Ashes Second Test

[claretspice]

It’s really poor from Carey - there’s no two ways about it.

It’s compeltely different to a Mankad because Bairstow is not looking to score at all.

These are sort of gray areas that are we shouldn’t be being totally picky about and the reason that keepers don’t Chuck the ball at the stump every time and instead pass the ball around the field is because it would make the game a lot slower and more annoying…

The fact Bairstow emphasises putting his foot down and re digs his mark only adds to the fact that he’s indicating that he’s in his crease and sort of signalling that the ball is dead - even both umps are looking away.

The Aussies have stained that game imo. If that’s how they want to play then I would hope our lads properly over emphasise the rules and look for any mankads etc possible.

But again - Bairstow simply isn't entitled to unilaterally decide the ball is dead, and it isn't for him to signal. That's not spirit of cricket, it's the laws of the game.

[CoolClaret]

But again - Bairstow simply isn't entitled to unilaterally decide the ball is dead, and it isn't for him to signal. That's not spirit of cricket, it's the laws of the game.

& again there’s little things that you just take as givens otherwise you truly ruin the spectacle of it all.

This has what has happened in the VAR / technology world of modern day Sports, everything hyper analysed to the point past all common sense.

Again, if you want to ruin the game this a great way in making that happen, just get your keeper to shy at the stumps every time in the off chance a batter might take a step out of the crease

It’s really, really poor from the Aussies

[Papabendi]

Can only agree. Clarerspice is indicating a poor understanding of the game here

[Mondsley]

I played the game in local leagues for 35 years and although strictly speaking the ball is still "live" after each delivery, even when it's being thrown around the fielders back to the bowler, nobody attempts to stump or run out a batter who has been in his ground following a delivery and then left it to either "garden" on the pitch or have a talk with his partner. It's obvious the batter is not attempting to run and there's a tacit understanding from everyone that in those circumstances he's free to wander. It's irrelevant (imo) that in Bairstow's case it's actually the last ball of the over, but the umpire hasn't yet called it over. He's doing nothing a chap wouldn't do on any other ball and yet Australia saw a way to get someone out by SUDDENLY resorting to applying a rule which I've never seen used or applied before either playing or watching in 65 years and that tells you everything about this I feel.

I also played League cricket for over 25 years. In a game at Ashton I played the ball to cover. The fielder collected the ball and turned to throw it back to the bowler. On seeing this I left the crease to pat down the wicket at which point the fielder turned and threw the ball back to the wicket keeper who removed the bails and I was given out. The opposition captain immediately called me back and told his players if they ever pulled a stunt like that again they wouldn't be playing for him. Two things: 1. The cover fielder was a grade A pr*ck who was in everyone's League pr*cks 11 on an annual basis. 2. The opposition captain was not Australian.

[CoolClaret]

I also played League cricket for over 25 years. In a game at Ashton I played the ball to cover. The fielder collected the ball and turned to throw it back to the bowler. On seeing this I left the crease to pat down the wicket at which point the fielder turned and threw the ball back to the wicket keeper who removed the bails and I was given out. The opposition captain immediately called me back and told his players if they ever pulled a stunt like that again they wouldn't be playing for him. Two things: 1. The cover fielder was a grade A pr*ck who was in everyone's League pr*cks 11 on an annual basis. 2. The opposition captain was not Australian.

Good on that captain and shame on the umpires there’s

This is exactly the sort of thing I’m getting at re: ruining the game.

Take it to its logical conclusion and it’s the keeper shying at the stumps every time or the batsmen waiting till the bowler gets the ball in his hands walking with his back to his mark and attempting a cheeky single.

It’s just crap and not how cricket should be played whatsoever

[claretspice]

Can only agree. Clarerspice is indicating a poor understanding of the game here

Same understanding as Vaughan, Atherton, Hussain, Morgan, Strauss and others, so I'm in decent company in not understanding the game. if you're the batsman, stay your side of the line, or otherwise ensure that the keeper has made to throw the ball round the field before you move. It doesn't slow the game down at all, and as Vaughan said is what 99% of batters do. It's certainly what I always did.

