Ashes Second Test

[Dark Cloud]

It's definitely "out" and clearly so and the umpires had no choice but to give it. I did wonder whether it was referred upstairs because the square leg umpire wasn't looking as he too had basically switched off believing it was"over" which tbh tells you something OR because he wanted to give Cummings some thinking time to possibly withdraw the appeal before it was too late. Ultimately it's a rather underhand way to get a wicket and personally I wouldn't want to get someone out that way and I'd prefer to "get them right" using more conventional and recognised skills, but maybe that's just me.
People who've played the game know the difference between a genuine stumping and what happened yesterday and they also know almost instinctively when a batter believes the ball is dead and is leaving his ground thinking he is safe and getting somebody out in that situation isn't the done thing.

[RVclaret]

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 deliberately ignoring the nuances of each incident here. I get what you are saying but cricket has quite specific nuances and those that have played it all their life understand the ins and outs of them. As Aggers said on the BBC the ‘right’ thing to do is warn Bairstow.

You are obviously siding with the ‘win at all costs’ approach which is fine but just remember that this is an approach the Australian team had supposedly tamed down from after their sandpaper cheating scandal.

[quoonbeatz]

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.

You're ignoring the fact that, like it or not, both were legitimate attempts at a stumping. In the latter, it was more of just a chuck back that happened to hit the stumps but still legit. I don't think Carey expected Bairstow to wander but he did.

[kentonclaret]

“The ball is deemed to be dead when it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket keeper or bowler.”

Play back the replay and the ball is never settled in the hands of the wicket keeper Carey, who underarms the ball back towards the stumps in one movement whilst Bairstow is still in his ground.

The claim that the umpire at the opposite end is preparing to “hand over” the cap to the bowler is not entirely accurate either. Seen to be putting his hand in his pocket to retrieve the cap and “handing it over” are entirely different.

If the throw had gone to the boundary England would have been expecting the additional 4 runs as over throws.

[quoonbeatz]

You’re deliberately ignoring the nuances of each incident here. I get what you are saying but cricket has quite specific nuances and those that have played it all their life understand the ins and outs of them. As Aggers said on the BBC the ‘right’ thing to do is warn Bairstow.

You are obviously siding with the ‘win at all costs’ approach which is fine but just remember that this is an approach the Australian team had supposedly tamed down from after their sandpaper cheating scandal.

I'm clearly not siding with the win at all costs approach, you only need to read my posts to see that. I've stated exactly what I think should have happened and it's the opposite of what did actually happen.

[nil_desperandum]

The obvious answer is to change the rules so the ball is dead as soon as the keeper has it.

But like most solutions it creates another problem. It would mean that you can't attempt a run to the wicketkeeper. This would give the bowling side a great advantage in one day cricket.
Edit: Come to think of it, it would also eliminate stumpings from the game.

[quoonbeatz]

But like most solutions it creates another problem. It would mean that you can't attempt a run to the wicketkeeper. This would give the bowling side a great advantage in one day cricket.
Edit: Come to think of it, it would also eliminate stumpings from the game.

In which case we stick with what we've got, wait for the umpire to call over and stay switched on.

[CoolClaret]

You're ignoring the fact that, like it or not, both were legitimate attempts at a stumping. In the latter, it was more of just a chuck back that happened to hit the stumps but still legit. I don't think Carey expected Bairstow to wander but he did.

He said that he’d noticed him wonder a bit so did it in anticipation which imo makes it even worse.

I find it baffling people can’t see how bad this is and how much is blurs the lines of what is considered normal cricketing etiquette.

It’s completely different than getting a new ball etc, this is something you just take for granted and trying to seek an edge to get a pivotal wicket like this is properly wrong.

Again what do you want keepers to do now? Just throw the ball at the stumps no matter what? Completely trash the speed/flow of the game and lose some of the spirit of it - bowlers doing a half arsed action not fully committing to their action to mankad.

It’s proper toss and COMPLETELY different to Bairstow shying at the stumps when Labuschagne is batting out of his crease

[fatboy47]

You’re deliberately ignoring the nuances of each incident here. I get what you are saying but cricket has quite specific nuances and those that have played it all their life understand the ins and outs of them. As Aggers said on the BBC the ‘right’ thing to do is warn Bairstow.

You are obviously siding with the ‘win at all costs’ approach which is fine but just remember that this is an approach the Australian team had supposedly tamed down from after their sandpaper cheating scandal.

