Opinion NMFC Board Cricket ThreadII - Windies, Big Bash, Pakistan.

[Horace]

No doubt this will be an unpopular view here, but I feel very uncomfortable with how this played out. I was watching at the time, saw Bairstow duck below a bouncer, the ball taken by Carey and Bairstow then, obviously unaware of what was happening behind him, walked down the pitch, as we see so often happen.

I am fully aware of the rules of cricket and to the letter of the law, the decision by the third umpire was correct. But was it something that was good for the game? I don't think so.

I think he should have been given Bairstow a warning and if he had persisted in leaving his crease before the ball was declared dead, then its open slather.

I don't think that the Australians needed to do that. I think they still would have taken the last 6 wickets, because history shows that teams in the position that England were in, very rarely hold on and win on the 5th day of a Test.

And if Bairstow had not been dismissed this way and the Australians had ended up winning, which as I said I believed they would have, then they would have won on merit and deservedly been praised for their fine performance.

Throwing down the stumps when the batsman at the crease is totally unaware of what was happening, was not a wicket taken on merit. There was no ability for Bairstow to compete on merit in that set of circumstances.

I for one believe that every sporting contest should be decided on merit.

I liken what Carey did, to the game that we recently lost against the Swans, when Rampe drew the umpires attention to the fact that we had exceeded the number of interchanges, causing the umpires to pay a free to Sydney and delivering them an undeserved win. They did not win on merit.

Had that free not been paid and the ball had reverted to the contest deep in the forward pocket late in that game and we had successfully defended until the game was over, we would have won on merit.

Had instead Sydney successfully converted those dying moments of the contest and goaled to snatch the win, they too would have won on merit, rather than because of a decision that was not part of the contest.

I have watched most minutes of these first two Test matches, but now am seriously doubting if I will watch any more of this series. Not that anyone will care about that.

 

[Lomas]

No doubt this will be an unpopular view here, but I feel very uncomfortable with how this played out. I was watching at the time, saw Bairstow duck below a bouncer, the ball taken by Carey and Bairstow then, obviously unaware of what was happening behind him, walked down the pitch, as we see so often happen.

I am fully aware of the rules of cricket and to the letter of the law, the decision by the third umpire was correct. But was it something that was good for the game? I don't think so.

I think he should have been given Bairstow a warning and if he had persisted in leaving his crease before the ball was declared dead, then its open slather.

I don't think that the Australians needed to do that. I think they still would have taken the last 6 wickets, because history shows that teams in the position that England were in, very rarely hold on and win on the 5th day of a Test.

And if Bairstow had not been dismissed this way and the Australians had ended up winning, which as I said I believed they would have, then they would have won on merit and deservedly been praised for their fine performance.

Throwing down the stumps when the batsman at the crease is totally unaware of what was happening, was not a wicket taken on merit. There was no ability for Bairstow to compete on merit in that set of circumstances.

I for one believe that every sporting contest should be decided on merit.

I liken what Carey did, to the game that we recently lost against the Swans, when Rampe drew the umpires attention to the fact that we had exceeded the number of interchanges, causing the umpires to pay a free to Sydney and delivering them an undeserved win. They did not win on merit.

Had that free not been paid and the ball had reverted to the contest deep in the forward pocket late in that game and we had successfully defended until the game was over, we would have won on merit.

Had instead Sydney successfully converted those dying moments of the contest and goaled to snatch the win, they too would have won on merit, rather than because of a decision that was not part of the contest.

I have watched most minutes of these first two Test matches, but now am seriously doubting if I will watch any more of this series. Not that anyone will care about that.

I agree to a point, I can’t remember if I posted on here or somewhere else that these types of dismissals make me uncomfortable.
What I don’t agree with is the sanctimonious, some could say hypocritical, commentary from players who know this happens on occasion.
In a few years I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the England team say they were helping to create theatre, or back up a team mate for a silly mistake.

 

[krakouers]

Imagine being lectured about rules and the spirit of the game by the leader of the Tories.

