Jump to content
IGNORED

International Cricket


Monkeh

Recommended Posts

For me you have to ask what certain 'outs' are for.

A run out is there to punish poor running decisions or communication.

A stumping is there to punish aggressive batting with poor technique, where a batter charges down the wicket and misses. It is also there to punish poor balance, where a batter may fall or lift their back foot in playing a shot.

This wicket falls into neither of these camps. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

Completely agree with both these ex pro keepers. The fact he scratched his foot was pivotal. 

IMG_3341.png

Nixon faked missing a take down leg side to run out butcher, hardly a leader on morals and the spirit of cricket.

Infact someone’s found a video of Bairstow trying to do the same thing to Marnus two days ago. The only difference is Bairstow being too stupid to not look what was happening with the ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lrrr said:

Nixon faked missing a take down leg side to run out butcher, hardly a leader on morals and the spirit of cricket.

Infact someone’s found a video of Bairstow trying to do the same thing to Marnus two days ago. The only difference is Bairstow being too stupid to not look what was happening with the ball. 

The other difference is that Labushagne was batting out of his crease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

It’s not the same at all. One trying to gain an advantage, the other not. Fundamentally different 

If Bairstow isn't leaving his crease in the ball why does he have to then put his foot back into the crease after the ball has gone through? Starting outside your crease and leaving the crease during the shot are the same thing, both players are trying to play the ball the way they see best, but at the end of it all both players are out of the crease when the delivery has gone past them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

If Bairstow isn't leaving his crease in the ball why does he have to then put his foot back into the crease after the ball has gone through? Starting outside your crease and leaving the crease during the shot are the same thing, both players are trying to play the ball the way they see best, but at the end of it all both players are out of the crease when the delivery has gone past them.

He scratched the crease after the ball had passed him to signify he was ‘in’.  He then wandered out of his crease, not gaining an advantage.  If he has tried it himself when keeping then fair enough but batter should only be considered out if they haven’t signified they are ‘in’ in any way 

Edited by And Its Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

He scratched the crease after the ball had passed him to signify he was ‘in’.  He then wandered out of his crease, not gaining an advantage.  If he has tried it himself when keeping then fair enough but batter should only be considered out if they haven’t signified they are ‘in’ in any way 

No the batter shouldn't be stupid and walk out straight away without checking whats going on with the ball, the difference for me is that Carey threw the ball straight away on catching it while Bairstow was actually still in his crease so the idea is that he's looking to get him out based on what Baistow has been doing after shots and finishing outside his crease ie tactical attempt at stumping. If Carey had thrown it after Bairstow had then left the crease again then yeah I'd be on the side of that its wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rob k said:

Makes me laugh all this talk about the ‘spirit of the game’

How about walking off when you know you have snicked it. No different is it? 

Only difference is sometimes you will get bad decisions so batters less likely to walk because of that I think.  In the hope it evens itself out. I’m sure ‘spirit of cricket’, which is a crap term, means different things to different people 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

No the batter shouldn't be stupid and walk out straight away without checking whats going on with the ball, the difference for me is that Carey threw the ball straight away on catching it while Bairstow was actually still in his crease so the idea is that he's looking to get him out based on what Baistow has been doing after shots and finishing outside his crease ie tactical attempt at stumping. If Carey had thrown it after Bairstow had then left the crease again then yeah I'd be on the side of that its wrong.

Fair enough. For me, the scratching of the crease and not looking to gain an advantage is paramount.  Anyway, we won’t agree and its the sort of thing that will always split opinion.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Only difference is sometimes you will get bad decisions so batters less likely to walk because of that I think.  In the hope it evens itself out. I’m sure ‘spirit of cricket’, which is a crap term, means different things to different people 

Yes fair point ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Fair enough. For me, the scratching of the crease and not looking to gain an advantage is paramount.  Anyway, we won’t agree and its the sort of thing that will always split opinion.   

? Yeah agree to disagree, for me Carey's intent being within the spirit of the game is key for me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm genuinely shocked by those who think the Bairstow dismissal was in any way sportsmanlike.

Bairstow ducked the bouncer, regained his balance, marked back inside the crease with his foot and then left the crease because he understandably perceived the ball to be dead. It's a misunderstanding at best.

Now, in a way I'm actually not against Carey throwing the stumps down as a slightly cheeky way of unsettling Bairstow a bit and a reminder he needs to be switched on, but can you really be serious that you're happy dismissing a batsman in those circumstances? That you're happy to capitalise on a misunderstanding - at best - rather than getting him out with a piece of skill?

I can't fathom it and I think Pat Cummins completely misread the room by upholding the appeal. And then to compare it to the Starc catch? Absolute nonsense, because one was an umpire's decision and the other was a player's decision. His decision.

