The Ashes

IronHerb

Lukerz said:

I can understand if you immediately leave your crease, not a good 3/4 seconds after the ball is caught and umpire is already going to reach for the bowlers cap in his pocket.

The England players reaction & fans, who pay the money to keep the sport going, clearly didn’t like it. That’s a fairly good indicator on where it lies on the ‘sporting’ scale.

You look out for the keeper throwing the ball at the stumps in village cricket let alone a Test Match. And let's face it, most of the 'fans' in the ground don't have the foggiest idea about the Laws of the game, same as the players.

Lukerz

Just don’t agree. He didn’t leave the crease. He was in it, he dragged his foot into the ground whilst in his crease, 3/4 second passed and then he walked off to speak to Stokes as all batsman do after every over. The umpire apparently didn’t call over but was happy to hand the cap back to the bowler.

I know ‘law’ wise it’s ok, it’s just for me a little nasty.

Lukerz

Yes, but when you look out for it it’s when the batsman has left his crease whilst playing/dealing with the ball. Bairstow hadn’t. If he’d walked out his crease whilst leaving the ball & then Carey hits the stumps, fine. Not that way.

thornburyiron

If you watch the replay he walked out as soon as the ball hit Carey’s gloves. He should know better.

IronHerb

But the ball was already on it's way to the stumps so wasn't a dead ball. And just because he stepped back into his crease doesn't make him in.
If Carey was standing up to a spinner he can stand there, with the ball in his gloves, until he decides nothing is going to happen but if the batter stumbles out of his crease a few seconds after the keeper takes the ball then he can be stumped. Only difference today was that Carey was not standing up to the wicket.

Slacker

Bairstow made a schoolboy error.
He was out.
Pat Cummins should have waived it.

PrestonHammer

They are just sandpaper cheating scumbags!

Lukerz

For me it’s simple; an umpire who turns his head away from play & prepares to return a cap to the bowler from his pocket, considers the over to be finished.

IronHerb

When 6 valid balls have been bowled and when the ball becomes dead, the umpire shall call Over before leaving the wicket. See also Law 20.3

20.1 Ball is dead

20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when

20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.

Lukerz

So does law 20.1.1.1 not apply here?

thornburyiron

So by that logic there can never be a stumping or run out because as soon as the keeper has it the ball is dead. Nonsense

thornburyiron

20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.

20.2 Ball finally settled

Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.

Lukerz

Well he wasn’t in a position to decide as he was looking at the bowlers cap in his pocket.

Lukerz

As I said, the key here is Bairstow had not left his crease at any point during the delivery. He was in his crease, he dragged his foot on the wicket, then walked off whilst the umpire was also going to hand the cap back to the bowler & had switched off too. The over had ended & everybody knew it.

The umpire should’ve just said when they appealed ‘the over’s finished’. Clearly when they reviewed it it was going to be out as he was not in his crease, but it should not have gone to the 3rd umpire. Poor all round.

Lukerz

thornburyiron said:

So by that logic there can never be a stumping or run out because as soon as the keeper has it the ball is dead. Nonsense

No, because a run-out is live play (they are running between the wicket whilst fielders retrieve the ball) & a stumping is where the foot is dragged out of the crease or lifted during or after the delivery & when the wicketkeeper takes it. Both are live.

I am not challenging the technicalities of it, it is just poor given the umpire had switched off from the over.

IronHerb

It's the same as the Starc catch. Buy your reckoning the catch should have stayed as he clearly caught it, but the act hadn't finished.

thornburyiron

It’s a bit of a case of sour grapes. Bairstow tried it himself in their first innings but missed. Would England have retracted the appeal if he had hit. Who knows.

Fortuneseeker

@thornburyiron, According to Ben Stokes yes they would. Aussie press loving it back home calling us every name they can think of which due to their lack of intelligence doesn't amount to many.

BubblesNeverDies

Comparing Starc's non-catch with Bairstow's run-out is comparing chalk and cheese.

