OT - The Ashes

[Crafty Canary 497]

If the ball was live then Bairstow was legitimately out. If it wasn’t he wasn’t. It is for the umpires to decide whether it was or not. No blame can be attach to Clary who on cstching the ball immediately three it at the stumps. Players appeal for wickets but it is the umpires who decide whether to uphold the appeal. If,as claimed, the square leg umpire was moving to take up position behind the stumps for the next over this would seem to indicate the ball was dead.

the spirit of the game is intangible but none the less important. However this is not why England lost this test or the previous one. At Edgebaston our fielding was poor. At Lords our first innings batting was too bish, bosh, bang like T20 cricket  rather than recognising it’s a five day match. He result has been two fabulous matches with narrow winning margins for the Aussies. Yes their apparent flouting of the spirit of the game leaves a bad taste in the mouth but the laws of the game have been upheld.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

6 hours ago, Keyneton Canary said:

Bairstow had a major brain fade, take out your anger / dissapointment on him

The brain fade was with Cummins for not withdrawing the appeal. Understandable due to the intensity of the match and series, but still, a major lapse in judgement. Is this something he wants to be remembered for? Sure he'll be a hero in Australia, but in the spirit of the game of cricket? In basic sportsmanship?

Bairstow ducked a bouncer. He didn't leave his crease whilst evading the ball. He stepped in the crease and slid his boot across it as the umpire he is looking at is taking the hat (?) to return to Green. Why did Carey throw the ball at the stumps? Bairstow wasn't playing outside of his crease and never moved forward. If, as the Aussies claimed later, they had observed Bairstow moving out of his crease momentarily during previous deliveries, then fair enough but the issue is then that Bairstow CLEARLY thought it was over, and so to claim the stumping, is simply unsportsmanlike and Cummins should then have withdrawn the appeal.

It's not clever cricket. It's not excellent keeping. It's not a brain fade on Bairstows part (other than not realising how low an opposition could sink below sportsmanship behaviour.) It's simply poor judgement from Cummins who had it within his control to sort out the mess quite quickly and simply.

 

Yes I'm English and I've thought a lot about whether England would've acted in the same way and honestly, I'm not sure. I'd like to believe they would have withdrawn the appeal. However, no matter what we believe would've happened had the shoe been on the other foot doesn't change how wrong the action was for the appeal to be upheld. That is was the Aussies is irrelevant. It was players acting against not just cricket integrity, but basic sporting integrity.

[Keyneton Canary 9]

2 hours ago, Fiery Zac said:

The brain fade was with Cummins for not withdrawing the appeal. Understandable due to the intensity of the match and series, but still, a major lapse in judgement. Is this something he wants to be remembered for? Sure he'll be a hero in Australia, but in the spirit of the game of cricket? In basic sportsmanship?

Bairstow ducked a bouncer. He didn't leave his crease whilst evading the ball. He stepped in the crease and slid his boot across it as the umpire he is looking at is taking the hat (?) to return to Green. Why did Carey throw the ball at the stumps? Bairstow wasn't playing outside of his crease and never moved forward. If, as the Aussies claimed later, they had observed Bairstow moving out of his crease momentarily during previous deliveries, then fair enough but the issue is then that Bairstow CLEARLY thought it was over, and so to claim the stumping, is simply unsportsmanlike and Cummins should then have withdrawn the appeal.

It's not clever cricket. It's not excellent keeping. It's not a brain fade on Bairstows part (other than not realising how low an opposition could sink below sportsmanship behaviour.) It's simply poor judgement from Cummins who had it within his control to sort out the mess quite quickly and simply.

 

Yes I'm English and I've thought a lot about whether England would've acted in the same way and honestly, I'm not sure. I'd like to believe they would have withdrawn the appeal. However, no matter what we believe would've happened had the shoe been on the other foot doesn't change how wrong the action was for the appeal to be upheld. That is was the Aussies is irrelevant. It was players acting against not just cricket integrity, but basic sporting integrity.

Well said Zac. I for one would not have done what my team did. The Australian National team has a win at all costs attitude that lost Darren Lehmann his coaching job, and personally, should have cost Dave Warner and Steve Smith their baggy greens. I have played games where this has happened and it does leave a hollow feeling. Within the rules yes, sportsman like, yeah nah. Not excusing Oz but we are not the only ones to skate that fine line between good hard fair cricket and what we are too often seeing now. It seems that the ICC needs to grow some balls and clarify rule interpretations, and what the spirit of the game truly means, and penalise players and teams properly.

