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

[Sillygit]

100 per cent correct

honestly dude, you don't get it, it's cool, don't worry so much about it

 

[Samsquanch]

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

That one went through to the keeper. No shot offered.

 

[Samsquanch]

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.

100% correct. And to disagree with this would be to offend the spirit of the game. This is how cricket is supposed to be played. Tough on the field, then have a beer afterwards without prejudice.

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

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.

And I will sprout this line to all my Pommie friends and every Englishman I speak with, but you and I know it's not out

 

[Sillygit]

also, merit, for goodness sake...

here's merit for ya, noticing that a batsmen continuously leaves his crease MULTIPLE TIMES IN AN OVER because he's forgotten that he does actually need to be in his crease per the most basic arse laws of the game. USING HIS OWN TACTIC AGAINST HIM of stumping off a fast bowler that he's too sh*t of a keeper to do himself but did try earlier IN THE SAME GAME. Pulling off the catch and instant throw down from metres away with gloves on. Doing it before he's even left his crease cause he's too stupid to look back and confirm the ball is dead.

That's meritorious play right there.

 

[roo blitz]

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.

The problem with this comment is when you belive it is over you do leave the crease. 100 per cent this is what he believed. No way was he doing anything else. He marked the crease with his foot beforehand and looked down before going up the pitch to speak to Stokes. Common sense tells everyone it was a blunder but not one worthy of being given out for. Sportsmanship has to be there otherwise its not a game anymore

 

[Horace]

I wonder if sometime in the future, Carey's act will be judged in a not dissimilar manner to how the Mankad incident was judged? I think it has the potential to be because we are just one of several countries who play cricket and may not have too many friends in a situation like this.

mankad - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Samsquanch]

And I will sprout this line to all my Pommie friends and every Englishman I speak with, but you and I know it's not out

If you watch six year olds playing tippity with a tennis ball and a home-made bat you'll see even the most unco little tyke take a big swing and a miss, then even if they don't know any other rule of cricket, they'll ground their bat behind the crease in a flash as they know that if the keeper takes a ping at the wheelie bin and hits it while they are out of their crease they are O.U.T.

In any grade of cricket the ball is live until it isn't. If a batter is unsure they assume the ball is alive. Every player on the field knows that the ball has to settle in the keeper or bowler's hands to be out of play. The batter will always wait until the umpire calls over when the last ball is bowled.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

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

This is such a Trumpian logical fallacy. By the way, your other Aussie mates are just humouring you.

 

[shinboner magic]

I wonder if sometime in the future, Carey's act will be judged in a not dissimilar manner to how the Mankad incident was judged? I think it has the potential to be because we are just one of several countries who play cricket and may not have too many friends in a situation like this.

mankad - Google Search

www.google.com

Get ya hand off it mate

It’s happened quite a few times but when we do it , it’s a hangable offence.
They’re playing to win - not some social game

 

[Samsquanch]

100 per cent this is what he believed.

Maybe so but 100% he was wrong, and that is on him, not Carey.

Everybody defending him is making him look like an imbecile. I suspect they are actually right about that however.

What he believed does not matter.

His foot scratch in the crease counts for nothing.

His claim that the umpire was handing the bowler back his hat is meaningless - and it's wrong.

Bairstow left the crease on an assumption, and as we all know, assumptions make an arse out of dozy English wicket keepers.

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

I wonder if sometime in the future, Carey's act will be judged in a not dissimilar manner to how the Mankad incident was judged? I think it has the potential to be because we are just one of several countries who play cricket and may not have too many friends in a situation like this.

mankad - Google Search

www.google.com

That's odd because Asian cricket followers seem to be having trouble understanding the furore here. Besides, Mankad has been vindicated, especially with T20 cricket.

 

[roo blitz]

This is such a Trumpian logical fallacy. By the way, your other Aussie mates are just humouring you.

Yeah right and you would know. Pfft

 

[roo blitz]

Maybe so but 100% he was wrong, and that is on him, not Carey.

Everybody defending him is making him look like an imbecile. I suspect they are actually right about that however.

What he believed does not matter.

His foot scratch in the crease counts for nothing.

His claim that the umpire was handing the bowler back his hat is meaningless - and it's wrong.

Bairstow left the crease on an assumption, and as we all know, assumptions make an arse out of dozy English wicket

100% correct. And to disagree with this would be to offend the spirit of the game. This is how cricket is supposed to be played. Tough on the field, then have a beer afterwards without prejudice.

You wont find too many people will want to have a beer with you if you dont respect sportsmanship I can tell you .You will be the lonely sod in the corner

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

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.

It's a dead ball the moment he checks to see that his foot is behind the crease and then walks towards the middle of the pitch. You've seen it thousands of times in test match cricket and nobody throws down the stumps. Make no mistake the Aussies did nothing wrong but it doesn't make it right.