Definitive post.
I'm guessing RV has actually played cricket. Most of the other stuff on her is just a sequence of red herrings.
If you think what the Aussies did is OK then you've never quite grasped that cricket isn't football.

[quoonbeatz]

He said that he’d noticed him wonder a bit so did it in anticipation which imo makes it even worse.

I find it baffling people can’t see how bad this is and how much is blurs the lines of what is considered normal cricketing etiquette.

It’s completely different than getting a new ball etc, this is something you just take for granted and trying to seek an edge to get a pivotal wicket like this is properly wrong.

Again what do you want keepers to do now? Just throw the ball at the stumps no matter what? Completely trash the speed/flow of the game and lose some of the spirit of it - bowlers doing a half arsed action not fully committing to their action to mankad.

It’s proper toss and COMPLETELY different to Bairstow shying at the stumps when Labuschagne is batting out of his crease

Again, you're not reading my posts if that's what you think, so we'll leave it. I've stated what I think should have happened and it isn't what did happen.

[nil_desperandum]

In which case we stick with what we've got, wait for the umpire to call over and stay switched on.

IMO the last ball of the over is a red herring. It was just a coincidence. The ball wouldn't have been dead after any ball of the over because in this incident Carey kept it alive. Added to that Bairstow was walking out of his crease earlier in the over, so I don't think that Bairstow was mindful that it was "over".

[quoonbeatz]

Definitive post.
I'm guessing RV has actually played cricket. Most of the other stuff on her is just a sequence of red herrings.
If you think what the Aussies did is OK then you've never quite grasped that cricket isn't football.

I don't think anyone thinks what the aussies did was OK, most people including me seem to think quite the opposite.

[CoolClaret]

Definitive post.
I'm guessing RV has actually played cricket. Most of the other stuff on her is just a sequence of red herrings.
If you think what the Aussies did is OK then you've never quite grasped that cricket isn't football.

It’s pretty clear to see who has and who hasn’t played on reading.

Cricket is not football, it’s completely different.

Football is an active game for the entirety of the match (bar half time).

Cricket only has a segment where the game is ‘live’ and there isn’t an objective way to measure when the game is considered ‘live’ / ‘dead’

For example - if someone comes into your sight screen or whatever you can walk away as a batter and the bowler is supposed to cancel his action - some guys have left this insanely late, who’s to say the bowler doesn’t continue and aim at the batter - if a batter plays a shot it’s considered live…. Or a batter can just keep pulling away to **** a bowler off.

It doesn’t happen because these are certain grey areas that are just accepted as non starters with cricketing etiquette, we can’t begin to try and view this through the lens of a footy offside decision for example

[Big Vinny K]

Absolutely shocking from the convicts.
There’s no skill in what they did whatsoever and in my book it’s 100% cheating.
What do you expect though when you have the likes of Smith and Warner in their ranks ?
They got exactly what they deserved walking through the Long Room. The members gave Smith due respect and applause when he scored his ton and dogs abuse to the team when they cheated. For the Aussies to be crying about that is just deflecting from the fact that they know themselves they cheated.

Embarrassing

[Bordeauxclaret]

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

Probably his 6 hundreds in his previous 13 Tests he’s batted in while averaging 59.

[bobinho]

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

He’s there for his batting ability I assume, which to be fair is quite good. I’d sooner it was for ONLY that, as I can’t imagine it’s for his wk abilities.

[arise_sir_charge]

“The ball is deemed to be dead when it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket keeper or bowler.”

Play back the replay and the ball is never settled in the hands of the wicket keeper Carey, who underarms the ball back towards the stumps in one movement whilst Bairstow is still in his ground.

The claim that the umpire at the opposite end is preparing to “hand over” the cap to the bowler is not entirely accurate either. Seen to be putting his hand in his pocket to retrieve the cap and “handing it over” are entirely different.

If the throw had gone to the boundary England would have been expecting the additional 4 runs as over throws.

I guarantee had the ball gone to the boundary it would have been deemed dead. In that instance the third umpire wouldn’t have got involved and the on field umpires who have to decree that neither were watching, assuming it to be over.

[claretonthecoast1882]

It’s pretty clear to see who has and who hasn’t played on reading.

Cricket is not football, it’s completely different.

What level did you play ?