The example given of a cover fielder shaping to throw back to the bowler and then going to the wicket keeper - well that's materially different because the batter has taken his cue from the fielder's conduct and so it's clearly wrong to take advantage of that.

Anyway - it's clearly emotional stuff and no minds are being changed, so best to leave it!

[Bordeauxclaret]

They won’t admit it but I believe that if he had his time again Cummings would withdraw the claim and give Bairstow a warning.

[timshorts]

All these test matches are essentially friendlies as there is no real test league.

I'd rather just say thank you, but no. We'd rather play friendlies against someone else that is a bit more sporting in 2025. They've had the benefit of the doubt after the sandpaper incident, but are basically same old aussies, with two of the sandpaper convicts still in the team.

[TheFamilyCat]

I may be slightly biased here as I have always thought that Bairstow is an arrogant **** but for me, Spice's view is spot on. It's not for JB to decide when the ball is dead and strutting off down the wicket without checking behind smacks of arrogance.

[Papabendi]

Clarespic is still managing to confuse two very different issues

[Grimsdale]

The only time I've seen something similar to the Bairstow incident was several years ago when Murali was given run out against New Zealand after he left his crease to congratulate Sangakarra who had just reached his century and the NZ wicketkeeper whipped the bails off to dismiss him.

The keeper was, of course, Brendan McCullum who has since gone of to say he regretted doing it as, whilst it was technically within the laws of the game, it certainly wasn't in the spirit. I somehow doubt we will get a similar apology from the Aussies.

[FCBurnley]

From what I can research the ball is dead once the umpire considers the play to be over as shown by the actions of all players. Umpire was handing the bowler his sweater when Bairstow was “stumped” That strongly suggests to me that he thought the play was dead
Also I have been unable to clarify whether or not the wk is classed as a fielder within the the max 2 fielders behind square leg rule. Carey was clearly set up on the leg side plus 2 fielders when Duckett was out. If anybody has the rule I would like to see it

[quoonbeatz]

Missed all this today but from what I've seen, Bairstow got caught out by the same thing he tried to do earlier in this match except the guy he tried to get didn't leave the crease and Bairstow's throw missed.

How about everyone stops trying to cat h each other out and just plays to the "spirit of the game", them we don't get a this crying when one side gets an advantage from it?

Anyway, the most important cricket news today is the names of the MCC toffs who got banned:

20230702_231012.jpg (60.85 KiB) Viewed 1337 times

Looking forward to day 1 this week, should be a decent atmosphere now.

[jdrobbo]

From what I can research the ball is dead once the umpire considers the play to be over as shown by the actions of all players. Umpire was handing the bowler his sweater when Bairstow was “stumped” That strongly suggests to me that he thought the play was dead
Also I have been unable to clarify whether or not the wk is classed as a fielder within the the max 2 fielders behind square leg rule. Carey was clearly set up on the leg side plus 2 fielders when Duckett was out. If anybody has the rule I would like to see it

This is the bit that did it for me. Umpires handing sweaters and hats and starting to make their movement to their alternate ‘over’ position.

[nil_desperandum]

This is the bit that did it for me. Umpires handing sweaters and hats and starting to make their movement to their alternate ‘over’ position.

.
The umpires were definitely in the wrong here, since as soon as the ball reached Carey he immediately threw it at the stumps, thus keeping the ball alive.
There's no doubt that the ball was "alive" at the moment Carey threw the ball, so the umpires should not have moved at all.
Carey did nothing wrong, Bairstow did, the umpires did and I believe Cummins did. It would have been better for the game had he recalled Bairstow in all the circumstances.

[Taffy on the wing]

Poor sportsmanship .....end of!......Chickenshit way to get a wicket.

Hopefully this fires England up & we win the next three tests.....(he dreams).

