I hate what the Aussies did, but I also think that a karma argument could also point at England for selecting Bairstow over, you know, an actual competent wicket keeper in Foakes, and it more or less being the difference between both defeats.
Not great at all from the Aussies. I was a rather in 2 minds about it until I saw the highlights yesterday evening, as I'd been told originally that Bairstow was batting out of his crease and had not gone back into his crease after the ball had gone through to the wicket keeper. That was not the case though, he was in his crease when the ball went into Carey's gloves and he marked his ground before leaving the crease. I don't really see what he's done differently to what many batsmen do? He certainly wasn't seeking to gain an advantage and it was pretty underhand by Carey to run him out (or stump him) when he knew that Bairstow thought it was the end of the over.
I have some sympathy for Cummings, as he was put in a very difficult situation. By apologising, he'd be rather passing the blame onto his teammates. You'd like to think he'd have felt pretty uncomfortable looking back at those replays though! I'd be interested to know what the Aussie media and cricket fans have made of it!
Bairstow was extremely naive, almost idiotic. Batsman up and down the country and all over the world do not leave their ground until they are absolutely certain the ball is dead - both the striker and non striker.
We teach all our colts, that they either need to be 100% certain the ball is dead OR they need to check and ask if it's ok to leave the crease before doing so.
As has been pointed out, he was wandering out of his crease earlier in the over without checking the ball was dead. The keeper has taken the ball and immediately released it. It's within the rules and I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
If you watch any cricket match, at the end of each over or inbetween balls both the striker and non-striker are checking the ball is dead before leaving their crease to go and have a chat or tap down the wicket. Even in this sequence, Stokes is backing up, he then returns to his crease so he is in before then leaving again.
I'd love someone to show footage/do some analysis of the last ball of every over that went to the keeper across these test matches. I'd like to see the data on how often the batsmen left the crease immediately the ball was taken by the keeper. How often the batsmen left the crease before over was called. How often the batsmen visibly appeared to check with the opposition/looked back at the keeper to check he's thrown it to 1st slip etc so it was then dead and ok to leave the crease.
I suspect this will be the only time that any of the batsmen on both sides left in the manner Bairstow did. It really was schoolboy stuff.
It was out.
Whether the Aussie Captain should have withdrawn the appeal is another debate entirely.
@ReturnToSenda of course Atherton didn’t see anything wrong with it, he himself being a ‘convicted’ dirt-in-the-pocket “cheating c**t”
@Commoner as @Wycombe85 says, Bairstow has his routine way of tapping himself in then going for a wander. At the end of that over he does the same thing, glances up, sees the umpire giving the bowler’s hat back (ball in play and yet the umpire isn’t even looking... really?) seriously, by any measure, it’s the end of the over. Just because it’s “technically” out, it doesn’t mean that we as cricket fans can just ignore the moral code that the game is played by. Do as much analysis as you like, for me it’s worse than a ‘Mankad’.
The only roughly equivalent England dismissal I can think of is about 10 years ago when we ran out a New Zealander in an ODI after he collided with a fielder. That was an error of judgement, and the appeal should have been withdrawn.
I'm a little bit bemused by the overly strong reaction to the run out, though whenever I played cricket (to an exceptionally low standard) I wouldn't wander out of my crease until the bowler was well on the way back to their starting mark. Similarly I was too paranoid to even give the merest hint that I was a candidate for a mankading. Bairstow eagerly doing his Monty Don impression practically the second the ball was past him was just asking for trouble. I appreciate the concept that if the bats(wo)man isn't trying to score it's not sporting to get them out, but Bairstow was taking liberties.
The stumping certainly wasn't the most sporting thing I've ever seen, probably the equivalent in football to Gary Crosby heading the ball out of Andy Dibble's hand before then scoring a tap-in into an empty net (one for the kids).
There are nuances in this and there are really two separate bits of irritation.
One is the casual attitude Bairstow has displayed for much of the series. He does make a clear touch to the ground in the crease which signifies he thinks the ball is dead and the over is done. You can argue Carey doesn't see this as he throws the ball almost immediately. The slow, lazy stroll Bairstow does is the tip of the iceberg in a list of dropped catches and iffy batting displays which highlights an annoying casual feel he's shown throughout.
