Ashes 2023

[BillyStubbsTears]

My apologies Glyn. I genuinely found it hard to credit that a Rovers fan would be ignorant of something that propelled us into global media attention.

Personally, I get pissed off when people cheat against the spirit of a sport. We all have our standards.

[Glyn_Wigley]

What has Carey done that is against your idea of principles?

All I've seen is him doing his job which is to try and stump out a batsman as quick as possible. If he'd held onto the ball for a second or two so the umpire would accept that the fielding side considered the ball dead you'd have a point but by throwing the ball back straightaway it was obvious he didn't consider the ball dead.

Bairstow didn't even bother to look behind him to see what was happening. He knew the wicketkeeper was a long way back to a fast bowler, he chose to ignore it. So what if Bairstow considered the ball dead? He was wrong, and an international cricketer should know better.

[BillyStubbsTears]

What did Forrester do wrong?

Meanwhile...what a game this is!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn.

There are things that players just do not do. Bairstow, like thousands of batsmen before him, wouldn't even have considered the idea that the ball wasn't dead.

You say Carey was "doing his job". So, presumably, was Forrester. I'd have Bern eternally shamed as a Donny fan if we had taken advantage of that. I suspect Cummins will be here when the dust has settled.

If we do beat them now, this will be the greatest response in the history of sport.

[ncRover]

Bairstow wasn’t doing anything to try and gain an advantage either. Very poor from the Aussies. It could though be the kick up the arse this England side needed for the rest of the series.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Can you explain this without going on about Forrester, as I said, I haven't read it and I'm not going to so stop comparing the two.

You still haven't said what the principle you getting so het up about is. Tell me that and I can compare that to what I've seen.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Bairstow wasn’t doing anything to try and gain an advantage either. Very poor from the Aussies. It could though be the kick up the arse this England side needed for the rest of the series.

Just because he wasn't seeking to gain an advantage doesn't mean he can't be given out stumped.

[Draytonian III]

Carey threw the ball immediately after he caught it , if he had of been stood up to a slower bowler nothing would have made of it.
Bairstow was given out stumped NOT run out.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Carey threw the ball immediately after he caught it , if he had of been stood up to a slower bowler nothing would have made of it.
Bairstow was given out stumped NOT run out.

Exactly. He was doing his job.

I don't get how some people seem to think that the Aussies are somehow responsible or being unsporting because of Bairstow doing something stupid.

[drfchound]

Carey threw the ball immediately after he caught it , if he had of been stood up to a slower bowler nothing would have made of it.
Bairstow was given out stumped NOT run out.

Exactly. He was doing his job.

I don't get how some people seem to think that the Aussies are somehow responsible for Bairstow doing something stupid.

Exactly this.
As someone said further up the thread, the Aussies have probably spotted in previous games that Bairstow is prone to go wandering and have probably been waiting for an opportunity like we have just seen.
Some goalkeepers are known for coming a long way out of their area when the ball is in the other half of the pitch so is it against the spirit of the game when someone puts a 60 yard shot over his head and into the net?
England v Australia at cricket is always hard fought.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Oh, and as for saying Bairtow considered the ball dead....

Carey threw the ball straightaway. Bairstow was in his ground when the ball was thrown.

So the ball was already in the air and going towards his wicket when Bairstow was supposed to have thought the ball was dead and went walkabout. Any batsman thinking that deserves to lose his wicket.

[BillyStubbsTears]

There's some stretching of points going on here.

If Bairstow had been batting out of his crease and hadn't returned to his ground, I'd have had no problem with him being given out.

If he had danced down the pitch, missed the ball and not made his ground, I'd have had no problem with him being given out.

If he had missed the ball then took a couple of steps down the pitch looking for a run, I'd have had no problem with him being given out.

If the bowler had unsettled him with a short ball,  and he'd fallen over and not made his ground, I'd have had no problem with him being given out.

What is simply not acceptable is deviously chucking the ball at the stumps when clearly Bairstow has not left his crease and has clearly indicated he wasn't attempting to gain an advantage.