[Gunfury]

I seem to remember something like this happened quite a few years ago against India when Ian Bell started walking off thinking it was the last ball before lunch and got stumped or run out.There was still one ball left in the over however India decided it was in the spirit of the game to give him not out,that’s sportsmanship to me.However it’s Australia we are talking about here and they just went along with the rules of the game as it was in their best interest,don’t think we will get any favours off them and don’t forget,this is a team that has two convicted cheats playing for them so they aren’t about to change anytime soon

[TheFamilyCat]

This is the bit that did it for me. Umpires handing sweaters and hats and starting to make their movement to their alternate ‘over’ position.

The bowler was at the end of his follow through, nothing was "handed", the umpire was unpegging the hat from his pocket but nothing more.

Where was the square leg umpire though? I have seen the incident from square on the offside and the umpire wasn't in the background. Was he standing on the offside, as umpires occasionally do?

[nil_desperandum]

I seem to remember something like this happened quite a few years ago against India when Ian Bell started walking off thinking it was the last ball before lunch and got stumped or run out.There was still one ball left in the over however India decided it was in the spirit of the game to give him not out,that’s sportsmanship to me.However it’s Australia we are talking about here and they just went along with the rules of the game as it was in their best interest,don’t think we will get any favours off them and don’t forget,this is a team that has two convicted cheats playing for them so they aren’t about to change anytime soon

I think - as I recall - that this was slightly different, since the players went off for tea, and following deliberations over the tea break the Indian Captain (Dhoni) recalled Bell. (Bell admitted to being entirely to blame by the way).
Cummins didn't have the luxury of a tea break to reflect on this, and (IMO) he got it wrong.

[TheFamilyCat]

I seem to remember something like this happened quite a few years ago against India when Ian Bell started walking off thinking it was the last ball before lunch and got stumped or run out.There was still one ball left in the over however India decided it was in the spirit of the game to give him not out,that’s sportsmanship to me.However it’s Australia we are talking about here and they just went along with the rules of the game as it was in their best interest,don’t think we will get any favours off them and don’t forget,this is a team that has two convicted cheats playing for them so they aren’t about to change anytime soon

From memory, Bell thought he had hit a four and walked off as it was the last ball before tea but it was stopped just inside the rope and thrown in, running Bell out. The opposition (I can't remember if it was India, but will take your word for it) decided during the interval to reprieve Bell.

[nil_desperandum]

From memory, Bell thought he had hit a four and walked off as it was the last ball before tea but it was stopped just inside the rope and thrown in, running Bell out. The opposition (I can't remember if it was India, but will take your word for it) decided during the interval to reprieve Bell.

That's how I recall it. (Definitely India, Kumar and Dhoni)

[Gunfury]

From memory, Bell thought he had hit a four and walked off as it was the last ball before tea but it was stopped just inside the rope and thrown in, running Bell out. The opposition (I can't remember if it was India, but will take your word for it) decided during the interval to reprieve Bell.

I thought he had just miscounted the number of balls in the over thinking it was the last ball and walked off…I could be wrong though and that could have been another incident

[nil_desperandum]

I thought he had just miscounted the number of balls in the over thinking it was the last ball and walked off…I could be wrong though and that could have been another incident

Here you go. (Thought I'd check it out)
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... -out-dhoni

[Enola Gay]

I seem to remember something like this happened quite a few years ago against India when Ian Bell started walking off thinking it was the last ball before lunch and got stumped or run out.There was still one ball left in the over however India decided it was in the spirit of the game to give him not out,that’s sportsmanship to me.However it’s Australia we are talking about here and they just went along with the rules of the game as it was in their best interest,don’t think we will get any favours off them and don’t forget,this is a team that has two convicted cheats playing for them so they aren’t about to change anytime soon

Not quite. Bell was given out, India appealed, it was upheld and he was given out. Cue Strauss and Flower knocking on India’s dressing room door and chelping away in the tea interval and Dhoni gave up the appeal.

England’s relationship with the ‘spirit of the game’ has been as elastic as everyone else’s over the years. What goes around comes around.

