Captains, cricket world divided over decision

Two hours after the most heated match of the northern summer, both captains were still divided on the controversial obstructing the field ruling that dismissed Ben Stokes in Australia’s 64-run win over England at Lord’s.

Stokes was deemed to have wilfully obstructed Mitchell Starc’s throw at his stumps when he blocked the ball with his hand as he wheeled around to return to his crease.

Quick Single: Stokes given out obstructing the field

The Australians immediately appealed, and after a brief discussion, the on-field umpires sent the decision to third umpire Joel Wilson who made the call.

Australia captain Steve Smith was just as convinced after the match as he was on the field when he saw the incident live.

“Wadey (wicketkeeper Matthew Wade) had a good view of it behind the stumps,” Smith said.

“He said straight away that he thought the ball was missing Stokesy (Stokes) and it was going to hit the stumps.

“So he appealed and we went upstairs and the umpire gave it out.

“The way I saw it was he was out of his ground and he wilfully put his hand out, which is the rule I’ve been told, and he got given out by the umpire.”

Image Id: ~/media/ECD5EFB145644BD1AC5A016C2E94005A

Smith and Morgan debate the matter mid-pitch // Getty Images

Standing at the non-striker’s end was England captain Eoin Morgan, who had a differing view to that of his Australian counterpart.

“My interpretation of it was that his (Stokes) reaction wasn’t deliberate,” Morgan said.

“I feel that the ball was thrown so fast that you can only react in a way that defends yourself and he put his hand up to protect himself and followed the ball.

“How you can interpret is open but certainly I didn’t think it was deliberate.”

WATCH: Stokes' reaction not deliberate: Morgan

Smith countered Morgan’s view, saying the England allrounder was in no danger of being struck by Starc’s shy at the stumps.

“I think if you look at it, from what I saw, the ball was going towards the stumps and it wasn’t even going to hit him,” Smith said.

“He’s put his hand out to stop the ball.”

WATCH: Smith defends Stokes ruling

As the appeal was made, after the decision was handed down, and following the conclusion of the match, Smith and Morgan discussed the incident at close quarters.

While their opinions on the matter differed, the law itself is open to opinion.

Law 37 of the Marylebone Cricket Club Laws of Cricket addresses obstructing the field, which states “a batsman is out Obstructing the field if he wilfully attempts to obstruct or distract the fielding side by word or action.”

Law 37.2 specifically addresses today’s incident involving Stokes, saying in terms of accidental obstruction – which is what Morgan believes happened – it “is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not.  He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt.”

According to the letter of the law, on-field umpires Kumar Dharmaseena and Tim Robinson and third umpire Wilson were correct in the process they followed which led to Stokes being given out.

WATCH: Stokes out obstructing the field

During one of their discussions, Smith provided an example to help Morgan understand his view as the parochial crowd at Lord’s, the venue where cricket’s laws are maintained and protected, ironically booed the decision and the tourists.

“I was just saying he was out of his ground and he put his hand in the way of the stumps,” Smith said.

“I put it into perspective I guess, I said it’s the same as me coming back for a two and turning around and putting my hand out.

“It just looked worse because it went back to the bowler and it all happened so quickly. I think that’s the same thing.”

While the third umpire’s decision will be debated on cricket fields, in pubs and lounge rooms for weeks to come, Morgan says if he was in Smith’s shoes it would not have got that far.

When asked if he would have withdrawn the appeal, Morgan said: “Yep … I’ve just given you my reasons, I didn’t think it was deliberate.”

Smith, upon hearing Morgan’s reaction, again didn’t see it that way.

“I think that’s a little bit disappointing,” Smith said. “The umpires are there to do a job and when it went upstairs to Joel Wilson the third umpire he made the same decision as we saw.”

But Morgan says the controversial moment didn’t cost his side the match, who conceded more than 300 for the second straight match before his side wilted under scoreboard pressure and disciplined bowling to hand Australia a 2-0 series lead.

WATCH: Australia take 2-0 series lead

“I don’t think it was the winning and losing of the game,” Morgan said.

“I think we probably let ourselves down early on with the ball, we weren’t disciplined enough.

“I think it offered a small bit, not a great deal but a small bit that if we’d made early inroads it might have put more pressure on Australia and from there they built a really good one-day innings.

“So from the back-end where Mitchell Marsh took the game away from us, probably got 25 too many.

“Again we got off to a good start with the bat and Australia asked the same questions of us that they asked in the Rose Bowl and we didn’t come up with a good enough answer.

“They certainly have a well drilled plan of how they go about their one-day cricket and it’s very good.

“We have to come up with some answers, certainly as soon as we can.”