Ben Stokes responds to his controversial 'obstructing the field' dismissal

Ben Stokes leaves the field in anger after being given out ‘obstructing the field’

English all-rounder Ben Stokes has responded to his controversial dismissal in the 2^nd ODI against Australia at Lord’s on Saturday. The 26-year-old was given out for ‘obstructing the field’ after he struck out his hand at Mitchell Starc’s throw aimed at the stumps.

The incident in question took place in the 26^th over and Australia went on to win the match by 64 runs to take a 2-0 lead in the series, but the match will forever be remembered for the rare mode of Stoke’s dismissal and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

While many felt that Stokes was taking evasive action by trying to protect himself from getting hit by the ball, the third umpire Joe Wilson ruled in favour of the Australians who appealed, much to the displeasure of the home crowd. They were further incensed following the decision and responded with a chorus of jeers while home skipper Eoin Morgan got into an angry confrontation with his Australian counterpart Steven Smith.

The bad-blood between the two teams carried on even after the match with the England team refusing to head down to the middle for the presentation ceremony. Morgan and Smith continued to stand by their views in their post-match reactions.

Former England players Paul Collingwood, Michael Vaughan, Phil Tufnell and Alec Stewart pulled their weight behind their countryman while Harsha Bhogle felt that the decision to give Stokes out was the correct one.

The reaction everyone was waiting for was however from Stokes himself and England’s No 6 has responded hinting his unhappiness at the decision but was careful not to land in hot waters by making harsh comments that could result in a fine or suspension.

People sharing there opinion about yesterday,including some Australian players...I want to share mine but I don't want to get fined

— Ben Stokes (@benstokes38) September 6, 2015

Stokes clearly indicating that ICC’s Law 37 regarding obstructing the field should have been interpreted in his favour as he did not intentionally obstruct the path of the ball and was simply taking evasive action.