Could have been worse… one of the previous could have explained the intricacies of inter species relationships…

 

[Hearts to hearts]

No doubt this will be an unpopular view here, but I feel very uncomfortable with how this played out. I was watching at the time, saw Bairstow duck below a bouncer, the ball taken by Carey and Bairstow then, obviously unaware of what was happening behind him, walked down the pitch, as we see so often happen.

I am fully aware of the rules of cricket and to the letter of the law, the decision by the third umpire was correct. But was it something that was good for the game? I don't think so.

I think he should have been given Bairstow a warning and if he had persisted in leaving his crease before the ball was declared dead, then its open slather.

I don't think that the Australians needed to do that. I think they still would have taken the last 6 wickets, because history shows that teams in the position that England were in, very rarely hold on and win on the 5th day of a Test.

And if Bairstow had not been dismissed this way and the Australians had ended up winning, which as I said I believed they would have, then they would have won on merit and deservedly been praised for their fine performance.

Throwing down the stumps when the batsman at the crease is totally unaware of what was happening, was not a wicket taken on merit. There was no ability for Bairstow to compete on merit in that set of circumstances.

I for one believe that every sporting contest should be decided on merit.

I liken what Carey did, to the game that we recently lost against the Swans, when Rampe drew the umpires attention to the fact that we had exceeded the number of interchanges, causing the umpires to pay a free to Sydney and delivering them an undeserved win. They did not win on merit.

Had that free not been paid and the ball had reverted to the contest deep in the forward pocket late in that game and we had successfully defended until the game was over, we would have won on merit.

Had instead Sydney successfully converted those dying moments of the contest and goaled to snatch the win, they too would have won on merit, rather than because of a decision that was not part of the contest.

I have watched most minutes of these first two Test matches, but now am seriously doubting if I will watch any more of this series. Not that anyone will care about that.

Watching Bairstow doing the same wrong thing and putting his wicket at risk and eventually getting him out when he does it is to me like bowling a particular height or speed because you know a batter doesn’t handle it well. It’s test cricket. I agree it wasn‘t the match defining moment and Australia probably would have won anyway - they had one hand on the victory when Root went cheaply the evening before and a couple of others threw their wickets away cheaply.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

No doubt this will be an unpopular view here, but I feel very uncomfortable with how this played out. I was watching at the time, saw Bairstow duck below a bouncer, the ball taken by Carey and Bairstow then, obviously unaware of what was happening behind him, walked down the pitch, as we see so often happen.

I am fully aware of the rules of cricket and to the letter of the law, the decision by the third umpire was correct. But was it something that was good for the game? I don't think so.

I think he should have been given Bairstow a warning and if he had persisted in leaving his crease before the ball was declared dead, then its open slather.

I don't think that the Australians needed to do that. I think they still would have taken the last 6 wickets, because history shows that teams in the position that England were in, very rarely hold on and win on the 5th day of a Test.

And if Bairstow had not been dismissed this way and the Australians had ended up winning, which as I said I believed they would have, then they would have won on merit and deservedly been praised for their fine performance.

Throwing down the stumps when the batsman at the crease is totally unaware of what was happening, was not a wicket taken on merit. There was no ability for Bairstow to compete on merit in that set of circumstances.

I for one believe that every sporting contest should be decided on merit.

I liken what Carey did, to the game that we recently lost against the Swans, when Rampe drew the umpires attention to the fact that we had exceeded the number of interchanges, causing the umpires to pay a free to Sydney and delivering them an undeserved win. They did not win on merit.

Had that free not been paid and the ball had reverted to the contest deep in the forward pocket late in that game and we had successfully defended until the game was over, we would have won on merit.

Had instead Sydney successfully converted those dying moments of the contest and goaled to snatch the win, they too would have won on merit, rather than because of a decision that was not part of the contest.

I have watched most minutes of these first two Test matches, but now am seriously doubting if I will watch any more of this series. Not that anyone will care about that.

