Bailing out Stokes and stoking an Ashes debate
NEW DELHI: When his team is tottering at 57/4 and on the brink of another comprehensive defeat, the last thing you would expect from the batter is to break into hysterical laughter. But Ben Stokes couldn’t help.
It was the response from the all-rounder to the first ball of the 31st over in England’s first innings against Australia at the Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) on Friday. Cameron Green had got the ball to nip back from around the wicket. Stokes shouldered arms but a sound as the ball passed him prompted the Australians to go up in appeal, convinced it had brushed the back pad. Umpire Paul Reiffel agreed, adjudging Stokes leg-before wicket.
Stokes reviewed promptly. He knew the ball was nowhere near his pads, but must have himself wondered about the sound. The review showed a bemused Stokes that the 134.1 kph delivery had hit more than brushed the off-stump, but the bails had not been dislodged. Stokes, having endured a forgettable Ashes series, could barely believe his good fortune.
He was on 16 at the let-off and went on to make 66 as he and centurion Jonny Bairstow helped England’s first-innings total gain some respectability.
While cricket fans had their say in social media, the bizarre incident also caught the attention of Sachin Tendulkar. He tweeted, “Should a law be introduced called ‘hitting the stumps’ after the ball has hit them but not dislodged the bails? What do you think guys? Let’s be fair to bowlers! @shanewarne”
The tongue-in-cheek emoji suggested the comment was half in jest. But Shane Warne—who was doing commentary when Stokes was let-off—felt it merited a discussion.
“It’s a discussion point. I will take it to the ICC Cricket Committee. But I think it is necessary for the bails to be dislodged. Otherwise, it will take too much time out of the game. Teams might start reviewing everything because they might have heard a noise and suspect that the ball has hit the stumps,” Warne told host broadcaster Fox Sports.
For a dismissal to stand as bowled, the relevant rule (ICC Law 29.1.1) says: “The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground.”
Dispensing with bails
If the wind is strong, the umpires can decide to take off the bails as they can keep falling. In that case, the umpire can give a batsman out if he is convinced the ball hit the stumps. The following from ICC’S playing conditions for the World Test Championship 2021-2023 make that clear.
Clause 8.4
Dispensing with bails: The umpires may agree to dispense with the use of bails, if necessary. If they so agree then no bails shall be used at either end. The use of bails shall be resumed as soon as conditions permit. Dispensing with bails: If the umpires have agreed to dispense with bails in accordance with clause 8.4, it is for the umpire concerned to decide whether or not the wicket has been put down. After a decision to play without bails, the wicket has been put down if the umpire concerned is satisfied that the wicket has been struck by the ball, by the striker’s bat, person or items of his clothing or equipment…
It is not the first time that the ball has hit the stump without dislodging the bails. The issue came to the fore in 2019 when the IPL and World Cup, held in quick succession, saw an unexpectedly
29.4 29.4.1
high number of such instances.
In the IPL, Kolkata Knight Riders’ Chris Lynn even insideedged the ball onto the stumps, but the bails didn’t fall and the ball went for four. He joked: “I might go the casino tonight! I might ride my luck.”
At the World Cup, there were five instances in the first 13 games when the ball hit the stumps but the bails didn’t fall. In those instances, the zing bails—they light up on contact and add a visual appeal to the game—were in operation. The frequency of such occurrences made many wonder whether those bails were heavier than the normal ones or the grooves on which they sat were too deep.
“It’s a bit unfair at times. It does seem to be happening more and more, which is unfortunate, because you’d hate to see something like that happen in a World Cup final or a semi-final,” Australia limited-overs skipper Aaron Finch had said then.
There were no zing bails on Friday, but bails not falling at a critical juncture in a tight game could blow up into a major talking point, as was the case in the final of the 2019 World Cup when the boundary count rule was used to break the tie at the end of the Super Over, giving England victory over New Zealand.
We will see how the ICC “bails out” of this. England and Australia anyway dust themselves up periodically to fight for an urn that is said to contain the ashes of a burnt bail.