Ashes 2023

[Donnywolf]

Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground


https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA

[i_ateallthepies]

It was naive, even careless of Jonny Bairstow to presume that a team of Ausies wouldn't pull a stunt like that.

[drfchound]

Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground


https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA

I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?

[Filo]

Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground


https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA

I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?

At Trent Bridge I believe

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

Having thought about things overnight this is also my view now.

I don't actually blame Carey for throwing the ball, it looked like he was going to throw it anyway with maybe a possibility of Bairstow falling over, and he threw before Bairstow started walking. But given how it panned out I blame all the Aussies for the appeal and then not withdrawing it. IMHO time for the Australian Cricket Board to make a statement. 

BTW, with regards to the first bit, IIRC dead ball used to be when the ball is at rest in the fielder's hand and it clearly wasn't. If Carey had caught the ball, walked forward a few steps and then thrown, then the umpires could have rightly called dead ball irrespective of whether over had been called.

[drfchound]

Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground


https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA

I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?

At Trent Bridge I believe

Cheers Filo, what happened?

[drfchound]

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.

Having thought about things overnight this is also my view now.

I don't actually blame Carey for throwing the ball, it looked like he was going to throw it anyway with maybe a possibility of Bairstow falling over, and he threw before Bairstow started walking. But given how it panned out I blame all the Aussies for the appeal and then not withdrawing it. IMHO time for the Australian Cricket Board to make a statement. 

BTW, with regards to the first bit, IIRC dead ball used to be when the ball is at rest in the fielder's hand and it clearly wasn't. If Carey had caught the ball, walked forward a few steps and then thrown, then the umpires could have rightly called dead ball irrespective of whether over had been called.

Dutch, the key point there is absolutely that the ball was not settled in the keepers gloves.
It doesn’t matter whether Bairstow heard that or not, Carey threw the ball immediately after he received it.

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

Having thought about things overnight this is also my view now.

I don't actually blame Carey for throwing the ball, it looked like he was going to throw it anyway with maybe a possibility of Bairstow falling over, and he threw before Bairstow started walking. But given how it panned out I blame all the Aussies for the appeal and then not withdrawing it. IMHO time for the Australian Cricket Board to make a statement. 

BTW, with regards to the first bit, IIRC dead ball used to be when the ball is at rest in the fielder's hand and it clearly wasn't. If Carey had caught the ball, walked forward a few steps and then thrown, then the umpires could have rightly called dead ball irrespective of whether over had been called.

Dutch, the key point there is absolutely that the ball was not settled in the keepers gloves.
It doesn’t matter whether Bairstow heard that or not, Carey threw the ball immediately after he received it.

Exactly my point Hound 

[Donnywolf]

Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground


https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA

I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?

Very big fuss for ages. All rest of Series and then same on his next visit

Look at link and explain how umpire missed it , and they didn't need the snickometer ffs , and listen to Bumbles assessment

[BillyStubbsTears]

DU

The point about the ball being dead is that every batsman would assume it to be once the keeper had caught it, with the batsman in his ground, in control of his movements and clearly not attempting to go for a run.

As I've said, Broad's theatrical requests to Carey to confirm that the ball was dead illustrate the issue beautifully. Batsmen don't do that because it never enters anyone's head that there's a need to do that. It's an unspoken agreement between sportsmen.

Carey's action was simply ridiculous. But the one I really blame for the situation is Cummins. He could and should have withdrawn the appeal. The fact that he didn't is a massive black mark against him.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground


https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA

I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?

Very big fuss for ages. All rest of Series and then same on his next visit

Look at link and explain how umpire missed it , and they didn't need the snickometer ffs , and listen to Bumbles assessment

I don't like it, but the modern spirit of the game is that no batsman ever walks. Just as the bowling side frequently appeal when they know damn well that there's no case.

I wish it wasn't like that, but everyone operates on the assumption that that is how it is.

If a player clearly gets an edge, doesn't walk, and the bowling side has no reviews left because they've managed their quota badly, the modern spirit of the game, accepted by everyone, is that's tough.

There's no equivalence with what Carey did yesterday. The accepted spirit of the game is that if a batsman  leaves the ball, is in his ground and not attempting to run, the ball us de facto dead when the keeper catches it. Carey's actions totally broke that spirit. There's the difference. 

[Dutch Uncle]

DU

The point about the ball being dead is that every batsman would assume it to be once the keeper had caught it, with the batsman in his ground, in control of his movements and clearly not attempting to go for a run.

As I've said, Broad's theatrical requests to Carey to confirm that the ball was dead illustrate the issue beautifully. Batsmen don't do that because it never enters anyone's head that there's a need to do that. It's an unspoken agreement between sportsmen.