Interested to know considering people who have played test cricket seem to think it is Bairstow in the wrong not Carey or Australia

[quoonbeatz]

No idea what football has to do with this.

[CoolClaret]

No idea what football has to do with this.

I referred to football because well, this is a footy message board firstly and to highlight that cricket is an entirely different game - so many more more nuances in defining when periods are ‘active’ or not and it’s daft to look at these gray areas trying to be so objective about it.

[dsr]

I guarantee had the ball gone to the boundary it would have been deemed dead. In that instance the third umpire wouldn’t have got involved and the on field umpires who have to decree that neither were watching, assuming it to be over.

Stumpings always go to the third umpire unless they're impossibly obvious. And even if the umpire wasn't expecting anything to happen and let his attention wander, it still doesn't mean the ball was dead. If the stumper had tossed it to the slip who had thrown the wicket down, then the ball would have presumably been dead, but not when the stumper immediately attempts a stumping - however ill-advised or against the spirit of the game.

[dsr]

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.

The even more obvious answer is to wait in your crease until the ball is dead, which will take about half a second, rather than rely on the Australian's gentlemanly spirit.

[arise_sir_charge]

Stumpings always go to the third umpire unless they're impossibly obvious. And even if the umpire wasn't expecting anything to happen and let his attention wander, it still doesn't mean the ball was dead. If the stumper had tossed it to the slip who had thrown the wicket down, then the ball would have presumably been dead, but not when the stumper immediately attempts a stumping - however ill-advised or against the spirit of the game.

I know that.

I was referring to the suggestion we’d have got 4 over throws. We wouldn’t.

[nil_desperandum]

I know that.

I was referring to the suggestion we’d have got 4 over throws. We wouldn’t.

If he's thrown the ball with sufficient force that it actually went for 4, then I'm pretty sure we would, since you couldn't possibly argue that the ball was dead. Surely?

[arise_sir_charge]

If he's thrown the ball with sufficient force that it actually went for 4, then I'm pretty sure we would, since you couldn't possibly argue that the ball was dead. Surely?

I don’t think so because nobody is watching.

It’s a moot point anyway as the ball was never going to go for 4 was it.

Also above someone asks what level people have played at because some test players say it’s fair, there are plenty more saying differently. Sky seem to be ones going along with it. Other outlets less so.

[RVclaret]

The even more obvious answer is to wait in your crease until the ball is dead, which will take about half a second, rather than rely on the Australian's gentlemanly spirit.

While you are right, it’s just assumed in cricket (due to the etiquette) that you won’t have the keeper trying to get you out in that fashion. When the bowl hits the keepers gloves and you’ve gone back to make your mark, head down and not looking to score a run, you honestly don’t think you’ll have the keeper trying to hit the stumps in any scenario. It’s never crossed my mind.

[nil_desperandum]

I don’t think so because nobody is watching.

It’s a moot point anyway as the ball was never going to go for 4 was it.

Clearly that ball wasn't going for 4, but I thought you were making a general point about a wk attempting a stumping or run out. IMO if the ball is immediately thrown by the wk with sufficient force that it reaches the boundary then I don't see how it could be considered dead.

[arise_sir_charge]

Clearly that ball wasn't going for 4, but I thought you were making a general point about a wk attempting a stumping or run out. IMO if the ball is immediately thrown by the wk with sufficient force that it reaches the boundary then I don't see how it could be considered dead.

No, I was replying to someone who said if that ball had gone for 4 England would have claimed/been given the runs. In the scenario we saw yesterday I don’t think we would as the on field umpires weren’t watching and the third umpire wouldn’t get involved in that. The ball would have been deemed to be dead.

[nil_desperandum]

No, I was replying to someone who said if that ball had gone for 4 England would have claimed/been given the runs. In the scenario we saw yesterday I don’t think we would as the on field umpires weren’t watching and the third umpire wouldn’t get involved in that. The ball would have been deemed to be dead.

Ok thanks for clarifying.If anyone thought that that ball could have gone all the way to the boundary then they are clearly mistaken, so entirely irrelevant.

[claretspice]

Regarding the umpires - they arbitrate when the ball is dead. If they'd called over, or considered the ball dead and were about to call over, they'd disallow the appeal for that reason alone. Clearly, they didn't think the ball was dead.