Broad's actions have emphasised how much against the accepted spirit of the game this is. He has repeatedly and exaggeratedly inquired of Carey if the ball is dead every time it went through to him.

The point being that batsmen don't ever have to ask that normally, because it's so f**king obvious how the spirit of the game applies.

[Glyn_Wigley]

So throwing the ball at the stumps as soon as you receive it is 'devious'.

Jesus wept.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So throwing the ball at the stumps as soon as you receive it is 'devious'.

Jesus wept.

Yes!

Because the batsman is in his ground and clearly not attempting to gain an advantage.

The batsman has made it crystal clear that he considers the ball dead.

[Branton Red]

Bairstow could be criticised for naivety.

The Umpires had no choice - under the rules of the game he was out.

But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.

They deserve the brickbats coming their way.

You could see from the reactions of Stokes and Broad out in the middle (two very experienced test match cricketers) what they thought of the Aussies behaviour.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bairstow could be criticised for naivety.

The Umpires had no choice - under the rules of the game he was out.

But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.

They deserve the brickbats coming their way.

You could see from the reactions of Stokes and Broad (two very experienced test match cricketers) what they thought of the Aussies behaviour.

This. Absolutely.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Excellent comments from Stokes after the game.

"If the boot had been on the other foot, I might have had a little think about the spirit of the game."

That's the kind of sportsman I want to idolise. Because there are things bigger than winning at all costs.

[Draytonian III]

Didn’t Ollie Pope do nearly the same last year against New Zealand

[scawsby steve]

The Aussies are adept at cheating. Who was the guy that took the catch on the boundary yesterday? The cheating tw*t knew that he'd scraped the ball on the ground with his fingers on the top; yet he never owned up.

No wonder the crowd booed him when the dismissal was overruled.

[Draytonian III]

Claiming that catch was definitely wrong and rightly so it got turn over. If you watch footage of test cricket from the 70s and 80s one fielder used to claim catches that weren’t under control regularly, he used to knock them in the air and claim that they were taken, there only used to be a couple of cameras at a game then, the player in question is one of the greatest batsmen ever , Viv Richards

[belton rover]

I’m no cricket fan, but I’ve seen the incident.
Comparing it to Forrester is silly.
It’s more like when a keeper throws the ball down to kick it out with an attacker loitering behind him and nicking the ball off him to score.
The keeper might feel aggrieved, but no one to blame but himself due to lack of concentration.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The batsman has made it crystal clear that he considers the ball dead.

Not that it matters (because whatever Bairstow considered is completely irrelevant), but how did he do that before Carey threw the ball? I must have missed it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The batsman has made it crystal clear that he considers the ball dead.

Not that it matters (because whatever Bairstow considered is completely irrelevant), but how did he do that before Carey threw the ball? I must have missed it.

You MUST have missed it. Watch it again.

Bairstow stands up after ducking. Still in his ground.

Looks across to the umpire. Still in his ground.

Looks down at his feet and scratches the ground (a tic many batsmen have after surviving tough deliveries). Still in his ground.

Every part of his body language says he has no intention of considering the ball live. He doesn't need to hold a banner up with those words on it.

If you watch the video again, you'll also see Khawarja at point (in the batman's eyeline) start to walk off in a clear "that's that action finished" sense.

Finally, and in my opinion crucially, is the wording on the definition of dead ball in the laws of the game. One of the definitions is that the ball has become dead when it is settled in the gloves of the wicket keeper.

Bairstow left the ball. In his ground. He was still in his ground when he will have heard the ball hit the keeper's gloves. He was still in his ground when, unknown to him, the keeper speculatively chucked the ball at the stumps.

In the spirit of the game, there is tacit agreement on these things. Bairstow absolutely ad a right within that spirit to consider the ball dead when he left it and the keeper caught it. That's precisely the point that Broad was emphasising by theatrically asking Carey numerous times if the ball was dead. He did it to emphasise the fact that no batsman ever has to do that. Its accepted as a matter of tacit agreement between batsman and keeper.

