2nd Test Wed 28 June-2 July 2023 - Lord's

[IsleofWightYellow]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

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?

But that didn't happen did it?

Bairstow would've heard (or even seen) the ball plant firmly into Carey's gloves. And whilst that in itself is technically not dead, it is a whole different scenario to the ball still moving across the surface after being spilled by the keeper. That would constitute a mis-field and therefore fair game for runs to be scored from the fielding error....and if either Stokes or Bairstow had been run out in that scenario, noboy would have a complaint.

Standards should matter

 

[ZeroTheHero]

This has resonances in football. 'He felt a touch so he went down' - it may be within the laws but it leaves a sour taste in the mouth. There are some games (cricket and oddly enough snooker, probably others) where honesty and playing within the spirit of the rules is generally thought of as more important than the win at all costs mentality. Personally I like that

 

[Sharp Edges]

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.

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.

Nobody was tricked, Bairstow left his crease at his own free will. He did it more than once.

If it has something to do with your outlook on life and sport then I guess its trying to blame someone else for your own error, yeah I get that.

People on this thread are questioning the umpires while talking about the spirit of cricket.

 

[Sharp Edges]

But that didn't happen did it?

Bairstow would've heard (or even seen) the ball plant firmly into Carey's gloves. And whilst that in itself is technically not dead, it is a whole different scenario to the ball still moving across the surface after being spilled by the keeper. That would constitute a mis-field and therefore fair game for runs to be scored from the fielding error....and if either Stokes or Bairstow had been run out in that scenario, noboy would have a complaint.

Standards should matter

Unless Bairstow has eyes in the back of his head he didnt see where the ball went when it went past him.

 

[boogaloo]

I don't blame Carey because he was acting in the heat of the moment. The umpires too were correct - their job is to apply the rules of the game, no matter how harsh it may be. It's up to the captain Pat Cummins whether he wishes to abide by the spirit of the game, which he decided not to do.

I remember a similar issue a few years back against India where Ian Bell was controversially given out in similar circumstances. However in that instance, Indian skipper Mahendra Dhoni withdrew his appeal, and Bell was reprieved. But Dhoni was a true gent of the game, whereas the current crop of Aussies don't have time for the spirit of the game.

It appears the gloves are off now, and if I were Stokes, I'd be instructing the bowlers to look for mankading opportunities.

 

[Essexyellows]

This is what I love about sport, even with the further interference of VAR and advances in technology etc..

The umpire applied the rules of the game and we are left to debate the ethics and the spirit of what happened.

Long may it continue.

 

[IsleofWightYellow]

Nobody was tricked, Bairstow left his crease at his own free will. He did it more than once.

If it has something to do with your outlook on life and sport then I guess its trying to blame someone else for your own error, yeah I get that.

People on this thread are questioning the umpires while talking about the spirit of cricket.

But he wasn’t gaining an advantage by doing so. It wasn’t part of the play. It wasn’t to make England win the match. It wasn’t a tactic or ruse by Bairstow. It wouldn’t have affected Australia at all if they’d not got him out, or even just warned him. They used an unsportsmanlike loophole to get him out, rather than playing the game as it’s supposed to be played.

I’ve not seen one person question the umpires apart from the fact that maybe they should have called over quicker, but that’s not questioning their decision. Everyone has accepted it was out within the laws of the game, it’s just that if you have any kind of decency, self-respect or pride then you wouldn’t want to get an opponent out that way. If I was playing a friendly game of cricket down the park and someone did that I’d totally lose respect for them and not want to play any more.

 

[PQ]

Sharp Edges “People on this thread are questioning the umpires ”

Must have missed that.

 

[Sharp Edges]

Sharp Edges “People on this thread are questioning the umpires ”

Must have missed that.

I don't blame the Aussies as I expected this of them but the umpires?!!!

At the point the ball had rested in Cummins gloves and Bairstow had purposely touched his back foot down in the crease (both happened almost simultaneously) the ball was dead.

From earlier in the thread, I read this as questioning the umpires.

 

[Marked Ox]

I don't blame Carey because he was acting in the heat of the moment. The umpires too were correct - their job is to apply the rules of the game, no matter how harsh it may be. It's up to the captain Pat Cummins whether he wishes to abide by the spirit of the game, which he decided not to do.

I remember a similar issue a few years back against India where Ian Bell was controversially given out in similar circumstances. However in that instance, Indian skipper Mahendra Dhoni withdrew his appeal, and Bell was reprieved. But Dhoni was a true gent of the game, whereas the current crop of Aussies don't have time for the spirit of the game.

It appears the gloves are off now, and if I were Stokes, I'd be instructing the bowlers to look for mankading opportunities.

It wouldn't have even crossed Pat Cummins' mind to withdraw the appeal.