Carey's action was simply ridiculous. But the one I really blame for the situation is Cummins. He could and should have withdrawn the appeal. The fact that he didn't is a massive black mark against him.

I fully agree with everything except one point. Splitting hairs, but I don't think Carey's action was ridiculous at the time he threw, there was a chance Bairstow was batting outside his crease, or might fall over after ducking. It became ridiculous between throwing and hitting the stumps when it became clear Bairstow thought it was over and the ball was dead, and took a stroll. It became ridiculous only when the appeal came and was not retracted.

[tommy toes]

It was wrong by Carey, wrong by Cummings and the rest of the team.
It potentially cost England the game.
It won't be forgotten in a hurry.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Cummins has gone even further down in my estimation.

https://youtu.be/XkkIUayALSQ?t=120

Comparing this to Bairstow shying at the stumps in their innings is ridiculous. The Aussie policy was to bat 18 inches outside their crease. That brings the possibility of a stumping absolutely into play. If you're batting outside your crease, you cannot assume the ball is dead because the keeper has caught it. Cummins comparing the two is an insult to the intelligence of any cricket fan. 

DU. I have to disagree with you, which I don't do often. Bairstow was upright and not looking remotely unstable before the ball even reached Carey. There is no way on earth that Carey thought Bairstow might be about to topple over and out of his ground as a consequence of ducking. He's spotted Bairstow leaving his ground previously to discuss with Stokes and pat down the pitch and decided to have a go. It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain.

[Dutch Uncle]

Cummins has gone even further down in my estimation.

https://youtu.be/XkkIUayALSQ?t=120

Comparing this to Bairstow shying at the stumps in their innings is ridiculous. The Aussie policy was to bat 18 inches outside their crease. That brings the possibility of a stumping absolutely into play. If you're batting outside your crease, you cannot assume the ball is dead because the keeper has caught it. Cummins comparing the two is an insult to the intelligence of any cricket fan. 

DU. I have to disagree with you, which I don't do often. Bairstow was upright and not looking remotely unstable before the ball even reached Carey. There is no way on earth that Carey thought Bairstow might be about to topple over and out of his ground as a consequence of ducking. He's spotted Bairstow leaving his ground previously to discuss with Stokes and pat down the pitch and decided to have a go. It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain.

I guess that is possible. I had always assumed it was coincidence that it was the last ball of the over, but if it was pre-meditated in the sense that they were deliberately looking to run Bairstow out as he was going for a chat, rather than being outside of his crease for more direct cricketing reasons (toppling over, batting outside of crease) it would make sense to do it on last ball when he is more likely to go for a chat. I had not considered that level of pre-meditation, and if true is many levels of despicable more than I first thought.

Edit: That would make it significantly worse than Mankad, which I loathe unless there is some warning first. In that case at least the batsman at the non-striker's end is looking for some sort of cricketing advantage. It would also make more sense of Stokes' comment about would have liked to see a warning first. 

[i_ateallthepies]

Cummins has gone even further down in my estimation.

https://youtu.be/XkkIUayALSQ?t=120

Comparing this to Bairstow shying at the stumps in their innings is ridiculous. The Aussie policy was to bat 18 inches outside their crease. That brings the possibility of a stumping absolutely into play. If you're batting outside your crease, you cannot assume the ball is dead because the keeper has caught it. Cummins comparing the two is an insult to the intelligence of any cricket fan. 

DU. I have to disagree with you, which I don't do often. Bairstow was upright and not looking remotely unstable before the ball even reached Carey. There is no way on earth that Carey thought Bairstow might be about to topple over and out of his ground as a consequence of ducking. He's spotted Bairstow leaving his ground previously to discuss with Stokes and pat down the pitch and decided to have a go. It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain.

I guess that is possible. I had always assumed it was coincidence that it was the last ball of the over, but if it was pre-meditated in the sense that they were deliberately looking to run Bairstow out as he was going for a chat, rather than being outside of his crease for more direct cricketing reasons (toppling over, batting outside of crease) it would make sense to do it on last ball when he is more likely to go for a chat. I had not considered that level of pre-meditation, and if true is many levels of despicable more than I first thought.

That is what happened, DU.  Carey himself when questioned said he'd seen Bairstow do it several times in the over leading up to the last ball and he made the decision to do it.  It's also shown in the TMS highlights that after each ball Bairstow scratched his mark in the crease with his boot and walked up the pitch.

[Donnywolf]

DU

The point about the ball being dead is that every batsman would assume it to be once the keeper had caught it, with the batsman in his ground, in control of his movements and clearly not attempting to go for a run.

As I've said, Broad's theatrical requests to Carey to confirm that the ball was dead illustrate the issue beautifully. Batsmen don't do that because it never enters anyone's head that there's a need to do that. It's an unspoken agreement between sportsmen.

Carey's action was simply ridiculous. But the one I really blame for the situation is Cummins. He could and should have withdrawn the appeal. The fact that he didn't is a massive black mark against him.

And Carey's celebration high giving and screaming like a kid makes him my least favourite Australian for as long as I live .... because to save typing it out

It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain

[Filo]

If they thought Lords was hostile, wait for Headingley

[Dutch Uncle]

Cummins has gone even further down in my estimation.

https://youtu.be/XkkIUayALSQ?t=120

Comparing this to Bairstow shying at the stumps in their innings is ridiculous. The Aussie policy was to bat 18 inches outside their crease. That brings the possibility of a stumping absolutely into play. If you're batting outside your crease, you cannot assume the ball is dead because the keeper has caught it. Cummins comparing the two is an insult to the intelligence of any cricket fan. 

DU. I have to disagree with you, which I don't do often. Bairstow was upright and not looking remotely unstable before the ball even reached Carey. There is no way on earth that Carey thought Bairstow might be about to topple over and out of his ground as a consequence of ducking. He's spotted Bairstow leaving his ground previously to discuss with Stokes and pat down the pitch and decided to have a go. It's premeditated and absolutely against the spirit of the game. And he will have known that, as will his captain.

I guess that is possible. I had always assumed it was coincidence that it was the last ball of the over, but if it was pre-meditated in the sense that they were deliberately looking to run Bairstow out as he was going for a chat, rather than being outside of his crease for more direct cricketing reasons (toppling over, batting outside of crease) it would make sense to do it on last ball when he is more likely to go for a chat. I had not considered that level of pre-meditation, and if true is many levels of despicable more than I first thought.

That is what happened, DU.  Carey himself when questioned said he'd seen Bairstow do it several times in the over leading up to the last ball and he made the decision to do it.  It's also shown in the TMS highlights that after each ball Bairstow scratched his mark in the crease with his boot and walked up the pitch.

Reluctantly and depressingly I now have to agree, and am more angry than I was at the time. I was making the elementary mistake of giving Australian cricketers the benefit of doubt in their behaviour. The folly of hope over experience. 

[Draytonian III]

Why walk out of your crease when the ball has the stumps ?
Would he have done it if the wicket keeper was stood up ?
The one person to blame for this dismissal is Johnny Bairstow

[NickDRFC]

Why walk out of your crease when the ball has the stumps ?
Would he have done it if the wicket keeper was stood up ?
The one person to blame for this dismissal is Johnny Bairstow

Bairstow and the Australians both being at fault aren’t mutually exclusive. Bairstow made a dopey mistake, the Australians made a premeditated, underhand decision.

[Monkcaster_Rover]

Only one thing for it.

Let's give them a good hiding at Headingley and get bang back into the series.

Bring me my bow of burning gold!

[Dn2Dn0]

Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground


https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA

I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?

Very big fuss for ages. All rest of Series and then same on his next visit

Look at link and explain how umpire missed it , and they didn't need the snickometer ffs , and listen to Bumbles assessment

I don't like it, but the modern spirit of the game is that no batsman ever walks. Just as the bowling side frequently appeal when they know damn well that there's no case.

I wish it wasn't like that, but everyone operates on the assumption that that is how it is.

If a player clearly gets an edge, doesn't walk, and the bowling side has no reviews left because they've managed their quota badly, the modern spirit of the game, accepted by everyone, is that's tough.

There's no equivalence with what Carey did yesterday. The accepted spirit of the game is that if a batsman  leaves the ball, is in his ground and not attempting to run, the ball us de facto dead when the keeper catches it. Carey's actions totally broke that spirit. There's the difference.

Agree in the main but Adam Gilchrist, the greatest cricketer I ever saw live, walked in a WC cup at a crucial stage. Ironically, he also presented Carey with his first baggy and talked of playing the game with integrity. Be interesting to hear what he makes of Careys actions yesterday.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Having said that Stuart Broad , yes the one mentioned above also should have walked a few Ashes back when clearly out. Imo worse than yesterday ... so he can't hold the moral high ground


https://youtu.be/NSCg_aCD2KA

I don’t remember that Wolfie.
Was there a fuss made about that?

Very big fuss for ages. All rest of Series and then same on his next visit

Look at link and explain how umpire missed it , and they didn't need the snickometer ffs , and listen to Bumbles assessment

I don't like it, but the modern spirit of the game is that no batsman ever walks. Just as the bowling side frequently appeal when they know damn well that there's no case.

I wish it wasn't like that, but everyone operates on the assumption that that is how it is.

If a player clearly gets an edge, doesn't walk, and the bowling side has no reviews left because they've managed their quota badly, the modern spirit of the game, accepted by everyone, is that's tough.

There's no equivalence with what Carey did yesterday. The accepted spirit of the game is that if a batsman  leaves the ball, is in his ground and not attempting to run, the ball us de facto dead when the keeper catches it. Carey's actions totally broke that spirit. There's the difference.

Agree in the main but Adam Gilchrist, the greatest cricketer I ever saw live, walked in a WC cup at a crucial stage. Ironically, he also presented Carey with his first baggy and talked of playing the game with integrity. Be interesting to hear what he makes of Careys actions yesterday.

Fair point. There are some personalities that transcend the game.

[rich1471]

DU

The point about the ball being dead is that every batsman would assume it to be once the keeper had caught it, with the batsman in his ground, in control of his movements and clearly not attempting to go for a run.

As I've said, Broad's theatrical requests to Carey to confirm that the ball was dead illustrate the issue beautifully. Batsmen don't do that because it never enters anyone's head that there's a need to do that. It's an unspoken agreement between sportsmen.

Carey's action was simply ridiculous. But the one I really blame for the situation is Cummins. He could and should have withdrawn the appeal. The fact that he didn't is a massive black mark against him.

by the letter of the law the ball is not dead until it is back in the bowlers hand, stupid way to get out ,it may not be in the spirit of the game but you are playing for the ashes and you win at all costs , the British mentality is wrong to winning,if you cannot win by playing fair then most people would rather lose , this comes from a young age when you are told it's the taking part not winning that matters total rubbish in my eyes

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's not the definition of dead ball rich.

There are several definitions in the laws.

One of them is that the ball is dead when both sides accept it to be so. The movements of Khawaja and Cummins immediately after the ball passed Bairstow's back suggest they thoughtvitvwas dead.

A second is that the ball is dead when the umpires deem it to be. The umpire at the bowler's end immediately put his hand in his pocket as the ball dropped into Carey's gloves, indicating that he was thinking that was that.

A third is that the ball us dead when it is settled in the keeper's gloves. Clearly, Carey had made his mind up to have a shy at the stumps - Bairstow was in his ground when Carey threw the ball so it had to be premeditated - so technically of course the ball wasn't settled. But Bairstow, like every other batter in cricket in those circumstances would have assumed it to be. Why on earth should a keeper NOT settle with the ball when the batsman is clearly in his ground and not attempting to run?

On the moral side, every single indication was that the ball was dead. Only someone trying to get an advantagecin flagrant violation of the spirit of the game would act otherwise.

Think how dull cricket will be if the batsman has to ask the keeper if he considers the ball dead in every similar event in the future.

The key moral argument is that batting against constant short pitched 85-90mph bowling is excruciatingly mentally tough. Ask ant batsman how they cope with it, and the answer is to concentrate hard for the short interval before the bowler releases the ball and the aviation ends. In between, for the few seconds they have, batsmen relax and stop focusing hard. Bairstow was clearly doing that. Carey and Cummins took advantage of that. If that became accepted, it totally changes the dynamic of the game. No one wants that.

Yes they got an advantage but I'm certain they wished they hadn't. If they have any aims beyond winning at all costs. Sport is about far more than winning at all costs.

[Dutch Uncle]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-66094186

Towards the end of this article it says Cummins

also accused the English team of hypocrisy in game tactics - as match footage showed Bairstow trying to stump Australian batters in the same manner two days prior to the final day incident.

Can anybody verify this? I haven't seen anything similar, and reckon this must be a false equivalence. Maybe an Australia batter was batting outside his crease to a quick bowler and Bairstow tried to throw the stumps down? As we have discussed that would be totally legitimate and not against the spirit either.  There is a world of difference between throwing the ball when someone is out of the crease trying to gain an advantage, and throwing when a batter is in his crease and then walks for a chat thinking it is over. If that is the case this statement of Cummins needs to be called out.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DU

 Several of the Aussie batsmen took stance a good 12 inches out of their crease. Its totally disingenuous of Cummins to compare the two. He's gone right down in my estimation. Excellent bowler but a t**t. 

[Draytonian III]

Have a look on YouTube at the one day match between England and New Zealand and the incident between Sidebottom and Elliott, when Collingwood was captain if you want to see injustice on a cricket pitch.
 On my cricket club’s WhatsApp group the vast majority say that the fault is Bairstow’s

[drfchound]

Dickie Bird was interviewed on the local news yesterday.
He says that until the umpire calls “over” after the sixth ball that the ball isn’t dead.
Bairstow was careless to wander off.