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

[Samsquanch]

Where he thought the ball was is only relevant to this discussion is if you're saying he thought the ball was in play.

For arguments sake, he guessed and or assumed. Where did you think he guessed or assumed it was?

Surely not anywhere but in the keepers gloves or he would have taken a run?

None of that is relevant. He wasn't trying to run - nobody thinks that he was. It is also irrelevant that he thought the ball wasn't in play as that is also made clear in the rules - it is in play until both teams consider than it isn't. Where he thought the ball was or wasn't doesn't matter - the fact is, when he scratched the ground the ball was in motion towards the stumps. It was in play as Carey didn't hold it. Jonny then stepped out of the crease and the ball hit the stumps. The ball was in play the whole time but Bairstow himself didn't know that because he wasn't watching it. And that is why he was out.

 

[Samsquanch]

By the way, don't get me started!

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

So the umpire should just ignore the laws of the game and make a decision on 'the vibe of it'? Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is the duplicitous nature or parochial sports fans is not lost on me.

The only vibe I'm getting is people aren't being honest with themselves, or me.

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

Yes. That is exactly what he did. He scratched the ground and left his crease. He had no awareness whatsoever of the ball, and he assumed that by scratching the ground that he'd made himself safe. But that is not how the rules of the game are written.

So if he didn't know where the ball was why didn't he try and take a run? The English were involved in a run chase after all, and it's not like they had days to bat it out and take their time.

 

[Groucho]

What I'm saying is the duplicitous nature or parochial sports fans is not lost on me.

The only vibe I'm getting is people aren't being honest with themselves, or me.

Ooooh lashing out , always a sign that you’ve conceded but trying to save face, pathetic.

 

[Samsquanch]

So if he didn't know where the ball was why didn't he try and take a run? The English were involved in a run chase after all, and it's not like they had days to bat it out and take their time.

He assumed that the keeper had gloved the ball and clearly, his partner, stokes who would have responsibility for calling if the ball had been missed by Carey did not call "Yes".

The batter would not run without either making a call or hearing a call. In this case he knew he didn't hit the ball so unless stokes called him to run he would be staying in his crease (except he didn't).

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

It is exactly how cricket is played.

If an Aussie goes out like that it's 100% on him for being a fool. Same for any batter in any comp.

A social game with kids - one chance maybe. Bairstow is not a kid. He is a whiny sook though.

Show me one replay where this has happened before and I'll show you one thousand replays of international cricketers walking from their crease without grounding their bat.

No doubt Bairstow is a whiny sook but he is amongst fellow sooks on this board who would be weeping into their pillow if the situation was reversed.

I feel we are arguing the same point to some extent.

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

Ooooh lashing out , always a sign that you’ve conceded but trying to save face, pathetic.

Brace yourself princess if you think that's lashing out

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

Yes. That is exactly what he did. He scratched the ground and left his crease. He had no awareness whatsoever of the ball, and he assumed that by scratching the ground that he'd made himself safe. But that is not how the rules of the game are written.

He assumed that the keeper had gloved the ball and clearly, his partner, stokes who would have responsibility for calling if the ball had been missed by Carey did not call "Yes".

The batter would not run without either making a call or hearing a call. In this case he knew he didn't hit the ball so unless stokes called him to run he would be staying in his crease (except he didn't).

Yes. Assumed the ball was gloved, confirmed by his partners call, checks his foot was behind the crease and walked to the middle of the pitch to chat with the other batter.

My point stands, no Australian fan would be happy with the decision if the situation was reversed

 

[Fish Sticks]

Bairstow was dopey to leave his crease before the over was called, Carey did throw it at the stumps all in one motion (not sneakily wait) & the laws of the game clearly state it is out, but…
I don’t like the look of it. I didn’t when I was watching it live & still don’t now.

None of the videos posted to try & prove the British hypocrisy are even remotely similar to what happened in this instance.
I’m still glad it happened though, cause it might have been the difference in us winning or losing the match.
Also, the overreaction from the UK media & public is priceless!
Bring on Thursday night! It’s gonna be a fiery one!
Hopefully they dish up a decent pitch with some pace & bounce

 

[big_e]

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.

Bairstow looking at his crease before walking out is only half the story. It needs both teams to treat the ball as dead.

The fact that Carey threw the ball at the stumps means that Australia did not cease to regard the ball as being in play. Meaning the ball wasn't dead. Meaning he should have stayed in his crease.

 

[scottywiper]

Head said Bairstow tried it on him in first Test and said if it worked he was definitely claiming it.

 

[Samsquanch]

Show me one replay where this has happened before and I'll show you one thousand replays of international cricketers walking from their crease without grounding their bat.

No doubt Bairstow is a whiny sook but he is amongst fellow sooks on this board who would be weeping into their pillow if the situation was reversed.

I feel we are arguing the same point to some extent.

Maybe, but ignore the bit about grounding the bat or scratching the ground as these are red herrings.

The instant a ball goes dead can be a bit tricky to describe. The important point is that both teams have to consider it dead for it to be dead.

The ball will be out of play after the keeper gloves the ball and as you often see, when he passes it off to another player, meanwhile the batter is not seeking to make a run. Both teams by their actions deem the ball is dead and the umpire would recognise this as well. In this case, if the fielding side muff the throw back to the bowler's end no run can be taken, but the batter is also safe to leave the crease.

Similarly, if the ball is hit into the field and is returned to the keeper or bowler and they make no further action such as taking off the bails or throwing to the other end etc. Then the ball becomes dead as above.