[FCBurnley]

Interesting that so far nobody has been able to find the 3 behind square on the leg side rule

[nil_desperandum]

Interesting that so far nobody has been able to find the 3 behind square on the leg side rule

It was answered a couple of pages ago. Nothing to see here.

28.4 Limitation of on side fielders
At the instant of the bowler’s delivery there shall not be more than two fielders, other than the wicket-keeper, behind the popping crease on the on side.

[Gunfury]

Not quite. Bell was given out, India appealed, it was upheld and he was given out. Cue Strauss and Flower knocking on India’s dressing room door and chelping away in the tea interval and Dhoni gave up the appeal.

England’s relationship with the ‘spirit of the game’ has been as elastic as everyone else’s over the years. What goes around comes around.

I was right about Ian Bell,India and the convicted cheats at least

[FCBurnley]

Missed all this today but from what I've seen, Bairstow got caught out by the same thing he tried to do earlier in this match except the guy he tried to get didn't leave the crease and Bairstow's throw missed.

How about everyone stops trying to cat h each other out and just plays to the "spirit of the game", them we don't get a this crying when one side gets an advantage from it?

Anyway, the most important cricket news today is the names of the MCC toffs who got banned:

20230702_231012.jpg

Looking forward to day 1 this week, should be a decent atmosphere now.

So Aussie players can sledge all they want but toffs get booted out. Wow

[TheFamilyCat]

So Aussie players can sledge all they want but toffs get booted out. Wow

When they heard the toffs getting cross they probably had flashbacks to Douglas Jardine.

[JarrowClaret]

Missed all this today but from what I've seen, Bairstow got caught out by the same thing he tried to do earlier in this match except the guy he tried to get didn't leave the crease and Bairstow's throw missed.

How about everyone stops trying to cat h each other out and just plays to the "spirit of the game", them we don't get a this crying when one side gets an advantage from it?

Anyway, the most important cricket news today is the names of the MCC toffs who got banned:

20230702_231012.jpg

Looking forward to day 1 this week, should be a decent atmosphere now.

Wasn’t the same though he tried to stump a batter who was out of his crease after playing a shot as his guard was outside the crease perfectly legitimate and normal. When batting Bairstow was in the crease then quite stupidly assumed that the ball was dead so left the crease and we know the rest. Once appealed for it was 100% out no questions not that anyone is saying it isn’t out.

Lots of comparisons are being presented none are truly the same or remotely close.

[Andreshotboots]

Out all day long. No difference than when the keeper throws the ball back at the stumps in a 50 over game.

Bairstow as a keeper should have known better .Carey 1, Bairstow 0...simple..

[bobinho]

So this is totally reliant on when the umpire decides to call “over”. Is there a time limit? Square leg umpire is looking down and started walking to the crease. JB marks his crease then sets off for a chat.
Some of the media reports saying Carey threw the ball AFTER Bairstow walks. That’s just not so from the replays I have seen. He catches and throws whilst JB is still at the crease. Why does he do that?
Why can’t the 3rd umpire call the captain and explain what he’s seen and what he should do about it?
No clear ruling for this I fancy, but then the “spirit of the game” has usually been followed and in the rare occurrences it hasn’t, fair play and decency has led us to the right call. This is just really bad form from the Aussies….undoubtedly they will reel out the old “whinging poms” argument. Without this “spirit of the game” we end up with cheating like the level we see in the PL.

One of the England players picked up on mic saying to Carey “that’s all you’ll be remembered for” and he’s bang on.

To me, this will always be wrong, and had we done it I’d be very disappointed in JB and Stokes.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Out all day long. No difference than when the keeper throws the ball back at the stumps in a 50 over game.

Bairstow as a keeper should have known better .Carey 1, Bairstow 0...simple..

There is a massive difference how can you not see it?

They do that in 50 over cricket to prevent players from stealing a quick run.

There was absolutely no intention to get a run. Everyone including the Aussie outfielders thought it was end of the over.

