RichA
Well-known member
I was a Middlesex CCC member (not MCC) a few years ago.
At least as much alcohol is consumed in the Pavilion as in the stands - it just tends to be in gin or vodka rather than lager.
The Cricket Thread
- Thread starter fundy
- Start date
At least as much alcohol is consumed in the Pavilion as in the stands - it just tends to be in gin or vodka rather than lager.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Been a heck of a T20 campaign so far for the team - hopefully we can go one step further this year
Mudball
Assistant Pro
Not sure you want to call them that when clearly Bairstow was one the being brainless here..
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
One big difference is that Duckett was walking off having accepted that he was out and was told to wait so that the decision could be reviewed. There was no argument from Duckett and he was happy to accept that he was out. The Aussie having a go at Duckett was out of order as it was out of his hands. The Duckett decision was nothing to do with the spirit of the game, it was purely down to the laws of the game and the third umpire made the decision.
Having said that, Bairstow was an absolute plank. They even showed replays of several balls before where he'd done the same thing but in those cases the keeper had thrown the ball to short leg or square leg to be returned to the bowler. And while the Bairstow dismissal was within the laws of the game I do think that a warning should've been given by the Aussies to say that if he continued then they would try to run him out (I know it was technically a stumping), in the same way that a warning was usually given before the bowler attempted a Mankad dismissal.
In defence of Bairstow (and I do still think he was naive), maybe he felt the fact that Carey was returning the ball to Green via short leg, and short leg was not taking a shy at the stumps, was a signal that the Australians accepted that on each occasion the ball was dead.
As has been said, on those prior occasions Bairstow was scraping his trailing foot behind the crease to signify he had retained his ground. It’s the equivalent of a schoolboy cricketer grounding his bat and shouting “in”!!
Having done that for at least the two preceding deliveries and there being no effort by Australia to take advantage of him being out of his ground, I do tend to think that Bairstow was probably within his rights, especially as it was the last ball of the over, to believe the ball was dead.
All just a bit unsavoury.
IanM
Journeyman Pro
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 13,752
- Location
- Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
As member of the Keeper's Union, I'd have thrown at the stumps the second he left the crease...
But when I released the rest, I'd have said nothing and not appealled.
Bit like the golfer who cheats or not. Some folk are like that, some are not.
But when I released the rest, I'd have said nothing and not appealled.
Bit like the golfer who cheats or not. Some folk are like that, some are not.
RichA
Well-known member
It irritated me when the JB stumping happened.
Then I remembered how annoyed I was yesterday when Crawley stood waiting for the umpire to make a decision after middling it to the keeper. He knew he was out and should've walked, if we really care about the spirit of the game.
Then I remembered how annoyed I was yesterday when Crawley stood waiting for the umpire to make a decision after middling it to the keeper. He knew he was out and should've walked, if we really care about the spirit of the game.
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
I didn't see that but think some wait for the no ball decision to come?
chrisd
Major Champion
A completely different scenario - England had no part to play in the Starc incident, the umpire made the decision entirely
The Bairstow incident was entirely the players, giving the umpire no choice
My thoughts too Chris. The game can be hard enough on the umpires without players being silly. Next thing you’ll see is the fielding team pulling shirts when the batter goes for a run. Heaven forbid we see the umpires being mobbed like football refs.
Anyway, 3 days to the next Test. Looking forward to it already.
Can anyone tell me who the wicket keeper is here?
I'm guessing the guy is batting out of his crease. He isn't trying to run so there is no other reason for the throw. If a batsman is trying to put the bowler off by batting 2ft outside the crease then they are fair game.
Keep trying.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Is that not more looking to stump someone who is bathing outside their crease ? As opposed to someone who thinks the over is finished walking to chat to his mate
Mudball
Assistant Pro
another proof about having a proper keeper v a part time.... a proper keeper can underarm and hit the stumps, while the part timer missed it by a mile..
RichA
Well-known member
Honestly, it's the "spirit of cricket" waffle that irritates me most about what happened.
If you're going to bring it up during and after a match then you really need to be squeaky clean, in a way that a few of the England team (who I support) have proved that they are not.
At least the Aussies push the boundaries unashamedly and consistently.
If you're going to bring it up during and after a match then you really need to be squeaky clean, in a way that a few of the England team (who I support) have proved that they are not.
At least the Aussies push the boundaries unashamedly and consistently.
Difficult to tell from that angle, but if the batter is batting outside his crease to try and negate any swing then trying to stump him is an entirely legitimate tactic. It’s why Bairstow was standing up to Anderson at times.
You can’t really compare that to Carey’s stumping of Bairstow.
I can and I am, as are many others.
Bairstow was trying to keep Labuschagne from batting outside of his crease, as he is entitled to try to do.
Carey was trying to catch Bairstow outside of the crease before the ball is dead as he is entitled to try to do.
Both are clearly well within the rules but only one came off.
@TimShady I asked this yesterday elsewhere but I’ll ask you specifically again. Which golf rules do you not abide by because you don’t like how they feel?
Bizarre question. I don't not abide by the rules, I don't pick and choose. This is not a rules issue though. No one disputes that the umpires made the correct decision, although the fact that it went upstairs tells you what the square leg umpire thought of it because he wasn't watching. This is about etiquette and behaviour. The better question is 'what etiquette in golf do you not follow' but as we know these things are not written down. Do you cough on a backswing, jingle your marker in you pocket when your opponent is putting. Do you stand in their eyeline etc. It's etiquette and spirit of the game. Clearly you don't see any of that so it's pretty pointless carrying this on.
Bizarre question. I don't not abide by the rules, I don't pick and choose. This is not a rules issue though. No one disputes that the umpires made the correct decision, although the fact that it went upstairs tells you what the square leg umpire thought of it because he wasn't watching. This is about etiquette and behaviour. The better question is 'what etiquette in golf do you not follow' but as we know these things are not written down. Do you cough on a backswing, jingle your marker in you pocket when your opponent is putting. Do you stand in their eyeline etc. It's etiquette and spirit of the game. Clearly you don't see any of that so it's pretty pointless carrying this on.
Whereditgo
Journeyman Pro
The thing is Bairstow clearly thought the ball was dead (sure he should have waited a little longer before leaving his crease to be certain) as did the umpire who was looking down .
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
Tell me that you don't understand cricket without telling me that you don't understand cricket.
Labuschagne was trying to gain an advantage by batting out of his crease, Barstow wasn't. Completely different situations.
