For me the real clincher that muddied the waters (had it been picked up at the time) was that Stokes had deliberately obstructed the field because he ‘did significantly change his direction without probable cause and thereby obstructed a fielder’s attempt to effect a run out’.
I had recorded the game on my TV which provided several replay angles providing me with the opportunity to analyse what happened. As expected the line Stokes took with his first run was on the prepared part of the pitch within the return creases and the obvious shortest route to the other end. The first run presented him with the information he needed because the line of the shot was in front of him. It warned him of the impending danger well in advance and the line he needed to run to give himself the best chance of blocking the throw. On returning for the second run, his partner Adil Rashid continued to run the outside line meaning that Stokes had the inside running closer to the pitch, which would have also been the shortest route to making his ground. However, Stokes was prepared to change/widen his line of direction, manoeuvring Rashid even wider, in order to give himself the best chance of obstructing the throw. When making his dive the reason for so much dust rising was due to his landing in the footmarks of a previous game. And it wasn’t the bowlers’ footmarks, from that previous game, it was further away where the batsman would have been taking his guard, some 4 feet (1.22 metres) beyond the return crease of the pitch they were playing on.
By not looking over his left shoulder towards the ball, he might have given the appearance of innocence. Stokes’ understandable preference so as not to slow him down was to look at the positioning of the wicketkeeper in front of him, automatically warning him of the line of the throw, its accuracy and the threat it presented. The wicket-keeper had remained directly behind the stumps, which indicated the throw was on target. Recognising the danger, Stokes will have sensed the need to dive to give himself the best chance of making his ground. Although he will not have deliberately deflected the ball with his bat, his actions would have already placed himself in the best position to intercept the path of the ball. To add to New Zealand’s woes, the replay also indicated that had the ball not been intercepted, Stokes would have likely been short of his ground....
For as long as I can remember, it became standard practice for batsmen to run a line (when under pressure to make their ground) to block the throw by putting themselves between the thrower and the stumps.... Once normalised, the illegality of it tends to be portrayed as being accidental and is therefore overlooked. The reality is that when batsmen think the danger of being run out is very unlikely, they make every effort to move away from the line of the ball to prevent being hit.
These incidents also tend to be unobserved because batsmen seldom if ever take advantage of any overthrows that might ensue. On the very odd occasion when (as in this case) the ball ends up over the boundary, the consequences are generally minor and treated as such. But when it decides a Cricket World Cup final, the stakes are too high for it to go unnoticed. Maybe it has taken the significance of this event to expose the need to take a closer look at this example in the future.
—Published with permission from TurnerMcC Publishing
Cricket’s Global Warming: The Crisis in Cricket (Kindle edition)
Authors: Glenn Turner &
Lynn McConnell
Publisher: TurnerMcC Publishing
Pages: 267 Price: Rs449