The other irritation is that the Aussies repeatedly show themselves to walk the thin line of 'the rules', often overstepping into blatant cheating, and disregard any view of 'how the game should be played'. They've got the best 3 batsmen in the world, so could win without any of this.
It's a sport that always prides itself of the tradition of 'how the game should be played'. If you're greatly annoyed by pearl-clutching, then cricket is probably not the game for you
What an absolute load of rubbish, on so many levels. And you are embarrassing yourself fighting on a hill you yourself admit that you do not understand. Technically, by the laws of the game, it is out (although I still agree Bairstow deliberately moved back and marked his ground). But that is not the issue. I, an ‘imperialistic, son of the empire type’ (read, just a normal bloke that happens to be, God forbid, born in England) have played Sunday league cricket and have seen appeals withdrawn for mankading and something similar (but not as blatant) to yesterday. It was wrong, end of discussion. I did smile when you quoted Atherton, obviously having no idea what an arrogant, opinionated bloke he is, and patently not knowing his own shady past with bending the rules. He was a disgrace for what he did (English), as were Warner and Smith with the sandpaper (Australian), as was Mohamed Amir (Pakistani), Hanse Cronje (South African), Larwood (English), Carey/Cummins (Australian) - and countless others - are you seeing the pattern, it doesn’t matter what country they are from, if it’s wrong, it’s wrong.
Cricket is not the same game as football. You don’t get it which is fine, but you are wrong.
When did I say I don't understand cricket? I just haven't watched it that much recently - I used to play for years. I didn't know that about Atherton - fine, although it's clearly nonsense to suggest a former England captain knows nothing about cricket - but I do know how cricket works and I can have my opinion just as you have yours.
If 'spirit' is allowed to take precedence over actual rules, why don't they just close the loophole? We know all too well from football how much aggro subjectivity can cause.
Sorry, where in the laws does it state that the ball is dead once the wicket keeper throws it to slip? What if the wicket keeper has a terrible arm and so immediately tosses it to slip who throws down the stumps? For me, this is the crux of the issue. The "spirit of cricket" is necessarily woven into the dead ball law. "20.1.1.1 - The ball is dead when it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler." And then: "Whether the ball is finally settled or not must be a question for the umpires alone to decide." Are you saying that, conversely, is it "finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper" when he throws it anywhere apart from at the stumps? Jonny stepped back and marked inside the crease as his way of saying that he understood the ball to be dead. It would be utterly ridiculous if after every ball a batsman started feeling it necessary to check that the ball is dead.
I think the on field umpires bottled making the decision (the "finally settled" nonsense), and then the third umpire felt unable to overrule them despite being able to observe the behaviour of the players and umpires immediately preceding the incident. The Aussies then had the opportunity to withdraw the appeal (it felt very much on a par with a Mankad to me) and of course didn't. All leaves a bad taste, but is far from the main reason we lost another test match that we should have won.
If you watch the footage, Bairstow leaves his crease before the umpire has made any attempt to grab the bowlers hat or even call over. It is a split second but Bairstow goes immediately, he is on the move as Carey releases the ball.
As, per the law, and what I have always played too is this:
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
The key here is that the Aussies did not consider the ball to be dead and Bairstow's lazy attitude should be the talking point. I think the Aussies outsmarted us, they noticed he was going for a wander regularly and took advantage of it.
What I would add, is that had Carey run up to the stumps or waited a couple of seconds before doing this, then I would expect the appeal to be withdrawn or them to be accused of unsportsmanlike behaviour. In my view this was perfectly legitimate and the batsman is at fault for aimlessly wandering out of his crease before the ball was obviously dead or over called.
I've seen this attempt happen so many times in League cricket, the difference is most amateur players are fully aware of whats going on and get back into their ground in time and don't get given out.
I have seen the fielding side withdraw the appeal, I've also seen them not withdraw.
Oh goody, we get to dissect the rules of cricket. I raise your 20.1.1.1 with ...
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
20.2 Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
Australia clearly hadn't ceased to regard it as in play, therefore, it was still in play.
Yeah I really don't go for this whole thing of bringing the Empire and the MCC version of fair play into into it. This should be treated as an individual incident. I don't see the Aussies as cheats and I'm quite sure that there's England captains down the years who wouldn't have had any problem with what happened yesterday. England have been guilty of such things themselves many times in the past! That doesn't make it right though! and shouldn't be used as an excuse.