This was poor sportsmanship to the extreme and only further damages the Aussies reputations

[MrTopTier]

Bairstow tried the same thing two days ago on Labuschange and guess what, he missed. No one is calling that out on here.

We are English, we never cheat, we play within the ‘spirit of the game’. We have moral fortitude.
What a load of nonsense.

2-0 to the Aussies, who have outplayed and outthought us. We need another Headingley miracle.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Bairstow tried the same thing two days ago on Labuschange and guess what, he missed. No one is calling that out on here.

We are English, we never cheat, we play within the ‘spirit of the game’. We have moral fortitude.
What a load of nonsense.

2-0 to the Aussies, who have outplayed and outthought us. We need another Headingley miracle.

That would have been wrong as well.

It’s only cheating if you don’t bring the batsmen back. MS Dhoni did it 2011 and got crazy respect for honouring sportsmanship.

Whatever excuse you make that was **** poor from the Aussies

[MrTopTier]

It’s not cheating though is it, it is within the laws of the game.

No rules were broken, it was out.

Not a nice way to be dismissed, admittedly.

So pleased we have the high moral ground, think I would prefer to be 2-0 up though.

[Newcastleclaret93]

It’s not cheating though is it, it is within the laws of the game.

No rules were broken, it was out.

Not a nice way to be dismissed, admittedly.

So pleased we have the high moral ground, think I would prefer to be 2-0 up though.

Is as close to cheating as you can get.

[RVclaret]

https://twitter.com/cricketcomau/status ... 77856?s=46

This is quite interesting isn’t it. Most of the Aussie players including Carey hate the mankad apparently. Yet on this occasion were more than happy to take a wicket against a guy not actually looking to take any advantage whatsoever (unlike mankad).

[claretonthecoast1882]

Is as close to cheating as you can get.

It's nowhere near cheating.

Is it a great look ? No

Do we have players who would do exactly the same ? Yes

It's dumb from Bairstow but nothing like cheating

[CoolClaret]

Marnus was batting out of his crease though which changes it entirely.

Bairstow has stayed in his crease and scuffed his boot back over his mark.

All this encourages is keepers shying at the wicket all the time and ruins the spectacle.

I think it’s pretty clear to see who actually plays the sport or has done when things like this happens vs those that haven’t.

There’s a gray area everywhere and if we’re trying to be super objective over when a dead ball is like this well you’ll never get a unanimous answer - it’s as bad as people arguing if it’s onside/offside when someone’s hand is slightly beyond the last man

[claretonthecoast1882]

The one good thing that came out of yesterday was more people finally getting to realise how much of an arsehole Strauss can be

[quoonbeatz]

Wasn’t the same though he tried to stump a batter who was out of his crease after playing a shot as his guard was outside the crease perfectly legitimate and normal. When batting Bairstow was in the crease then quite stupidly assumed that the ball was dead so left the crease and we know the rest. Once appealed for it was 100% out no questions not that anyone is saying it isn’t out.

Lots of comparisons are being presented none are truly the same or remotely close.

You could watch both videos side by side and they're identical apart from Bairstow leaving his crease. Whichever way you look at it, it's Bairstow's fault.

I think it's really poor sportsmanship but I don't think England would have done anything differently if the roles were reversed because, as long as the rules allow, all teams will try to exploit any advantage. It's a rubbish thing to do but it's likely put the Aussies well on the way to winning the ashes so its worth it to them. The obvious answer is to change the rules so the ball is dead as soon as the keeper has it.

[quoonbeatz]

So Aussie players can sledge all they want but toffs get booted out. Wow

Yeah well MCC members having a go at a guy named Usman isn't a great look after last week's report.

[CoolClaret]

Yeah well MCC members having a go at a guy named Usman isn't a great look after last week's report.