The end if the over thing is also a red herring (although I accept it complicates things slightly) because Australia's complaint was Bairstow was repeatedly leaving his ground and had done it for several balls during the over. So this suggestion he thought it was over and was wandering up for the changeover chat is a bit specious.

[JarrowClaret]

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, 1 is the batsman coming back in his crease after being outside. the other is the batsman leaving the crease at what he assumed was the end of the over although agreed it is Bairstows fault and definitely out.

[Claretnick]

I think it is a golden rule in life to never assume anything. Bairstow should have waited for the umpires to start walking before leaving the crease. Hopefully a lesson learned.
Even though we are 2 down England are not that far behind the Aussies, small margins again.
Weather forecast doesn't look brilliant for the Test this week

[JarrowClaret]

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.

Just to add it wasn’t that long ago where Mathew Wade pushed Mark Wood out of the way when Wood was going to run him out in a T20 game. England didn’t appeal I do think a bit of self preservation was part of the decision making process Butler admitted as much and it was a different Captain but positions reversed 100% the Aussies would have appealed for it.

[quoonbeatz]

They aren’t identical at all, 1 is the batsman coming back in his crease after being outside. the other is the batsman leaving the crease at what he assumed was the end of the over although agreed it is Bairstows fault and definitely out.

You're right, they aren't identical, there are 2 differences. I forgot that Bairstow's throw missed. Apart from that, they are identical because it doesn't matter what the batsman does when it's bowled, it's all about what happens after :
Ball goes through to the keeper
Keeper catches and throws back in the same action
Neither batsman is going for a run but only one of them goes for a walk and pays the price

I think we all agree it's not right, it's not sporting, it's not cricket etc but this is the top level and Bairstow should expect the unexpected. There are some clever players at the top and this was clever but very dickish play from the aussies.

[RVclaret]

You're right, they aren't identical, there are 2 differences. I forgot that Bairstow's throw missed. Apart from that, they are identical because it doesn't matter what the batsman does when it's bowled, it's all about what happens after :
Ball goes through to the keeper
Keeper catches and throws back in the same action
Neither batsman is going for a run but only one of them goes for a walk and pays the price

I think we all agree it's not right, it's not sporting, it's not cricket etc but this is the top level and Bairstow should expect the unexpected. There are some clever players at the top and this was clever but very dickish play from the aussies.

You’re still missing the point. One batsman is looking to gain an advantage by batting out of the crease and one is not at all. The former sees keepers do what Bairstow did quite frequently to keep the batter ‘honest’, the latter myself and many others commenting here have never seen before. How can you not see the difference?

[quoonbeatz]

You’re still missing the point. One batsman is looking to gain an advantage by batting out of the crease and one is not at all. The former sees keepers do what Bairstow did quite frequently to keep the batter ‘honest’, the latter myself and many others commenting here have never seen before. How can you not see the difference?

I do see the difference but you're missing the point that it's irrelevant.

[Bigbopper]

Bairstow was guilty of naivety in thinking Australia would not sink to any depths to win the match. Yesterday will rank up there with claiming grounded catches, underarm bowling and sandpapering the ball. The Aussies then have the brass neck to complain because some members in the long room have said some hurty words to them. Cummins has even advocated members should lose their membership.

[Andreshotboots]

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

They won't be worrying about that when they're holding the Urn aloft in a few weeks.

Lots of stumpings occur when the batsman isn't attempting a run, or to gain an advantage.

Not great sportmaship...perhaps..
Another dopey dismissal from an England batsman.... absolutely.

When I played everytime I either went to have a chat at the end of the over, or went down the pitch to do some gardening, I either made eye contact with the keeper to get the nod, or made sure the ball was back going around the field.

[Dark Cloud]

"Absolutely shocking from the convicts"!! I'm laughing out loud. Love that!! (And definitely agree!)

[JarrowClaret]

You're right, they aren't identical, there are 2 differences. I forgot that Bairstow's throw missed. Apart from that, they are identical because it doesn't matter what the batsman does when it's bowled, it's all about what happens after :
Ball goes through to the keeper
Keeper catches and throws back in the same action
Neither batsman is going for a run but only one of them goes for a walk and pays the price

I think we all agree it's not right, it's not sporting, it's not cricket etc but this is the top level and Bairstow should expect the unexpected. There are some clever players at the top and this was clever but very dickish play from the aussies.