Bairstow may have been naive and a little too quick to leave his ground, but Carey was clearly taking advantage to gain what at best can be described as a sneaky dismissal. At least with a 'mankad' the argument can be made that the batsman is looking to gain an advantage. In this incident, Bairstow wasn't seeking any advantage.
As I say, I don't really see it as cheating, just a rather underhand way of seeking a dismissal and certainly against the spirit of the game, which I appreciate some people scoff at, but it does still mean something to cricket fans worldwide (not just in England!). It does of course open up a minefield though if moving onto batsmen not walking when they've edged it!
It wasn’t a comparison, it was just reflecting and reasserting that it doesn’t matter what nationality a player is that does something wrong, wrong is wrong. In response to that ridiculous quote you added.
And I’m sorry but playing cricket a few years back does not necessarily mean you understand the game. I played rugby for a few years in my school years and broadly understand the rules. But I certainly wouldn’t understand the nuances of the ‘moral code’ of the sport (if there are any!)
I'm assuming that the on field umpire had no issue with interpretation, which is all that mattered.
If it had been clear to him that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket had ceased to regard it as in play, then not out would have been the decision.
So ahead of Thursday's next test, what changes would you make to the test side? It looks like Pope won't be able to play as he dived twice to stop the ball and then needed to sit out to rest & ice his shoulder.
As for bowling attack, I hate to say it but I think it's the end of Anderson for this series. If the trend is to bowl short and aggressively at the batsmen, he isn't that type of bowler and will be hit out of the attack very quickly. Also, he dropped two chances that you'd expect an experienced player like him to take.
My starting XI for the next test would be:
Duckett
Crawley
Bairstow
Root
Brook
Stokes
Foakes
Ahmed (Just seen that he's been released back to County Cricket so it'll prob be Ali)
Comments
I hate what the Aussies did, but I also think that a karma argument could also point at England for selecting Bairstow over, you know, an actual competent wicket keeper in Foakes, and it more or less being the difference between both defeats.
Not great at all from the Aussies. I was a rather in 2 minds about it until I saw the highlights yesterday evening, as I'd been told originally that Bairstow was batting out of his crease and had not gone back into his crease after the ball had gone through to the wicket keeper. That was not the case though, he was in his crease when the ball went into Carey's gloves and he marked his ground before leaving the crease. I don't really see what he's done differently to what many batsmen do? He certainly wasn't seeking to gain an advantage and it was pretty underhand by Carey to run him out (or stump him) when he knew that Bairstow thought it was the end of the over.
I have some sympathy for Cummings, as he was put in a very difficult situation. By apologising, he'd be rather passing the blame onto his teammates. You'd like to think he'd have felt pretty uncomfortable looking back at those replays though! I'd be interested to know what the Aussie media and cricket fans have made of it!
Bairstow was extremely naive, almost idiotic. Batsman up and down the country and all over the world do not leave their ground until they are absolutely certain the ball is dead - both the striker and non striker.
We teach all our colts, that they either need to be 100% certain the ball is dead OR they need to check and ask if it's ok to leave the crease before doing so.
As has been pointed out, he was wandering out of his crease earlier in the over without checking the ball was dead. The keeper has taken the ball and immediately released it. It's within the rules and I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
If you watch any cricket match, at the end of each over or inbetween balls both the striker and non-striker are checking the ball is dead before leaving their crease to go and have a chat or tap down the wicket. Even in this sequence, Stokes is backing up, he then returns to his crease so he is in before then leaving again.
I'd love someone to show footage/do some analysis of the last ball of every over that went to the keeper across these test matches. I'd like to see the data on how often the batsmen left the crease immediately the ball was taken by the keeper. How often the batsmen left the crease before over was called. How often the batsmen visibly appeared to check with the opposition/looked back at the keeper to check he's thrown it to 1st slip etc so it was then dead and ok to leave the crease.
I suspect this will be the only time that any of the batsmen on both sides left in the manner Bairstow did. It really was schoolboy stuff.
It was out.
Whether the Aussie Captain should have withdrawn the appeal is another debate entirely.