Let me put it this way, North vs Essendon in cricket (if that was what this forum was about) and the same thing happened and we were batting. There wouldn't be a dry eye in here

 

[Roostorm]

This nuffy lve replied to is now arguing that its the appeal that’s disgraceful…. bunch of Nuffies

 

[Samsquanch]

That's odd because Asian cricket followers seem to be having trouble understanding the furore here. Besides, Mankad has been vindicated, especially with T20 cricket.

Any batter run out at the bowler's end Mankad style deserves to be out. They know that they are obliged to have a part of themselves or their bat grounded behind the line and if they don't they are open to be dismissed.

It might be an annoying way to go out but it is on the batter not the bowler and they need to accept the error in the spirit of the game. To be angry at a bowler for not giving a warning is a cop-out. The warning is in the rule book. Pure and simple. Don't like it - don't play.

 

[Roostorm]

This nuffy is lve replied to is now arguing that its the appeal that’s disgraceful…. bunch of Nuffies

So l replied…again….

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

If you watch six year olds playing tippity with a tennis ball and a home-made bat you'll see even the most unco little tyke take a big swing and a miss, then even if they don't know any other rule of cricket, they'll ground their bat behind the crease in a flash as they know that if the keeper takes a ping at the wheelie bin and hits it while they are out of their crease they are O.U.T.

In any grade of cricket the ball is live until it isn't. If a batter is unsure they assume the ball is alive. Every player on the field knows that the ball has to settle in the keeper or bowler's hands to be out of play. The batter will always wait until the umpire calls over when the last ball is bowled.

That's why he checks his foot to see if he's behind the crease. I wasn't watching live and when it was described to me my instinct was out but the replay says it all. The record book says out but we all know if the shoe was on the other foot we'd all be saying not out

 

[Emma12]

The problem with this comment is when you belive it is over you do leave the crease. 100 per cent this is what he believed. No way was he doing anything else. He marked the crease with his foot beforehand and looked down before going up the pitch to speak to Stokes. Common sense tells everyone it was a blunder but not one worthy of being given out for. Sportsmanship has to be there otherwise its not a game anymore

Geez rb you seem to ‘know’ a lot about how he was thinking, are you him or just making up shit to suit your whinging pommy dream

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

also, merit, for goodness sake...

here's merit for ya, noticing that a batsmen continuously leaves his crease MULTIPLE TIMES IN AN OVER because he's forgotten that he does actually need to be in his crease per the most basic arse laws of the game. USING HIS OWN TACTIC AGAINST HIM of stumping off a fast bowler that he's too sh*t of a keeper to do himself but did try earlier IN THE SAME GAME. Pulling off the catch and instant throw down from metres away with gloves on. Doing it before he's even left his crease cause he's too stupid to look back and confirm the ball is dead.

That's meritorious play right there.

And completely irrelevant in this case as he checks he is behind the crease before walking.

 

[Sillygit]

It's a dead ball the moment he checks to see that his foot is behind the crease and then walks towards the middle of the pitch. You've seen it thousands of times in test match cricket and nobody throws down the stumps. Make no mistake the Aussies did nothing wrong but it doesn't make it right.

Let me put it this way, North vs Essendon in cricket (if that was what this forum was about) and the same thing happened and we were batting. There wouldn't be a dry eye in here

no, it's not, that's why when it was reviewed by the umpire they didn't come to that conclusion.

I get that's what you believe it is, but it's wrong.

 

[Samsquanch]

You wont find too many people will want to have a beer with you if you dont respect sportsmanship I can tell you .You will be the lonely sod in the corner

Who wants to drink with sooks who won't accept it when they were out. That's bad sportsmanship. Bairstow made an error of judgement. It's an error that's easily made and everybody can see how he made it. But that doesn't earn him a second chance. As I said a few days ago, Khawaja had a lapse and let a ball go which took his off stump. That was an error of judgement on his part. You could see the look of disappointment on his face but he didn't harp on about it - his annoyance was at himself for making the error and I expect that he'll learn from it. He didn't ask for second dibbs.

And if I ever had the chance to, I'd have a couple of Pepsi max's with Uzzie any day. I'll leave Bairstow sulking over in the corner with Sir Boycott and Sir Cook waiting for an apology that will never come.

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

no, it's not, that's why when it was reviewed by the umpire they didn't come to that conclusion.

I get that's what you believe it is, but it's wrong.

I get that's not the actual rule but you get that's not how the game is generally played right? Technically it is out but you and I know that is not how the game is normally played.

The overreaction from the English is delicious but hand on heart you can't honestly say you wouldn't be upset if the position was reversed.

I'll take the wicket but any impartial cricket fan would say not out. If the same thing happened Ireland vs Bangladesh what would your heat tell you? Assuming you love cricket

 

[kaboom kid]

no, it's not, that's why when it was reviewed by the umpire they didn't come to that conclusion.

I get that's what you believe it is, but it's wrong.

Exactly. There's no law that states if you scratch the ground with your foot that means the ball is dead or it's over. The umpire calls over when they are satisfied the ball is dead.