I'm truly bemused that so many people are sticking to a legalistic interpretation of the letter of the law and refusing to think about the spirit of the law that it represents.

[Filo]

The batsman has made it crystal clear that he considers the ball dead.

Not that it matters (because whatever Bairstow considered is completely irrelevant), but how did he do that before Carey threw the ball? I must have missed it.

You MUST have missed it. Watch it again.

Bairstow stands up after ducking. Still in his ground.

Looks across to the umpire. Still in his ground.

Looks down at his feet and scratches the ground (a tic many batsmen have after surviving tough deliveries). Still in his ground.

Every part of his body language says he has no intention of considering the ball live. He doesn't need to hold a banner up with those words on it.

If you watch the video again, you'll also see Khawarja at point (in the batman's eyeline) start to walk off in a clear "that's that action finished" sense.

Finally, and in my opinion crucially, is the wording on the definition of dead ball in the laws of the game. One of the definitions is that the ball has become dead when it is settled in the gloves of the wicket keeper.

Bairstow left the ball. In his ground. He was still in his ground when he will have heard the ball hit the keeper's gloves. He was still in his ground when, unknown to him, the keeper speculatively chucked the ball at the stumps.

In the spirit of the game, there is tacit agreement on these things. Bairstow absolutely ad a right within that spirit to consider the ball dead when he left it and the keeper caught it. That's precisely the point that Broad was emphasising by theatrically asking Carey numerous times if the ball was dead. He did it to emphasise the fact that no batsman ever has to do that. Its accepted as a matter of tacit agreement between batsman and keeper.

I'm truly bemused that so many people are sticking to a legalistic interpretation of the letter of the law and refusing to think about the spirit of the law that it represents.

Add to that the umpire had turned away and didn’t see it

[BillyStubbsTears]

And that Cummins himself was walking away from his position as soon as the ball passed Bairstow's back.

[danumdon]

You can be right about something in law but still be morally wrong, as in this case.

Its very similar to when a bowler is running to the crease and is in his delivery stride and the off strike batsman is starting to back up before the ball is bowled, its in the spirit of the game for the bowler to warn the batsman about it and not just to stop in his delivery stride and run out the backing up batsman. i think this happened a while back and all hell broke loose about it, similar as now stating that the spirit of the game had been trashed.

It was in the laws but defiantly against the spirit of the game, as in this instance.

What Carey should of done was warned Bairstow about him doing this and that he had noticed it, if he did it again he would attempt to run him out, that would of been the correct and sporting way to deal with this situation. Instead we have an Australian team who already have two players who should of been banned for life for cheating in effect going against the spirit of the game to gain an advantage, again. If this is there professional attitude then as a sporting person i'd have absolutely no respect or desire to watch them ever play any sport again.

Nothing worse than a sporting cheat, except maybe a political che......... naa forget that, we don't want to be going down that road!

[Not Now Kato]

Aussies, going against the spirit of the game? Really?
 

 
Nah, it’s all about winning, by any means!

[Dagenham Rover]

and as for the comment shown on the news from one of his team mates  you will be remembered for this.....................

[BillyStubbsTears]

OK. I'm leaning back towards supporting the Aussies' action.

Khawaja and Warner were mouthed at in the Long Room at the lunch break.

The Telegraph reports that three MCC members have been suspended.

Bartholemew Frinton-Smythe
Humphrey Wigbert-Porter
Quinten Breckenridge.

You can kind of understand why the descendants of working class immigrants and transportees might be spurred to win at all costs!

[Donnywolf]

Bairstow could be criticised for naivety.

The Umpires had no choice - under the rules of the game he was out.

But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.


They deserve the brickbats coming their way.

You could see from the reactions of Stokes and Broad out in the middle (two very experienced test match cricketers) what they thought of the Aussies behaviour.

This is exactly what I think. Others may agree too whilst others totally disagree. Personally I wouldn't alter my view

The telling part of the above ?

But sustaining the appeal was poor form from the Australians. Totally out of keeping with the spirit of the game.