Duckett did not appeal the non-catch and was on his way to the pavilion when he was called back. In no way was he complaining or being unsportsmanlike.

Bairstow's run-out was, on the other hand, the player's appeal to the umpire who, as Luke says, should have responded that ‘the over’s finished’, especially as his (the umpire) actions were consistent with that.

In the two situations the umpire's decisions were based on the correct interpretation of the laws but there's only one instance of unsportsmanlike behaviour in this.

Dodger58

The over is not finished until the umpire calls over.
Carey took and threw the ball in one action. There was no noticeable delay, so the ball was not ‘dead’.
Schoolboy error from Bairstow, not ‘unsportsmanlike’ behaviour, Bairstow wandered off before the ball was dead.

OldCastleSwift

I agree that Bairstow was culpable, but I'm with Bubbles on this; the umpires actions would almost certainly have suggested to Bairstow that the over was considered over.

Carey knew Bairstow wasn't attempting a run, so for me it's a lack of sportsmanship on his part, and Cummins had the opportunity to withdraw the appeal knowing the same, but he also chose the wrong (IMO) route.

IronHerb

Carey threw the ball while Bairstow was in his crease as he predicted, following the previous ball, that Bairstow was likely to go walkabout. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run hence he was stumped.

OldCastleSwift

Whilst in his crease, Bairstow 'scratched in'.

The way I see it, Bairstow ducked the ball, heard it hit Carey's gloves, saw the umpire moving on and marked in.

Yes, he should have made sure, but I think it should have been evident to Carey - and especially Cummins - that Bairstow, and arguably the umpire by his actions, had considered the ball dead.

PrestonHammer

The Australians moaning about being called cheats is laughable. I remember Broad not walking in 2015, I think and the next Ashes in Australia, 2 years later, the amount of abuse Broad took from when he got of the plane to the first test was appalling. Did Broad whinge and moan about it? No he didn't. Whingeing, moaning Aussies.

thornburyiron

Bairstow should take a leaf out of Stokes’s book. He checks with the umpire every time that it’s ok to leave the crease.

buffybegood

Pope out, and yet apparently we're still not calling up Foakes:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66098368

This gives Stokes and McCullen an easy out, and yet they're still not taking it, madness.

OldCastleSwift

I can't believe they'd consider playing Lawrence ahead of calling up Foakes.

What happened to him being the 'best gloveman in the world'? Surely, you just go Root, Brook, Stokes and Bairstow at 3, 4, 5 and 6 and bring in Foakes at 7.

buffybegood

Or even, if Bairstow hasn't got the pressure of keeping, put him in at 3 to leave the rest of the middle order unchanged. But if Root is prepared to play at 3, as the BBC article suggests, then yeah, just bump everyone up one and Foakes keeps and bats at 7.

Although Bairstow was better with the gloves in the second Test (he couldn't have been much worse), this gives a face-saving way to bring Foakes back in, and it's crazy not to take it.

buffybegood

Duckett
Crawley
Brook
Root
Stokes
Bairstow
Moeen Ali
Woakes
Broad
Robinson
Wood

Seems to be the chosen team

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66106858

Not surprised Wood has come in for Anderson, I suggested that the 2 were likely to alternate given the demands of back to back Tests. Again no real surprise Woakes comes in for Tongue, especially as Wood is giving a genuine pace option. More than a little surprised that Moeen is back in, I just can't see him not having a problem with the amount of bowling that will be required; the initial blister will have healed, but a callous won't have formed just yet so I'd be surprised if the finger doesn't blister again.

And still no Foakes 😭😭😭. So, so stupid. I'm sorry, I've really enjoyed English Test cricket since Stokes and McCullen took over, but they're cutting off their noses to spite their faces here, by being too stubborn to admit that dropping Foakes was a mistake.

Yeoldhammer

with all the fielding problems and the butter fingers that are Bairstow how Foakes doesn't get in when Pope gets injured is incredible.