Okay I agree that the actions the keepers take are the same but the difference comes in the situations they are poles apart and in no way similar. Anyway we can all agree that Bairstow was an idiot and the Aussies well less said the better about that side of it. What I will add though it shows how concerned they were for them to resort to this and annoyingly they don’t need to use such tactics as they are clearly the better side.

The next Test or 2 should be very interesting

[claretspice]

You’re still missing the point. One batsman is looking to gain an advantage by batting out of the crease and one is not at all. The former sees keepers do what Bairstow did quite frequently to keep the batter ‘honest’, the latter myself and many others commenting here have never seen before. How can you not see the difference?

If gaining an advantage is the test, is it legitimate to stump a player who thinks he's retreated into his ground and acts accordingly, but has in fact grounded his bat or foot on the line rather then behind it? That's a scenario I've seen many times, given out and without controversy, without the batter having sought or gained any advantage (indeed I've been out that way myself and gained very little sympathy from teammates or umpires).

[Clarets4me]

Interesting and rather topical T Shirt ...

I suspect the Headingley crowd will not be shy of letting the Australians know their opinion when the 3rd Test starts on Thursday ...

107573698_max.jpg (53.19 KiB) Viewed 1721 times

[kentonclaret]

Presumably when Brendan McCullum ran out Sri Lanka’s Muttiah Muralitharan playing for NZ in 2006, as he stepped out of his ground to celebrate Kumar Sangakkara’s century,
that was all “in the spirit of the game.” Presumably not, since McCullum publicly apologised over the incident in a speech several years later. At the time NZ did not withdraw their appeal.

These things happen get over it.

[arise_sir_charge]

If gaining an advantage is the test, is it legitimate to stump a player who thinks he's retreated into his ground and acts accordingly, but has in fact grounded his bat or foot on the line rather then behind it? That's a scenario I've seen many times, given out and without controversy, without the batter having sought or gained any advantage (indeed I've been out that way myself and gained very little sympathy from teammates or umpires).

Are you serious?

[claretspice]

Are you serious?

Absolutely serious. Should my scenario be claimed as out, or not? And if yes, what really is the difference?

[FCBurnley]

Let’s not forget that the ACB condoned the most blatant pre planned form of cheating ever by reinstating Smith and Warner to the team.
That action more than any other shows the Australian attitude to sport and cheating.
Smith and Warner should never have set foot on a cricket pitch ever again.

[Big Vinny K]

If gaining an advantage is the test, is it legitimate to stump a player who thinks he's retreated into his ground and acts accordingly, but has in fact grounded his bat or foot on the line rather then behind it? That's a scenario I've seen many times, given out and without controversy, without the batter having sought or gained any advantage (indeed I've been out that way myself and gained very little sympathy from teammates or umpires).

What ?
Completely different scenario. The ball is not dead.
Clearly how much you move away from the crease is a risk the batsmen takes when facing a ball to gain himself an advantage so if he loses his bearings or fails to get back in time then the wicket keeper legitimately will try and stump him.
The situation yesterday was nothing like that - he’s not trying to gain advantage. Are we going to have this every time a batsmen leaves his crease to talk to his colleague or pat down the wicket with his bat ? Does he have to check with the umpire every time ?
Stuart Broad got this exactly spot on with his exaggerated “is this ok ?”after each ball - which is actually not far where we would end up if this is the way the game is going to go.

[CoolClaret]

If gaining an advantage is the test, is it legitimate to stump a player who thinks he's retreated into his ground and acts accordingly, but has in fact grounded his bat or foot on the line rather then behind it? That's a scenario I've seen many times, given out and without controversy, without the batter having sought or gained any advantage (indeed I've been out that way myself and gained very little sympathy from teammates or umpires).

No it’s not at all

- why do you want to trivialise the game and bring it down to this level?

VAR has proper done a job on people, hasn’t it?!…

Sit back and think about what you’re actually arguing for here

- as Big Vinny K has said, you end up with the game looking like that, the batsmen constantly checking with the umpire -

It’s crap and ruins the game, the complete antithesis of what cricket is meant to be

[NottsClaret]

It was a s***ty thing to do and the Aussies deserve all the grief they get.

[arise_sir_charge]

Absolutely serious. Should my scenario be claimed as out, or not? And if yes, what really is the difference?

In that case, maybe you could ask for another do if you miss a straight one.

There is a massive difference between what happened yesterday and that you describe.