Thanks for not making it personal. I appreciate it.

 

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

11 minutes ago, Keyneton Canary said:

Well said Zac. I for one would not have done what my team did. The Australian National team has a win at all costs attitude that lost Darren Lehmann his coaching job, and personally, should have cost Dave Warner and Steve Smith their baggy greens. I have played games where this has happened and it does leave a hollow feeling. Within the rules yes, sportsman like, yeah nah. Not excusing Oz but we are not the only ones to skate that fine line between good hard fair cricket and what we are too often seeing now. It seems that the ICC needs to grow some balls and clarify rule interpretations, and what the spirit of the game truly means, and penalise players and teams properly.

Thanks for not making it personal. I appreciate it.

 

Admittedly my first reaction was one of anger as an Englishman and I enjoyed Broads reaction and comments to the Aussies out in the middle. But in the moment, with the Ashes at stake, can Stokes and England really be sure they wouldn't have just gone with the decision had it been the other way round? Would they really have withdrawn an appeal with the chance to level the series made that bit easier with the dismissal? It's an interesting one. 

But this was no way to help win a test match. Win through clever bowling, tactical field placement and pure skill and bottle under pressure (something Australia were already doing). No need to tarnish the game a little more with underhand (😉) conduct.

Spiced the series up a bit though. Let's hope (if you're English), it's not come too late. Would be an incredible story to comeback and win an ashes series after being 2 down. One things for sure, the Aussies won't believe it's over yet, Stokes innings has shown what can (almost) happen.

[Keyneton Canary 9]

5 minutes ago, Fiery Zac said:

Admittedly my first reaction was one of anger as an Englishman and I enjoyed Broads reaction and comments to the Aussies out in the middle. But in the moment, with the Ashes at stake, can Stokes and England really be sure they wouldn't have just gone with the decision had it been the other way round? Would they really have withdrawn an appeal with the chance to level the series made that bit easier with the dismissal? It's an interesting one. 

But this was no way to help win a test match. Win through clever bowling, tactical field placement and pure skill and bottle under pressure (something Australia were already doing). No need to tarnish the game a little more with underhand (😉) conduct.

Spiced the series up a bit though. Let's hope (if you're English), it's not come too late. Would be an incredible story to comeback and win an ashes series after being 2 down. One things for sure, the Aussies won't believe it's over yet, Stokes innings has shown what can (almost) happen.

I had just got home from a gig ( Birmingham band Esoteric...Funeral Doom Metal ) and was shixxing myself as England got closer and closer. Still 3 to go.

Underhand 👍💣

[crispeduk 282]

The only brain fade Bairstow had was to not carry off the Stop Cricket Protester behind the stumps the same he did the Stop Oil Protester. 

Any other Aussies on here I can block?

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

8 hours ago, Crafty Canary said:

If the ball was live then Bairstow was legitimately out. If it wasn’t he wasn’t. It is for the umpires to decide whether it was or not. No blame can be attach to Clary who on cstching the ball immediately three it at the stumps. Players appeal for wickets but it is the umpires who decide whether to uphold the appeal. If,as claimed, the square leg umpire was moving to take up position behind the stumps for the next over this would seem to indicate the ball was dead.

the spirit of the game is intangible but none the less important. However this is not why England lost this test or the previous one. At Edgebaston our fielding was poor. At Lords our first innings batting was too bish, bosh, bang like T20 cricket  rather than recognising it’s a five day match. He result has been two fabulous matches with narrow winning margins for the Aussies. Yes their apparent flouting of the spirit of the game leaves a bad taste in the mouth but the laws of the game have been upheld.

It’s down to umpires but only to an extent as the captain can reverse the decision.  And Cummins should have done: the ‘sporting’ thing to do was to use it as a warning.

The entire point is that we’d have almost certainly lost anyway, so why was there any need to act against the spirit of the game.  It quite rightly leaves a sour taste and one that they will have to carry for a long time.

[Aggy 758]

Can’t get too worked up about the Bairstow “stumping”. The keeper picks it up and throws in one movement, he isn’t waiting for Bairstow to move out of his crease, and it’s split second - Bairstow really shouldn’t have been walking out of his crease at that point. Aussies could have called him back, but it’s like when people get slightly harsh second yellows for silly challenges they didn’t need to make - I haven’t got much sympathy if you put yourself in that position in the first place.