Not as bad a look as cuck Warner & Khawaja squaring up to a bunch of geriatrics

[kentonclaret]

Throughout the whole history of cricket, from W G Grace up until the present day, players have pushed the laws and “spirit of the game” to their absolute limits to see what they could get away with and what advantage they could gain. Smearing the ball with saliva whilst sucking mints and getting sun cream on the ball to shine one side, were all seen as “legitimate” tactics if not detected by the umpires. The introduction of so many cameras at each Test Match, with even overhead cameras, now make ball tampering almost impossible. However, players still push the boundaries by regularly approaching umpires during each innings in an attempt to get the ball changed if it is not swinging or seaming. Throughout history this so called “spirit of the game” has been sorely tested.

[RVclaret]

You could watch both videos side by side and they're identical apart from Bairstow leaving his crease. Whichever way you look at it, it's Bairstow's fault.

I think it's really poor sportsmanship but I don't think England would have done anything differently if the roles were reversed because, as long as the rules allow, all teams will try to exploit any advantage. It's a rubbish thing to do but it's likely put the Aussies well on the way to winning the ashes so its worth it to them. The obvious answer is to change the rules so the ball is dead as soon as the keeper has it.

They aren’t identical at all. As Jarrow said when batters stand well outside their crease to try and combat swing bowling it’s very normal for the keeper to try and remind him of this like Bairstow did. It’s a case of building pressure and reminding the batter he isn’t 100% comfortable. That is not what happened with the Bairstow wicket, everyone assumed it was over (including umpires who were ready to walk in) and Bairstow acted like it was - just a reminder he wasn’t stood outside his crease at all and in fact went back into his crease and made a mark. Again laws of cricket say it’s out so no problem there but comparing the two isn’t apples for apples I’m afraid.

[claretabroad]

There are rules/laws and there is the spirit of the game. The Aussies have not broken a rule but they have broken the spirit. This is a team who in the past have broken the rules so I'm not surprised that they have no problem with what they have done. I do find it interesting that they are trying to defend themselves by leaning into the "no rules were broken" argument. They know it was wrong but it has helped them likely retain the ashes. No-one in Australia will care.

Bairstow was naive to expect a team of known cheaters to uphold the gentlemanly side of the sport.

The Aussies now have to live with the choice of their actions but considering they are already labelled cheaters, I suspect they aren't that bothered.

[quoonbeatz]

They aren’t identical at all. As Jarrow said when batters stand well outside their crease to try and combat swing bowling it’s very normal for the keeper to try and remind him of this like Bairstow did. It’s a case of building pressure and reminding the batter he isn’t 100% comfortable. That is not what happened with the Bairstow wicket, everyone assumed it was over (including umpires who were ready to walk in) and Bairstow acted like it was - just a reminder he wasn’t stood outside his crease at all and in fact went back into his crease and made a mark. Again laws of cricket say it’s out so no problem there but comparing the two isn’t apples for apples I’m afraid.

Watch them. In both incidents the ball goes through to the keeper and they both lob it back straight away. They're both trying to do the same thing, in fact Carey's is even less of a proper attempt at getting him out, but Bairstow wanders and does it for him.

In the fabled spirit of the game, they shouldn't have appealed and they should have called him back but it's high stakes sport so realistically they aren't going to and neither would England.

[JohnMcGreal]

Bairstow has proven to be a liability in both tests. I'm not really sure why he's in the team.

[arise_sir_charge]

Watch them. In both incidents the ball goes through to the keeper and they both lob it back straight away. They're both trying to do the same thing, in fact Carey's is even less of a proper attempt at getting him out, but Bairstow wanders and does it for him.

In the fabled spirit of the game, they shouldn't have appealed and they should have called him back but it's high stakes sport so realistically they aren't going to and neither would England.

You’re ignoring the fact that Labuachagne was batting outside of his crease, thus seeking to gain an advantage by nullifying the movement etc. it’s entirely legitimate to attempt the stumping in those circumstances. There is a jeopardy in the decision to bat outside the crease.

Bairstow wasn’t doing anything of the sort and had marked his mark again, within the crease before walking out. They are fundamentally different scenarios and as I say, in all my years I’ve never seen a similar incident. The one people have found, involving Shai Hope resulted in a “not out” verdict.