It's Bairstow's job to pay attention, the rules don't change because he's distracted. Does not diminish from the merit of the dismissal at all.

It's not up to the opposition to make sure that he had his coffee before coming out. It's an elite sport, you pay attention or you lose your wicket.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

No doubt this will be an unpopular view here, but I feel very uncomfortable with how this played out. I was watching at the time, saw Bairstow duck below a bouncer, the ball taken by Carey and Bairstow then, obviously unaware of what was happening behind him, walked down the pitch, as we see so often happen.

I am fully aware of the rules of cricket and to the letter of the law, the decision by the third umpire was correct. But was it something that was good for the game? I don't think so.

I think he should have been given Bairstow a warning and if he had persisted in leaving his crease before the ball was declared dead, then its open slather.

I don't think that the Australians needed to do that. I think they still would have taken the last 6 wickets, because history shows that teams in the position that England were in, very rarely hold on and win on the 5th day of a Test.

And if Bairstow had not been dismissed this way and the Australians had ended up winning, which as I said I believed they would have, then they would have won on merit and deservedly been praised for their fine performance.

Throwing down the stumps when the batsman at the crease is totally unaware of what was happening, was not a wicket taken on merit. There was no ability for Bairstow to compete on merit in that set of circumstances.

I for one believe that every sporting contest should be decided on merit.

I liken what Carey did, to the game that we recently lost against the Swans, when Rampe drew the umpires attention to the fact that we had exceeded the number of interchanges, causing the umpires to pay a free to Sydney and delivering them an undeserved win. They did not win on merit.

Had that free not been paid and the ball had reverted to the contest deep in the forward pocket late in that game and we had successfully defended until the game was over, we would have won on merit.

Had instead Sydney successfully converted those dying moments of the contest and goaled to snatch the win, they too would have won on merit, rather than because of a decision that was not part of the contest.

I have watched most minutes of these first two Test matches, but now am seriously doubting if I will watch any more of this series. Not that anyone will care about that.

Should Starc have given Tongue a warning before bowling him out? I just don't get this obsession people have with giving warnings before dismissing a batter. We are almost at the point of can't be out first ball, tippety runs, and last man gets his tucker.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

I listened today to a good chat about this on The Final Word podcast. They said basically that if you play competitive cricket in Australia you’ve almost certainly seen this happen and more importantly you are conditioned to believe that if you lose your wicket being a bit dozy that is on you and you deserve to be out, where cricket in England has a softer edge at all levels. Not because they are custodians of the spirit of the game or anything, it’s just different.

They also talked about the report into the game in England which was interesting. In a country where 7% go to private schools, that system produces something like 80% of top cricketers. Most kids don’t have access to local fields to play on and all of the top level games are behind a paywall.

 

[krakouers]

Out first ball is against the spirit of the game

See, I tried that in my limited career…
Not even the umpire gave me that benefit

 

[koshari]

I call bull$h1t on the outrage, i played junior cricket and even for us it was drilled into us dont leave your crease.

I imagine its the same in England re junior cricketers, naivety is one thing but is still no excuse ( example i got pinged in an under 10s soccer game many years ago when i had to take the keepers gloves one day our keeper was unavailable and being less aware of the rules walked the ball over the line conceding a goal) . but there is no way that Bairstow didn't know the rules, he just had a brain fart and they are using the good old "spirit of the game" malarkey to deflect blame.

 

[Samsquanch]

See, I tried that in my limited career…
Not even the umpire gave me that benefit

What did I tell you about umpires?

 

[SMaturin]

It’s on Bairstow to take the bare modicum of care for his wicket.

This isn’t Kanga cricket. It’s the Ashes. It’s not even “The Ashes” - wickets like that are attempted and are taken every weekend.

I’d hate it if it happened against us, and don’t begrudge any English fan feeling filthy in the immediate aftermath.

The emotions have to go somewhere, are the Aussies have put an easy target on their heads.

But the absolute, ongoing melt is as over the top as it is predictable.

And on field matters aside, it’s another moral cape for England to drape themselves in rather than show some introspection about under 12 level fundamentals of the game.