@ReturnToSenda of course Atherton didn’t see anything wrong with it, he himself being a ‘convicted’ dirt-in-the-pocket “cheating c**t”
@Commoner as @Wycombe85 says, Bairstow has his routine way of tapping himself in then going for a wander. At the end of that over he does the same thing, glances up, sees the umpire giving the bowler’s hat back (ball in play and yet the umpire isn’t even looking... really?) seriously, by any measure, it’s the end of the over. Just because it’s “technically” out, it doesn’t mean that we as cricket fans can just ignore the moral code that the game is played by. Do as much analysis as you like, for me it’s worse than a ‘Mankad’.
A lot of sore losers around eh
England cricket fans are used to losing, this is something different.
A lot of hypocrisy too - there are countless examples of England players taking wickets against the alleged 'spirit of the game'.
This sums it - and English attitudes towards supposed maltreatment in all sports - up perfectly imo.
It’s bollocks though.
The only roughly equivalent England dismissal I can think of is about 10 years ago when we ran out a New Zealander in an ODI after he collided with a fielder. That was an error of judgement, and the appeal should have been withdrawn.
Imagine anyone involved in English cricket trying to claim the moral high ground after the ICEC report.
I'm a little bit bemused by the overly strong reaction to the run out, though whenever I played cricket (to an exceptionally low standard) I wouldn't wander out of my crease until the bowler was well on the way back to their starting mark. Similarly I was too paranoid to even give the merest hint that I was a candidate for a mankading. Bairstow eagerly doing his Monty Don impression practically the second the ball was past him was just asking for trouble. I appreciate the concept that if the bats(wo)man isn't trying to score it's not sporting to get them out, but Bairstow was taking liberties.
The stumping certainly wasn't the most sporting thing I've ever seen, probably the equivalent in football to Gary Crosby heading the ball out of Andy Dibble's hand before then scoring a tap-in into an empty net (one for the kids).
This is just demonstrably not true. If it was, then it would only be the English that talked about the ‘spirit of cricket’, which is not the case.
There are nuances in this and there are really two separate bits of irritation.
One is the casual attitude Bairstow has displayed for much of the series. He does make a clear touch to the ground in the crease which signifies he thinks the ball is dead and the over is done. You can argue Carey doesn't see this as he throws the ball almost immediately. The slow, lazy stroll Bairstow does is the tip of the iceberg in a list of dropped catches and iffy batting displays which highlights an annoying casual feel he's shown throughout.
The other irritation is that the Aussies repeatedly show themselves to walk the thin line of 'the rules', often overstepping into blatant cheating, and disregard any view of 'how the game should be played'. They've got the best 3 batsmen in the world, so could win without any of this.
It's a sport that always prides itself of the tradition of 'how the game should be played'. If you're greatly annoyed by pearl-clutching, then cricket is probably not the game for you
What an absolute load of rubbish, on so many levels. And you are embarrassing yourself fighting on a hill you yourself admit that you do not understand. Technically, by the laws of the game, it is out (although I still agree Bairstow deliberately moved back and marked his ground). But that is not the issue. I, an ‘imperialistic, son of the empire type’ (read, just a normal bloke that happens to be, God forbid, born in England) have played Sunday league cricket and have seen appeals withdrawn for mankading and something similar (but not as blatant) to yesterday. It was wrong, end of discussion. I did smile when you quoted Atherton, obviously having no idea what an arrogant, opinionated bloke he is, and patently not knowing his own shady past with bending the rules. He was a disgrace for what he did (English), as were Warner and Smith with the sandpaper (Australian), as was Mohamed Amir (Pakistani), Hanse Cronje (South African), Larwood (English), Carey/Cummins (Australian) - and countless others - are you seeing the pattern, it doesn’t matter what country they are from, if it’s wrong, it’s wrong.
Cricket is not the same game as football. You don’t get it which is fine, but you are wrong.
When did I say I don't understand cricket? I just haven't watched it that much recently - I used to play for years. I didn't know that about Atherton - fine, although it's clearly nonsense to suggest a former England captain knows nothing about cricket - but I do know how cricket works and I can have my opinion just as you have yours.
If 'spirit' is allowed to take precedence over actual rules, why don't they just close the loophole? We know all too well from football how much aggro subjectivity can cause.
Mohamed Amir got done for spot-fixing, so that's a bit of a reach as comparisons go...