2 hours ago, Lrrr said:

No the batter shouldn't be stupid and walk out straight away without checking whats going on with the ball, the difference for me is that Carey threw the ball straight away on catching it while Bairstow was actually still in his crease so the idea is that he's looking to get him out based on what Baistow has been doing after shots and finishing outside his crease ie tactical attempt at stumping. If Carey had thrown it after Bairstow had then left the crease again then yeah I'd be on the side of that its wrong.

The thing is, while he didn't wait for Bairstow to leave the crease he knew he would do so in that manner because it was a fair assumption, on Bairstow's part, that the ball was dead.

Like I say, I'm actually not against Carey's action as a bit of psychology, but to uphold the appeal I just can't get on board with. Undoubtedly there'll always be a mark against that win because of it and there didn't really need to be because Australia are slightly the better team regardless.

As an aside... worth a tenner on Bairstow to end the series as top run scorer now. People tend to make him angry at their peril.

  • Like 2
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Journalist said:

The thing is, while he didn't wait for Bairstow to leave the crease he knew he would do so in that manner

He's doing it because Bairtsow is leaving his crease through playing the shot, ie before the ball is dead and same reason Bairstow tried it when Marnus was batting outside the crease, ball wasn't dead then either. Are we saying that wicketkeepers can only attempt run outs like that on the first 5 balls of an over because people assume the 6th ball is the end of the over? Pretty stupid to assume so when its phrased like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob k said:

Makes me laugh all this talk about the ‘spirit of the game’

How about walking off when you know you have snicked it. No different is it? 

You dont walk in village cricket let alone in a test match

It is the bowlers job to appeal Then the umpires job to give it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

You dont walk in village cricket let alone in a test match

It is the bowlers job to appeal Then the umpires job to give it

 

That’s fine I’ve no issue with it really, but you can’t then talk about the ‘spirit of the game’ when you are intentionally cheating by not walking when you 100% know you have hit the ball 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lrrr said:

He's doing it because Bairtsow is leaving his crease through playing the shot, ie before the ball is dead and same reason Bairstow tried it when Marnus was batting outside the crease, ball wasn't dead then either. Are we saying that wicketkeepers can only attempt run outs like that on the first 5 balls of an over because people assume the 6th ball is the end of the over? Pretty stupid to assume so when its phrased like that.

Bairstow didn’t leave his crease through playing the shot. He was batting within his crease, ducked and stood up without leaving the crease, made no attempt to run, then scratched a mark in the crease after the keeper had caught the ball.  It's nothing to do with it being the last ball of the over: in that situation the ball would generally be considered dead, even if the umpire hadn’t called ‘over’ - and even if the rules of the game apparently don’t say so!

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the oldies here may remember that there was an incident comparable to the Bairstow stumping in a Test match in the West Indies in 1974. After the last ball of the day non-striker Alvin Kallicharan, who was 100 and some not out, started walking off towards the pavilion (at the opposite end) before the umpire called ‘over’ or ‘stumps’. Tony Greig shied at the stumps and ran him out. After a long discussion with the WI cricket authorities that evening England decided to withdraw their appeal. This was probably the right thing to do from the point of view of preventing a riot as well as upholding the spirit of the game.

Tony Greig’s sense of fair play was probably closer to a modern Australian than an old-fashioned Englishman - but he wasn’t captain at that time, and the appeal wasn’t withdrawn at once, as I thought then and still think now, it should have been.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, lager loud said:

Bairstow didn’t leave his crease through playing the shot. He was batting within his crease, ducked and stood up without leaving the crease, made no attempt to run, then scratched a mark in the crease after the keeper had caught the ball.  It's nothing to do with it being the last ball of the over: in that situation the ball would generally be considered dead, even if the umpire hadn’t called ‘over’ - and even if the rules of the game apparently don’t say so!

 

Exactly this @Lrrr - he left the crease after playing his shot, not during playing the shot. Do you honestly not see it that way?...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/66080677

... I've even rewatched it to make sure I'm not going mad.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m still really angry about it. And there are hundreds of Aussies trying to compare Bairstow trying to run out Labuschangne in the same fashion, or us running out Colin Degrandhomme as comparable things when they clearly aren’t  

In upholding the appeal, what Cummins did was 10x worse than a Mankad, because there actually is some advantage being sought there - and I genuinely hope We see some Mankads on Thursday. 

In hindsight I suspect the umpires could have done something about it too. They were both acting like it was the end of the over. I suspect they’ll change what they’re doing too from now on and be very clear about the end of the over before they start handing caps back. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...