The lines between Bazball and English exceptionalism are very blurry.

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

He was standing in his crease when the ball passed, he looks down to see if his foot is behind the crease before walking to the middle of the pitch. Clear as day he was not trying to take a run.

Not out and should have been dealt with by the third umpire.

 

[krakouers]

No doubt this will be an unpopular view here, but I feel very uncomfortable with how this played out. I was watching at the time, saw Bairstow duck below a bouncer, the ball taken by Carey and Bairstow then, obviously unaware of what was happening behind him, walked down the pitch, as we see so often happen.

I am fully aware of the rules of cricket and to the letter of the law, the decision by the third umpire was correct. But was it something that was good for the game? I don't think so.

I think he should have been given Bairstow a warning and if he had persisted in leaving his crease before the ball was declared dead, then its open slather.

I don't think that the Australians needed to do that. I think they still would have taken the last 6 wickets, because history shows that teams in the position that England were in, very rarely hold on and win on the 5th day of a Test.

And if Bairstow had not been dismissed this way and the Australians had ended up winning, which as I said I believed they would have, then they would have won on merit and deservedly been praised for their fine performance.

Throwing down the stumps when the batsman at the crease is totally unaware of what was happening, was not a wicket taken on merit. There was no ability for Bairstow to compete on merit in that set of circumstances.

I for one believe that every sporting contest should be decided on merit.

I liken what Carey did, to the game that we recently lost against the Swans, when Rampe drew the umpires attention to the fact that we had exceeded the number of interchanges, causing the umpires to pay a free to Sydney and delivering them an undeserved win. They did not win on merit.

Had that free not been paid and the ball had reverted to the contest deep in the forward pocket late in that game and we had successfully defended until the game was over, we would have won on merit.

Had instead Sydney successfully converted those dying moments of the contest and goaled to snatch the win, they too would have won on merit, rather than because of a decision that was not part of the contest.

I have watched most minutes of these first two Test matches, but now am seriously doubting if I will watch any more of this series. Not that anyone will care about that.

TBF I agree with you to a point Horace, but end of the day, as much as we groan about things, it’s left to the umpires right or wrong (and dear god, some are completely wrong, often).
I agree with elements of Lomas and roo blitz though, it’s uncomfortable and the smarter thing would be to say “we are open to changing that law” or “formal warning for certain dismissals will apply”.
The umpire who sent it upstairs and could have said, “I didn’t hear no warning” or “Did you warn him beforehand?” Rather than refer it and dismiss it based on that.
Also, the fact, Carey caught the ball, threw it towards the stumps on the same motion was good and in plenty other situations would miss, Bairstow should have waited in his crease until he heard the formal call or looked at the square umpire who could have said “he grounded it and the ball was dead”
It’s an absolute shambles from all concerned, but, until the law is changed, it is out. That’s unfortunately the case…
Just both sides (shakes head)… I get banter but ffs, some journalists need to grow up… both have inflamed a simple situation

 

[Mav]

Should Starc have given Tongue a warning before bowling him out? I just don't get this obsession people have with giving warnings before dismissing a batter. We are almost at the point of can't be out first ball, tippety runs, and last man gets his tucker.

WTF is tippety run? It’s as bad as South Australians and Tippy go.

It’s Tip and Run, FFS.

 

[krakouers]

What did I tell you about umpires?

… where they touched you?
Or are we talking about another conversation?

 

[RHLK]

Bairstow's an even bigger drongo for getting himself stumped given his own 'spirit of the game' keeping style.

Let's hope the Poms keep blowing holy Bazball smoke up each other's arses for the rest of the series. 5-0.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

He was standing in his crease when the ball passed, he looks down to see if his foot is behind the crease before walking to the middle of the pitch. Clear as day he was not trying to take a run.

Not out and should have been dealt with by the third umpire.