Sorry, where in the laws does it state that the ball is dead once the wicket keeper throws it to slip? What if the wicket keeper has a terrible arm and so immediately tosses it to slip who throws down the stumps? For me, this is the crux of the issue. The "spirit of cricket" is necessarily woven into the dead ball law. "20.1.1.1 - The ball is dead when it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler." And then: "Whether the ball is finally settled or not must be a question for the umpires alone to decide." Are you saying that, conversely, is it "finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper" when he throws it anywhere apart from at the stumps? Jonny stepped back and marked inside the crease as his way of saying that he understood the ball to be dead. It would be utterly ridiculous if after every ball a batsman started feeling it necessary to check that the ball is dead.
I think the on field umpires bottled making the decision (the "finally settled" nonsense), and then the third umpire felt unable to overrule them despite being able to observe the behaviour of the players and umpires immediately preceding the incident. The Aussies then had the opportunity to withdraw the appeal (it felt very much on a par with a Mankad to me) and of course didn't. All leaves a bad taste, but is far from the main reason we lost another test match that we should have won.
If you watch the footage, Bairstow leaves his crease before the umpire has made any attempt to grab the bowlers hat or even call over. It is a split second but Bairstow goes immediately, he is on the move as Carey releases the ball.
As, per the law, and what I have always played too is this:
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
The key here is that the Aussies did not consider the ball to be dead and Bairstow's lazy attitude should be the talking point. I think the Aussies outsmarted us, they noticed he was going for a wander regularly and took advantage of it.
What I would add, is that had Carey run up to the stumps or waited a couple of seconds before doing this, then I would expect the appeal to be withdrawn or them to be accused of unsportsmanlike behaviour. In my view this was perfectly legitimate and the batsman is at fault for aimlessly wandering out of his crease before the ball was obviously dead or over called.
I've seen this attempt happen so many times in League cricket, the difference is most amateur players are fully aware of whats going on and get back into their ground in time and don't get given out.
I have seen the fielding side withdraw the appeal, I've also seen them not withdraw.
Oh goody, we get to dissect the rules of cricket. I raise your 20.1.1.1 with ...
20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
20.2 Ball finally settled
Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.
Australia clearly hadn't ceased to regard it as in play, therefore, it was still in play.
Yeah I really don't go for this whole thing of bringing the Empire and the MCC version of fair play into into it. This should be treated as an individual incident. I don't see the Aussies as cheats and I'm quite sure that there's England captains down the years who wouldn't have had any problem with what happened yesterday. England have been guilty of such things themselves many times in the past! That doesn't make it right though! and shouldn't be used as an excuse.
Bairstow may have been naive and a little too quick to leave his ground, but Carey was clearly taking advantage to gain what at best can be described as a sneaky dismissal. At least with a 'mankad' the argument can be made that the batsman is looking to gain an advantage. In this incident, Bairstow wasn't seeking any advantage.
As I say, I don't really see it as cheating, just a rather underhand way of seeking a dismissal and certainly against the spirit of the game, which I appreciate some people scoff at, but it does still mean something to cricket fans worldwide (not just in England!). It does of course open up a minefield though if moving onto batsmen not walking when they've edged it!
It wasn’t a comparison, it was just reflecting and reasserting that it doesn’t matter what nationality a player is that does something wrong, wrong is wrong. In response to that ridiculous quote you added.
I would be intrigued to know what the riled up posh boy said to Khawaja. Given what came out last week, the imagine doesn't exactly have to run wild.
And I’m sorry but playing cricket a few years back does not necessarily mean you understand the game. I played rugby for a few years in my school years and broadly understand the rules. But I certainly wouldn’t understand the nuances of the ‘moral code’ of the sport (if there are any!)
I hate to break it to you but I don’t think it is the end of the discussion. I’m not sure your word carries the weight you think it does.
Fair, but do you think "when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire" is clear enough to be an enforceable law?
I'm assuming that the on field umpire had no issue with interpretation, which is all that mattered.
If it had been clear to him that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket had ceased to regard it as in play, then not out would have been the decision.
Do you think all the members are ‘riled up posh boys’? That tells me a great deal about you.
So ahead of Thursday's next test, what changes would you make to the test side? It looks like Pope won't be able to play as he dived twice to stop the ball and then needed to sit out to rest & ice his shoulder.
As for bowling attack, I hate to say it but I think it's the end of Anderson for this series. If the trend is to bowl short and aggressively at the batsmen, he isn't that type of bowler and will be hit out of the attack very quickly. Also, he dropped two chances that you'd expect an experienced player like him to take.
My starting XI for the next test would be: