| Same old aussies. 12:46 - Jul 2 with 10398 views | redrickstuhaart |
So much for the change of culture post sandpaper cheating. |  | | |  |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:27 - Jul 2 with 2563 views | PhilTWTD |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:11 - Jul 2 by unstableblue |
… as unsportsmanlike more than some of the English - Jim Maxwell and Glenn McGrath for example
Aussie captain was trying to avoid and downplay it … but then got a bit triggered… their argument was Bairstow kept leaving his crease
I think if you look at it back, it’s the end of an over, he’s obviously walking up the wicket, and for me the ball just isn’t in play.
I think the Aussies were too embroiled in celebrating and the umpires didn’t give their captain the space and suggestion to turn it around
Leeds is going to be wild!! Need a win |
Brad Hogg as well.
|  | | |
| Same old aussies. on 17:30 - Jul 2 with 2530 views | Trequartista |
| Same old aussies. on 16:50 - Jul 2 by Herbivore |
In football, if we were to put the ball out of play because an opponent was injured and they then threw it straight to their centre forward for a tap in when we were expecting the ball back that wouldn't be against the laws of the game. Would you be okay with that happening? |
No, because it should be the match officials deciding if a player is injured and stopping the game. |  |
| |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:37 - Jul 2 with 2506 views | redrickstuhaart |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:24 - Jul 2 by stonojnr |
but the ball is in play still thats the point, its only considered dead when it is clear to the umpire that both batsmen AND the fielding side consider it dead, throwing the ball at the stumps, the ball is still live whether Bairstow is wandering around the pitch or stuck in his crease at the point of release.
if Carey misses the wicket and the ball goes sailing past all the fielders, would Bairstow and Stokes steal a run or say no its unsporting to run due to a bad throw ? or if it got to the boundary on overthrows ask the umpires to take those runs off because the ball was dead right ?
youll see alot in ODI games, fielders will throw balls at the wicket even when the batsmen are in the crease, and everyone thinks that delivery is done, simply because batsmen do aimlessly wander out of the crease and get out this way. |
Umpire clearly considered it over as he was looking downwards and unclipping the bowlers hat.
We ought to be encouraging players to get on with the game given the over rates not to wait for no obvious benefit at the end of an over. [Post edited 2 Jul 2023 17:38]
| | | |
| Same old aussies. on 17:42 - Jul 2 with 2488 views | Herbivore |
| Same old aussies. on 17:30 - Jul 2 by Trequartista |
No, because it should be the match officials deciding if a player is injured and stopping the game. |
You would or wouldn't be okay with it as your response seems to suggest you both would and wouldn't. If you are claiming you would be okay with it then frankly I don't believe you. |  |
| |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:46 - Jul 2 with 2473 views | unstableblue |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:24 - Jul 2 by stonojnr |
but the ball is in play still thats the point, its only considered dead when it is clear to the umpire that both batsmen AND the fielding side consider it dead, throwing the ball at the stumps, the ball is still live whether Bairstow is wandering around the pitch or stuck in his crease at the point of release.
if Carey misses the wicket and the ball goes sailing past all the fielders, would Bairstow and Stokes steal a run or say no its unsporting to run due to a bad throw ? or if it got to the boundary on overthrows ask the umpires to take those runs off because the ball was dead right ?
youll see alot in ODI games, fielders will throw balls at the wicket even when the batsmen are in the crease, and everyone thinks that delivery is done, simply because batsmen do aimlessly wander out of the crease and get out this way. |
Oh don't get me wrong, I think Bairstow is being a bit too casual, and had been leaving his crease prematurely (in play).. and obviously Carey throws whilst in his view the ball is in play. But Bairstow has marked his crease, clearly to say he thinks its over, the umpires are moving to indicate its end of the over (look at their reactions)
The key thing is that its the end of the over, and what is sporting behaviour
I agree by the letter of the law its out, but as I said earlier, the umpires and Australian captain shouldl have found some breathing space to look at it another way
The camera angles and footage are key here - there's the Carey view and the umpire, bowler and Bairstow view. The bowler thinks the over is also over.
But yeah - I don't think its quite as outrageous as England fans are going to make out
Its just not cricket though |  |
| |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:57 - Jul 2 with 2466 views | Ftnfwest |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:11 - Jul 2 by unstableblue |
… as unsportsmanlike more than some of the English - Jim Maxwell and Glenn McGrath for example
Aussie captain was trying to avoid and downplay it … but then got a bit triggered… their argument was Bairstow kept leaving his crease
I think if you look at it back, it’s the end of an over, he’s obviously walking up the wicket, and for me the ball just isn’t in play.
I think the Aussies were too embroiled in celebrating and the umpires didn’t give their captain the space and suggestion to turn it around
Leeds is going to be wild!! Need a win |
No question it’s out. After each ball including that one, bairstow did make a slightly exaggerated step back into his crease before walking down to prod the pitch. Stokes getting a bit of stick for suggesting he would have called the batsman back although I actually think he would have done tbh. |  | | |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 18:13 - Jul 2 with 2434 views | Ryorry |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:46 - Jul 2 by unstableblue |
Oh don't get me wrong, I think Bairstow is being a bit too casual, and had been leaving his crease prematurely (in play).. and obviously Carey throws whilst in his view the ball is in play. But Bairstow has marked his crease, clearly to say he thinks its over, the umpires are moving to indicate its end of the over (look at their reactions)
The key thing is that its the end of the over, and what is sporting behaviour
I agree by the letter of the law its out, but as I said earlier, the umpires and Australian captain shouldl have found some breathing space to look at it another way
The camera angles and footage are key here - there's the Carey view and the umpire, bowler and Bairstow view. The bowler thinks the over is also over.
But yeah - I don't think its quite as outrageous as England fans are going to make out
Its just not cricket though |
I didn't see it, but if Bairstow had marked his crease, in the same kind of way that batsmen do to show they're back at the crease & in after making a run, then often wander about whilst all is being readied for the next ball, then that's utterly disgraceful on Carey's part. |  |
| |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 18:18 - Jul 2 with 2416 views | Vegtablue |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 17:24 - Jul 2 by stonojnr |
but the ball is in play still thats the point, its only considered dead when it is clear to the umpire that both batsmen AND the fielding side consider it dead, throwing the ball at the stumps, the ball is still live whether Bairstow is wandering around the pitch or stuck in his crease at the point of release.
if Carey misses the wicket and the ball goes sailing past all the fielders, would Bairstow and Stokes steal a run or say no its unsporting to run due to a bad throw ? or if it got to the boundary on overthrows ask the umpires to take those runs off because the ball was dead right ?
youll see alot in ODI games, fielders will throw balls at the wicket even when the batsmen are in the crease, and everyone thinks that delivery is done, simply because batsmen do aimlessly wander out of the crease and get out this way. |
If the ball were thrown at the speed necessary for your hypothetical then Bairstow would have been in his crease!
Carey knew he couldn't delay on the ball and knew he couldn't put pace on it, otherwise the bails go off before Bairstow can begin his gardening. So he rolls one towards the stumps and probably holds his breath, well aware you only get one go at something so dastardly. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Same old aussies. on 18:35 - Jul 2 with 2385 views | Trequartista |
| Same old aussies. on 17:42 - Jul 2 by Herbivore |
You would or wouldn't be okay with it as your response seems to suggest you both would and wouldn't. If you are claiming you would be okay with it then frankly I don't believe you. |
It's the same principle as the cricket, i'm not happy with the way Bairstow is out, but its not the fault of the Australians, its the fault of the rules having a 'spirit of the game' grey area. If it's within the rules of the game but not the spirit then either change the rules or stop complaining about the spirit.
Then apply the same logic to the football. What you describe is one of the most common scenarios that causes angry scenes between teams. I wouldn't be happy to concede a goal like that, but its within the rules so ultimately it is the grey area which i would blame. Either enforce a new rule that the player has to give the ball back, or make it clear the referee is the one to stop the game and you kick the ball out at your own risk. [Post edited 2 Jul 2023 18:36]
| |
| |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 18:46 - Jul 2 with 2371 views | unstableblue |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 18:18 - Jul 2 by Vegtablue |
If the ball were thrown at the speed necessary for your hypothetical then Bairstow would have been in his crease!
Carey knew he couldn't delay on the ball and knew he couldn't put pace on it, otherwise the bails go off before Bairstow can begin his gardening. So he rolls one towards the stumps and probably holds his breath, well aware you only get one go at something so dastardly. |
Yup key point.... slow roll to the wickets.. umpire indicates in body movement the over is over, bairstow marks wicket and walks out, and stumps hit
Again I'm not saying Bairstow isn't somewhat culpable.. but spirit of the game not followed
And Carey knew what he was doing | |
| |
| Same old aussies. on 18:56 - Jul 2 with 2355 views | Herbivore |
| Same old aussies. on 18:35 - Jul 2 by Trequartista |
It's the same principle as the cricket, i'm not happy with the way Bairstow is out, but its not the fault of the Australians, its the fault of the rules having a 'spirit of the game' grey area. If it's within the rules of the game but not the spirit then either change the rules or stop complaining about the spirit.
Then apply the same logic to the football. What you describe is one of the most common scenarios that causes angry scenes between teams. I wouldn't be happy to concede a goal like that, but its within the rules so ultimately it is the grey area which i would blame. Either enforce a new rule that the player has to give the ball back, or make it clear the referee is the one to stop the game and you kick the ball out at your own risk. [Post edited 2 Jul 2023 18:36]
|
So if Norwich scored a winner against us following a throw in where we've kicked it out so one of their players could receive treatment, your response would be "that's a shame, but I blame the grey area and won't be complaining about the spirit of the game". I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. Sport will always have grey areas where you're relying on sportsmanship over the letter of the law, it's in the nature of the game. | |
| |
| Same old aussies. on 19:11 - Jul 2 with 2335 views | Trequartista |
| Same old aussies. on 18:56 - Jul 2 by Herbivore |
So if Norwich scored a winner against us following a throw in where we've kicked it out so one of their players could receive treatment, your response would be "that's a shame, but I blame the grey area and won't be complaining about the spirit of the game". I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. Sport will always have grey areas where you're relying on sportsmanship over the letter of the law, it's in the nature of the game. |
I disagree, I think it needs to be quite clear what the rules are in top level sport otherwise you will just get confrontations. If it is such a bad thing to score from someone throwing you the ball, why not make it rule you have to give it back? Or make it the rule only the referee can stop the game? I'm open to a variety of rule interpretations rather than just leaving it as the spirit of the game. [Post edited 2 Jul 2023 19:11]
| |
| |
| Same old aussies. on 19:20 - Jul 2 with 2317 views | Herbivore |
| Same old aussies. on 19:11 - Jul 2 by Trequartista |
I disagree, I think it needs to be quite clear what the rules are in top level sport otherwise you will just get confrontations. If it is such a bad thing to score from someone throwing you the ball, why not make it rule you have to give it back? Or make it the rule only the referee can stop the game? I'm open to a variety of rule interpretations rather than just leaving it as the spirit of the game. [Post edited 2 Jul 2023 19:11]
|
So let's say you make it a rule that if you kick the ball out for an injured player then the opposition has to throw it back and teams then start feigning injuries and kicking it out to waste time or take the pressure off. What then? It's already a law of the game that only the ref can stop the game so that won't change anything. You will always have areas where the laws are ambiguous or where introducing a rule will create more problems than it will solve. That's where you expect there to be a degree of sportsmanship at play. I still think you're not being truthful if you say that in the scenario I've described you wouldn't be annoyed at the opposition, of course you would. | |
| |
| Same old aussies. on 19:35 - Jul 2 with 2289 views | Trequartista |
| Same old aussies. on 19:20 - Jul 2 by Herbivore |
So let's say you make it a rule that if you kick the ball out for an injured player then the opposition has to throw it back and teams then start feigning injuries and kicking it out to waste time or take the pressure off. What then? It's already a law of the game that only the ref can stop the game so that won't change anything. You will always have areas where the laws are ambiguous or where introducing a rule will create more problems than it will solve. That's where you expect there to be a degree of sportsmanship at play. I still think you're not being truthful if you say that in the scenario I've described you wouldn't be annoyed at the opposition, of course you would. |
The opposition already throws it back under the 'sportmanship' code, so I don't think that would increase the amount of feigning injuries and kicking the ball out that goes on already. I'm pretty sure you don't know me personally, so i don't know why you keep trying to insist if my reactions would be truthful or not, that does add a bit of an unpleasant undercurrent to the discussion. I'm pretty happy with my opinion, you don't seem you will be changing yours so not really much mileage in this. | |
| |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 20:12 - Jul 2 with 2230 views | PhilTWTD |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 18:13 - Jul 2 by Ryorry |
I didn't see it, but if Bairstow had marked his crease, in the same kind of way that batsmen do to show they're back at the crease & in after making a run, then often wander about whilst all is being readied for the next ball, then that's utterly disgraceful on Carey's part. |
A wicketkeeper's view, albeit an English wicketkeeper's.
| | | |
| Same old aussies. on 20:16 - Jul 2 with 2206 views | gainsboroughblue |
Three MCC members suspended as a result of what went on in the long room at lunch.
I do wonder what would have happened had this occurred today in front of a boozed up Edgbaston or Headingley. |  |
| |
| Same old aussies. on 20:19 - Jul 2 with 2188 views | Coastalblue |
Just seen it for the first time, bad thing to do and not going to win any friends.
Just has to hope that for the England team as a whole this is the Devon Malcom getting hit on the head moment, be nice to turn around and say 'You guys are history' after a 3-2.
Sadly not going to happen, but disagree there will be a whitewash, we'll catch fire for at least one of them and they are clearly rattled when we go after them and it works even if they're in front. I wouldn't be surprised to see us lose 3-1 but them lose the one by an innings or a very big margin.
It's a shame, 1-1 would have been a wonderful scoreline, not least because I have Oval tickets. |  |
| |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 20:47 - Jul 2 with 2145 views | rkc123 |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 18:46 - Jul 2 by unstableblue |
Yup key point.... slow roll to the wickets.. umpire indicates in body movement the over is over, bairstow marks wicket and walks out, and stumps hit
Again I'm not saying Bairstow isn't somewhat culpable.. but spirit of the game not followed
And Carey knew what he was doing |
I think the umpires should have been stronger on this one, I think it is clear they both considered the over finished, the ball was with the keeper, umpires are starting to move, and as you said, it is not even a proper run out attempt (like you might get from a keeper who sees a batter setting up outside his crease), he has released it quick enough that there could be some ambiguity as to whether it had settled in his gloves, but at a speed which allows Bairstow to walk from his crease. The umpires do not always audibly call over at the end of every over, and I think there was every indication given to Bairstow that the ball was dead, so I think at the very least they should have put the onus on Cummins and asked if he wanted to uphold the appeal, which from what I have heard they didn't do.
Broad was obviously trying to get a reaction from the crowd/Aussies with his exaggerated waiting with his bat in the crease at the end of an over to check they weren't going to try anything, but it kind of highlights why you don't want this to actually be what batters have to do to ensure no one tries anything, it just slows the game down; the understanding that if the ball is with the keeper and the batter isn't attempting a run by leaving their crease should be enough.
We can't know if events play out as they did after the dismissal if Bairstow doesn't go, maybe Stokes doesn't have that knock and England still lose, but on the face of it you have to say that if Bairstow isn't out then England very likely make that chase, so it really has drastically altered the series. | | | |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 21:06 - Jul 2 with 2109 views | Suffolktractor |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 20:47 - Jul 2 by rkc123 |
I think the umpires should have been stronger on this one, I think it is clear they both considered the over finished, the ball was with the keeper, umpires are starting to move, and as you said, it is not even a proper run out attempt (like you might get from a keeper who sees a batter setting up outside his crease), he has released it quick enough that there could be some ambiguity as to whether it had settled in his gloves, but at a speed which allows Bairstow to walk from his crease. The umpires do not always audibly call over at the end of every over, and I think there was every indication given to Bairstow that the ball was dead, so I think at the very least they should have put the onus on Cummins and asked if he wanted to uphold the appeal, which from what I have heard they didn't do.
Broad was obviously trying to get a reaction from the crowd/Aussies with his exaggerated waiting with his bat in the crease at the end of an over to check they weren't going to try anything, but it kind of highlights why you don't want this to actually be what batters have to do to ensure no one tries anything, it just slows the game down; the understanding that if the ball is with the keeper and the batter isn't attempting a run by leaving their crease should be enough.
We can't know if events play out as they did after the dismissal if Bairstow doesn't go, maybe Stokes doesn't have that knock and England still lose, but on the face of it you have to say that if Bairstow isn't out then England very likely make that chase, so it really has drastically altered the series. |
Absolutely agree. The umpires should have had a backbone and said “we know you are trying to bring the game into disrepute. The over has finished, stop your childish pranks and let’s move on.”
Bairstow had moved his foot back into the crease after the ball had been taken by the keeper in the fashion that batsmen have done for centuries to imply, the ball is dead, I am going for a chat with my mate, I am not trying to sneak a run.
Everyone in the ground and on TV could see what was happening, there was no advantage Bairstow was trying to achieve. Third umpire should also have had a backbone and told the Aussies to grow up, but maybe because they winged when Stark didn’t correctly catch the ball yesterday the umpire thought he could even things up.
Either way a totally unsporting thing to do, which is a shame as I thought this series so far as being played in a good spirit.
I know a lot of macho people say “win at all costs” cos it makes them feel hard, but as an old, very amateur player I would be so angry and dumbfounded if any of my team had tried that. | | | |
| Same old aussies. on 21:07 - Jul 2 with 2106 views | JakeITFC |
Am on the train home from Lord’s now.
My thoughts:
- firstly I’m not convinced by the arguments that it’s stupid or careless by Bairstow. This is a guy who has played a lot of cricket and will have closed out hundreds or thousands of overs (as both a batter and a wicket keeper). Once he’d ducked the ball and made that grounding action with his foot (and the keeper has taken it cleanly) it’s a dead ball in every other single occasion.
- it’s really poor by Carey because this isn’t like a mankad situation where England are gaining even a slight advantage from Bairstow stepping out, he’s just being a prick.
- it’s poor from Cummins because he’s come charging in from mid-off or where ever he was fielding like this was some well concocted plan
- it’s poor from the umpires because they’ve just let it get away from them a bit. The standing umpire at the bowlers end clearly thinks it’s dead as he is taking the bowlers hat off, but they don’t take any time to take any of the sting out of it; both captains are on the field and it really could have been an opportunity to just chat it through for a moment. Instead it’s kind of rattled through the third umpire review and caused the ill feeling.
What happened after was like nothing I’ve ever seen at Lord’s and despite all of the Australian bravado and criticism of the members in the Long Room, I think they’ll look back on today and wish they’d have done things differently. |  | | |
| Broad really laying into them here on 21:12 - Jul 2 with 2097 views | unstableblue |
| Same old aussies. on 21:07 - Jul 2 by JakeITFC |
Am on the train home from Lord’s now.
My thoughts:
- firstly I’m not convinced by the arguments that it’s stupid or careless by Bairstow. This is a guy who has played a lot of cricket and will have closed out hundreds or thousands of overs (as both a batter and a wicket keeper). Once he’d ducked the ball and made that grounding action with his foot (and the keeper has taken it cleanly) it’s a dead ball in every other single occasion.
- it’s really poor by Carey because this isn’t like a mankad situation where England are gaining even a slight advantage from Bairstow stepping out, he’s just being a prick.
- it’s poor from Cummins because he’s come charging in from mid-off or where ever he was fielding like this was some well concocted plan
- it’s poor from the umpires because they’ve just let it get away from them a bit. The standing umpire at the bowlers end clearly thinks it’s dead as he is taking the bowlers hat off, but they don’t take any time to take any of the sting out of it; both captains are on the field and it really could have been an opportunity to just chat it through for a moment. Instead it’s kind of rattled through the third umpire review and caused the ill feeling.
What happened after was like nothing I’ve ever seen at Lord’s and despite all of the Australian bravado and criticism of the members in the Long Room, I think they’ll look back on today and wish they’d have done things differently. |
[Post edited 2 Jul 2023 21:13]
| |
| |
| Broad really laying into them here on 21:20 - Jul 2 with 2069 views | gainsboroughblue |
| Broad really laying into them here on 21:12 - Jul 2 by unstableblue |
[Post edited 2 Jul 2023 21:13]
|
That made me chuckle. Broad is going to be steaming in at Leeds. | |
| |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 21:42 - Jul 2 with 2007 views | rkc123 |
| It’s interesting how the Aussie pundits seem to be calling it out.. on 21:06 - Jul 2 by Suffolktractor |
Absolutely agree. The umpires should have had a backbone and said “we know you are trying to bring the game into disrepute. The over has finished, stop your childish pranks and let’s move on.”
Bairstow had moved his foot back into the crease after the ball had been taken by the keeper in the fashion that batsmen have done for centuries to imply, the ball is dead, I am going for a chat with my mate, I am not trying to sneak a run.
Everyone in the ground and on TV could see what was happening, there was no advantage Bairstow was trying to achieve. Third umpire should also have had a backbone and told the Aussies to grow up, but maybe because they winged when Stark didn’t correctly catch the ball yesterday the umpire thought he could even things up.
Either way a totally unsporting thing to do, which is a shame as I thought this series so far as being played in a good spirit.
I know a lot of macho people say “win at all costs” cos it makes them feel hard, but as an old, very amateur player I would be so angry and dumbfounded if any of my team had tried that. |
I would also add if the umpires spoke to each other (which they did) and both said "I didn't see it I had looked away" (which they had), that should have been the end of it, if the ball is still live I would expect one of the umpires to be looking at the f****** thing!
Edit- also I just saw in his press conference Cummins saying Bairstow has been trying the same thing, unless I've missed something he seems to be comparing it to Bairstow throwing for the stumps when the Aussie batsmen were batting out of their crease to negate the movement of the England seamers. Cummins isn't stupid, he obviously can't believe there's any actual comparison between the two things, so if anything to me it seems to betray there must be some uncertainty around what he did in his own mind. [Post edited 2 Jul 2023 22:08]
| | | |
| Broad really laying into them here on 22:00 - Jul 2 with 1962 views | StevieH |
| Broad really laying into them here on 21:20 - Jul 2 by gainsboroughblue |
That made me chuckle. Broad is going to be steaming in at Leeds. |
The Western Terrace at Headingley will be rather interesting later this week |  | | |
| Broad really laying into them here on 22:17 - Jul 2 with 1923 views | factual_blue |
| Broad really laying into them here on 22:00 - Jul 2 by StevieH |
The Western Terrace at Headingley will be rather interesting later this week |
I expect there'll be a banner reading 'That's all you'll be remembered for Carey'.
And a torrid time for any Aussies fielding on the boundary.
I remember years ago being at an Old Trafford test. A group of Mancunians found out from a nearby cricket nerd that Lennie Pascoe (who was fielding right on the boundary rope in front of them) actually had the surname Durtanovich. So that was when it started.
A couple of overs later the cricketing nerd added that Pascoe had missed the previous test with a bout of piles.
The rest of the afternoon was a joy. Except for Lennie Pascoe. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