If a bowler fields the ball but makes no action to throw down the stumps, he or she normally lobs the ball to another fielder who might be responsible for maintaining shine etc. The ball becomes dead at this time.

But it's possible and legal for a keeper or bowler to field the ball and keep the ball in play by them throwing or gesturing to throw, or making an attempt to remove the bails in an attempt to dismiss a batter who's out of their ground.

You see that happening now and then when a bowler fields the ball and threatens to throw down the stumps. The batter generally gets back as quickly as possible. If the bowler throws and fails to dismiss the batter, the ball is still live and if possible, a run could be scored.

Even as a player it can be a bit hard to know for sure but any sensible player always works on the assumption that the ball is live just to be sure.

If a batter tried to run after it had been clear to the umpires that the ball had become dead to both sides the ump will simply signal dead ball to the scorer and send the batters safely back to the correct ends.

I am one finger typing on my phone so if I've got any of that wrong or caused confusion someone else can fix it.

 

[Fish Sticks]

So if he didn't know where the ball was why didn't he try and take a run? The English were involved in a run chase after all, and it's not like they had days to bat it out and take their time.

It’s generally not a good idea to just take off running if you don’t know where the ball is…
England always had enough time to make those runs with how they bat, it was only ever about wickets

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

Maybe, but ignore the bit about grounding the bat or scratching the ground as these are red herrings.

The instant a ball goes dead can be a bit tricky to describe. The important point is that both teams have to consider it dead for it to be dead.

The ball will be out of play after the keeper gloves the ball and as you often see, when he passes it off to another player, meanwhile the batter is not seeking to make a run. Both teams by their actions deem the ball is dead and the umpire would recognise this as well. In this case, if the fielding side muff the throw back to the bowler's end no run can be taken, but the batter is also safe to leave the crease.

Similarly, if the ball is hit into the field and is returned to the keeper or bowler and they make no further action such as taking off the bails or throwing to the other end etc. Then the ball becomes dead as above.

If a bowler fields the ball but makes no action to throw down the stumps, he or she normally lobs the ball to another fielder who might be responsible for maintaining shine etc. The ball becomes dead at this time.

But it's possible and legal for a keeper or bowler to field the ball and keep the ball in play by them throwing or gesturing to throw, or making an attempt to remove the bails in an attempt to dismiss a batter who's out of their ground.

You see that happening now and then when a bowler fields the ball and threatens to throw down the stumps. The batter generally gets back as quickly as possible. If the bowler throws and fails to dismiss the batter, the ball is still live and if possible, a run could be scored.

Even as a player it can be a bit hard to know for sure but any sensible player always works on the assumption that the ball is live just to be sure.

If a batter tried to run after it had been clear to the umpires that the ball had become dead to both sides the ump will simply signal dead ball to the scorer and send the batters safely back to the correct ends.

I am one finger typing on my phone so if I've got any of that wrong or caused confusion someone else can fix it.

Agreed, he checks his foot is behind the crease behe walks. Super important

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

It’s generally not a good idea to just take off running if you don’t know where the ball is…
England always had enough time to make those runs with how they bat, it was only ever about wickets

Which is what makes the dismissal unpalatable for me. We would have won without it

 

[kaboom kid]

What I'm saying is the duplicitous nature or parochial sports fans is not lost on me.

The only vibe I'm getting is people aren't being honest with themselves, or me.

The umpire made the honest and correct decision here as even Salty Stokes and Salty Baz have conceded. Their nebulous references to the Spirit of the Game are meaningless. Ie that doesn't enter the umpire's wheelhouse. They are paid to ajudicate based on the laws of the game. In this case they made the right decision.

 

[Roostorm]

An interesting….ahm …take on the game… had a chuckle at it.

 

[Harvey Manfrenjensenden]

The umpire made the honest and correct decision here as even Salty Stokes and Salty Baz have conceded. Their nebulous references to the Spirit of the Game are meaningless. Ie that doesn't enter the umpire's wheelhouse. They are paid to ajudicate based on the laws of the game. In this case they made the right decision.

Sure but we would be having the opposite argument if the situation was reversed

 

[krakouers]

I believe nothing

My Sunday school has a lot to answer for then

 

[krakouers]

An interesting….ahm …take on the game… had a chuckle at it.

Ben Harvey is on the same intelligent line of journalism as Purple, Caro and Piers Morgan

 

[Roostorm]

Ben Harvey is on the same intelligent line of journalism as Purple, Caro and Piers Morgan

Agreed, as l said l had a chuckle…..completely over the top….this however is a brilliant take on the game.

 

[Samsquanch]

The umpire made the honest and correct decision here as even Salty Stokes and Salty Baz have conceded. Their nebulous references to the Spirit of the Game are meaningless. Ie that doesn't enter the umpire's wheelhouse. They are paid to ajudicate based on the laws of the game. In this case they made the right decision.

Even their spirit of the game speil is just dog whistling. There is nothing in the spirit that says you give second chances to fools. It does say that the game should be played hard but fair and that the decision the umpires should be accepted.

So who is flouting the spirit of the game?

 

[Samsquanch]

Super important

...and his foot or the bat in hand needed to stay behind the line until the ball was dead.

That's the bit that is super important.

 

[Samsquanch]

Bring on the republic referendum. I'm sick of this crap. England is giving me the sh!ts. If only some bloody termites or borers had gone wild on the wood used to make those longbows, old Henry V might have taken a loss at Agencourt and we could have avoided the crap thats going on right now with the bloody cricket. Nobody gets this worked up over bocce or whatever they call it in France. They just bribe somebody, have a coffee and blame the Germans.