Furphy. No-one who is stumped is trying to take a run. Their job is to stay grounded behind the crease until the ball is dead, and not leave their ground until then, or the wicket keeper can take the bails off and get them out. The fact the wicket keeper is further away than usual for stumpings doesn’t change the rule.

Oh and the third umpire did deal with it. By enforcing the rule.

 

[shinboner magic]

Checked the scorebook - he’s still out

 

[Lomas]

Bairstow's an even bigger drongo for getting himself stumped given his own 'spirit of the game' keeping style.

Let's hope the Poms keep blowing holy Bazball smoke up each other's arses for the rest of the series. 5-0.

They’ll also end up -20 in the test championship at this rate.

 

[shinboner magic]

Hope we bat first - want to see bairstow throwing at the stumps and getting many overthrows

 

[Lomas]

Hope we bat first - want to see bairstow throwing at the stumps and getting many overthrows

His multiple Bairstow pies were almost the difference. Those and Broad’s extras. Wonder if there is anything in that?

 

[roo blitz]

No doubt this will be an unpopular view here, but I feel very uncomfortable with how this played out. I was watching at the time, saw Bairstow duck below a bouncer, the ball taken by Carey and Bairstow then, obviously unaware of what was happening behind him, walked down the pitch, as we see so often happen.

I am fully aware of the rules of cricket and to the letter of the law, the decision by the third umpire was correct. But was it something that was good for the game? I don't think so.

I think he should have been given Bairstow a warning and if he had persisted in leaving his crease before the ball was declared dead, then its open slather.

I don't think that the Australians needed to do that. I think they still would have taken the last 6 wickets, because history shows that teams in the position that England were in, very rarely hold on and win on the 5th day of a Test.

And if Bairstow had not been dismissed this way and the Australians had ended up winning, which as I said I believed they would have, then they would have won on merit and deservedly been praised for their fine performance.

Throwing down the stumps when the batsman at the crease is totally unaware of what was happening, was not a wicket taken on merit. There was no ability for Bairstow to compete on merit in that set of circumstances.

I for one believe that every sporting contest should be decided on merit.

I liken what Carey did, to the game that we recently lost against the Swans, when Rampe drew the umpires attention to the fact that we had exceeded the number of interchanges, causing the umpires to pay a free to Sydney and delivering them an undeserved win. They did not win on merit.

Had that free not been paid and the ball had reverted to the contest deep in the forward pocket late in that game and we had successfully defended until the game was over, we would have won on merit.

Had instead Sydney successfully converted those dying moments of the contest and goaled to snatch the win, they too would have won on merit, rather than because of a decision that was not part of the contest.

I have watched most minutes of these first two Test matches, but now am seriously doubting if I will watch any more of this series. Not that anyone will care about that.

Finally someone else with the balls to say it like it really is. Thank you Horace . Unfortunately people get very emotional with sport and dont see the whole story. Great comment. I agree 100 per cent and a few of my other Aussie mates are now coming to realise that it was a bad call as well when you look at the facts. I think the Australians will know it was not in the spirit of the game as well on reflection. The umpires should have stepped in as well on the field and this mess would have been avoided for the betterment of the game. it was weak umpiring . An old style umpire like Dicky bird would have said , no lads , thats not right. Not out, lets get on with the game. Umps are robots these days

 

[shinboner magic]

His multiple Bairstow pies were almost the difference. Those and Broad’s extras. Wonder if there is anything in that?

Silence about the poms doing anything wrong isn’t spoken about.
It’s the big bad Aussies fault

 

[roo blitz]

He was standing in his crease when the ball passed, he looks down to see if his foot is behind the crease before walking to the middle of the pitch. Clear as day he was not trying to take a run.

Not out and should have been dealt with by the third umpire.

100 per cent correct

 

[Sillygit]

He was standing in his crease when the ball passed, he looks down to see if his foot is behind the crease before walking to the middle of the pitch. Clear as day he was not trying to take a run.

Not out and should have been dealt with by the third umpire.

you don't have to be trying to take a run, you have to be in your crease while the ball is not dead, that's why it's a stumping, not a run out.