I'm laughing at the irony of the Australians complaining about "disrespect" from members in the Long Room when they went in for lunch.

 

[PQ]

I come back to a point I made earlier and would welcome clarification from those who play the game.
Many comments on this particular episode refer to the issue of “over” being called and that’s clearly relevant. However, for all other balls in the over (not over ball) where a similar situation occurs I.e. ball flies through untouched by batsman to the keeper ..what should a batsman do to ensure the ball is deemed “ dead” according to “the rules”, and in actual practice what are the accepted protocols that normally apply.

 

[Sharp Edges]

But he wasn’t gaining an advantage by doing so. It wasn’t part of the play. It wasn’t to make England win the match. It wasn’t a tactic or ruse by Bairstow. It wouldn’t have affected Australia at all if they’d not got him out, or even just warned him. They used an unsportsmanlike loophole to get him out, rather than playing the game as it’s supposed to be played.

I’ve not seen one person question the umpires apart from the fact that maybe they should have called over quicker, but that’s not questioning their decision. Everyone has accepted it was out within the laws of the game, it’s just that if you have any kind of decency, self-respect or pride then you wouldn’t want to get an opponent out that way. If I was playing a friendly game of cricket down the park and someone did that I’d totally lose respect for them and not want to play any more.

I didnt say he was trying to gain an advantage, I'm not sure why thats relevant, I dont actually know what he was doing. I do get its unsporting, my point is they were given many opportunities by Bairstow to get him out this way, rightly or wrongly they took it. It seems to me its down to Cummings to be judge and executioner and he has to make an on the spot decision. I think thats unfair on him.

In my first post I said about Broad middling it to slip and not walking, he didnt cheat but it was more unsporting than this. He did seek to gain an advantage and the advantage he gained almost certainly did influence the result in our favour. I think that result meant we won the ashes (although not 100% sure). I dont recall the same level of uproar about spirit of the game then (well........ not in this country!). Perhaps spirit of the game matters more when its you that been kicked in the nuts?

 

[QR]

Sharp Edges “People on this thread are questioning the umpires ”

Must have missed that.

Here you go . Love a bit of controversy.

I don't blame the Aussies as I expected this of them but the umpires?!!!

At the point the ball had rested in Cummins gloves and Bairstow had purposely touched his back foot down in the crease (both happened almost simultaneously) the ball was dead.

 

[PQ]

Thanks QR.

So “people on this thread” should read “ one person on this thread”...

or are there more examples?

 

[IsleofWightYellow]

I'm laughing at the irony of the Australians complaining about "disrespect" from members in the Long Room when they went in for lunch.

Yeah I think that’s hilarious, the Aussies crying about getting a few boos after what they’ve done and the amount of sledging they do on the field. Classic bullies and cheats, can give it out but can’t take it.

 

[Sharp Edges]

Thanks QR.

So “people on this thread” should read “ one personthis thread”...

or are there more examples?

Should it?

I think so but I dont have the time or inclination to go through it again to find out.

The way I see it is this:

The aussies didnt cheat (this time).
Bairstow was brainless.
The umpires arent at fault, they would have had to have called "over" the second the ball hit Careys gloves.
The aussies are famous for errr lets say "playing hard", our players would know this so see point 2.
The aussies will get pelters from the Headingly crowd.
The rest is about pointing the finger of blame depending on how you see it.

 

[PQ]

Sharp Edges "I didn't say he was trying to gain an advantage, I'm not sure why that's relevant,"

I think it is hugely relevant..it makes a world of difference. If a player is trying to gain advantage and gets found out he can hardly cry foul. In a "Mankad" type situation the non-striking batsman backing up too "enthusiastically" shall we say is trying to gain an advantage and if found out by the bowler can have no complaints. Even so I think a warning initially would be appropriate and in the "spirit of the game" as I would want it played.
Equally, as Jonathan Agnew said yesterday, if the facing batsman is batting well out of his crease to negate swing and is stumped when he misses the delivery he can have no complaints as he was trying to gain advantage. However, in that situation I do not think a warning would be needed...just my opinion.

also SE.. "It seems to me its down to Cummings to be judge and executioner and he has to make an on the spot decision. I think that's unfair on him."

He is the captain..goes with the territory?

 

[boogaloo]

An amusing bit of sh*thousery from Stuart Broad.

Broad clashes with Aussies over Bairstow dismissal

Watch Stuart Broad clash with Australia players following Jonny Bairstow's controversial stumping during England's 43-run defeat in the second Ashes Test at Lord's.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Oufcrealist]

Pope out for the series!!
We're not going to call up anyone else so probably means Lawrence will play which doesn't fill me with confidence.
What they should do is bring Foakes back in at seven and move everyone else up one.
A missed opportunity for me.
Of course they could bring Mo back in but there's an even bigger risk in that.