IsleofWightYellow
Well-known member
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 8,676
He knew the ball hadn’t burst through the gloves, he would have heard it land smack into the gloves and for him, the ball was dead and it was over. How many players do you know who duck under a bouncer and then ‘turn back to see what happened to the ball’?! Obviously with hindsight, he he known the Australians would try and get him to leave his crease milliseconds before the umpire declared over so they could quickly get him out after the ball had been bowled and was done, he wouldn’t have done it, but he wasn’t expecting that. No-one was.Bairstow had been wandering around out of his crease earlier in the over, more brainlessness.
On the delivery he was out Bairstow never turned back to see what happened to the ball, he ducked, scratched his foot and wandered off. Had the ball burst through his hands while Bairstow was scratching and Stokes had called him through to run byes would he have stopped and said he believed the ball to dead so we wont take the runs? Would he B*****s.
Andrew Strauss said he had no issue with it, the only issue I have is with Bairstow.
The guidelines on spirit of cricket refer to accepting the umpires decision, or is that only when it suites?
Ex-Australian cricketer Brad Hogg said he had an issue with it and didn’t like it at all, as have many other people. Andrew Strauss isn’t the be all and end all of cricket. Some ex-pros are fine with it, some think it’s cheap and dirty, just like with fans. Says more about how you view life and sport as a person I guess.
Accepting the umpires decision has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever, Bairstow accepted the umpires decision and walked off, what people aren’t accepting is getting a cheap wicket by tricking an opponent rather than actually getting them out properly in a fair contest between bat and ball. No-one is or was questioning the umpires decision so that’s irrelevant.