. Smith scores.

I am not sure who was batting, or who was close to the bat, but there was an incident where the batsman shovelled the ball away with his bat , and made a second nudge behind the wickets In what I believe was a genuine attempt to help the fielder retrieve the ball. The way Johny Bairstow reacted was appalling and does not improve the image of our game.
Booing has no impact on Smith he is just a freak,and technically Smith hit the ball twice so was in fact actually out
User avatar
By Vetchetarian
#29124
" Smith is just a freak ".

He's exceptionally good at what he is employed to do, but " a freak " ?
By johnwales
#29127
Not on really to make obnoxious comments about individuals . Technically speaking the laws of slander could cost several contributors a lot of money.

And whilst I am ' technically speaking ' the law on handling the ball twice is very complex, and there is no way it could have been applied in Steve Smiths case.
User avatar
By TWrex
#29131
I don't think anything personal was meant about Steve Smith, more using a word that's meaning has changed in its use over the years. I think a one-off or unique would be more fitting.
Well if Steve Smith had touched the ball again without the permission of a field and Johnny Bairstow had been of a mind to appeal, the way I have read the laws the umpires would have been forced to say out. Hitting or touching the ball twice without permission of a member of the fielding side. Hopefully Joe Root would have withdrawn the appeal, but what fun there would have been with the fallout afterwards if he didn't.. Bairstow may have been petty with his reaction, but I have seen that happen before. Most probably it was the bat being used instead of the ball being handed back. Very touchy about the shine these fielders.
By johnwales
#29134
Yes you are probably right, but in the rule book there is a decisive mention of the words deliberate and accidental. So the umpires would probably end up phoning Lords.
User avatar
By TWrex
#29144
I expect the law is worded so there is no doubt between a batsman gently tapping the ball a few inches to a close fielder and a batsman clumping the ball up to mid-off/on claiming they were just helping with the ball getting back the bowler via a fielder. No doubt there those who tried it on and a clear law of not hitting or touching the ball twice, apart from the circumstances allowed in the laws, without permission gives clarity. I expect there were a few barnies about it long ago, anyway back in the dim distant days of my school and club cricket friendlies no one knocked the ball back or picked it up to return to the fielding side without asking. Whether that was due to knowledge of the law or some good old fashion courtesy I'm not sure.
By johnwales
#29148
I was very impressed with Ben Stokes today. Caught at the wicket, he walked even before the umpire had given his verdict. Sought of reminded me when cricket was a sport !!
User avatar
By TWrex
#29187
Score from the Oval Joe Root 57 f 4. A strange but entertaining day.
The first two players released

Lawlor and Szymanski deemed surplus to requirement[…]