If Bairstow had been batting out of his crease then absolutely no issue with it. It is slightly underhand to try and get him if they’ve just seen him walking down a bit early between balls previously - a bit like Mankading - you’d think a quick word in his ear about it first would have been preferable. But like I say, if Bairstow is switched on, it doesn’t happen. That’s the bottom line.

We were well short overall - a ridiculous knock from Stokes made it look better than it was, but the game was well lost in virtually every session except a couple when Stokes was batting second innings. 

[PurpleCanary 5,575]

12 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Can’t get too worked up about the Bairstow “stumping”. The keeper picks it up and throws in one movement, he isn’t waiting for Bairstow to move out of his crease, and it’s split second - Bairstow really shouldn’t have been walking out of his crease at that point. Aussies could have called him back, but it’s like when people get slightly harsh second yellows for silly challenges they didn’t need to make - I haven’t got much sympathy if you put yourself in that position in the first place.

If Bairstow had been batting out of his crease then absolutely no issue with it. It is slightly underhand to try and get him if they’ve just seen him walking down a bit early between balls previously - a bit like Mankading - you’d think a quick word in his ear about it first would have been preferable. But like I say, if Bairstow is switched on, it doesn’t happen. That’s the bottom line.

We were well short overall - a ridiculous knock from Stokes made it look better than it was, but the game was well lost in virtually every session except a couple when Stokes was batting second innings. 

I can't get to see the incident but as related in the media Bairstow grounded his bat back in the crease before then leaving it, it was the last ball of the over, rather than between balls, and the umpires, even if they hadn't called "over" were in effect demonstrating that was the case by starting to move towards their positions for the next over.

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

16 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I can't get to see the incident but as related in the media Bairstow grounded his bat back in the crease before then leaving it, it was the last ball of the over, rather than between balls, and the umpires, even if they hadn't called "over" were in effect demonstrating that was the case by starting to move towards their positions for the next over.

Quite so - it’s a technical thing. Per the rules it’s out but 99.9% of sides would have accepted that he grounded his bat (actually I think he put his foot back), so per the spirit of the game he’s ‘accepted’ it is a dead ball; the Aussies clearly hadn’t.

I do 100% think any other side would have warned him or used it as a warning, no one else would have claimed the wicket.  As I said before, I saw Matthew Fleming do a mankad when playing for Kent - the guy was backing up miles - but called him back as it was a friendly warning.  Per the rules the guy was out.

I just hope we look for the same opportunity in the next test and then make a point of reversing the appeal. It’ll make them look like the bad sports that they clearly are, especially as they are sadly doubling down on it rather than accepting it might have not been the right thing to do.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[BroadstairsR 2,186]

The next test starts on Thursday. Headingly. It should be a corker. Let's hope the boos continue to ring out because the Aussies were clearly affected by them and let's hope England continues to be fired up, Ben Stokes style. 

The arguments over the rights and wrongs of the incident need to be put to bed, but the consequences for the Australian team need not.

Boo your hearts out you Yorkies.

And we need Mark Wood (who should be fully fit and raring to go) to fire on both cylinders. Jimmy should drop out, but he's traditionally done well at Headingly.

[TheGunnShow 5,968]

Can see a Headingley crowd being incredibly fired up for this one in the light of the media circus this incident has generated.

[ricardo 7,395]

41 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I can't get to see the incident but as related in the media Bairstow grounded his bat back in the crease before then leaving it, it was the last ball of the over, rather than between balls, and the umpires, even if they hadn't called "over" were in effect demonstrating that was the case by starting to move towards their positions for the next over.

Bairstow clearly grounded his bat and even marked the crease with his foot while looking back at the keeper before walking away at the end of the over. The fact that it was done at the end of the over and without a warning  is quite telling in my opinion.  A bit of pre meditated sharp practice at the very minimum.

[Foxy2600 305]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Bairstow clearly grounded his bat and even marked the crease with his foot while looking back at the keeper before walking away at the end of the over. The fact that it was done at the end of the over and without a warning  is quite telling in my opinion.  A bit of pre meditated sharp practice at the very minimum.

Bloody Umpire was busy faffing about with the bowlers hat rather than calling 'Over'..... doubt we'll be seeing him again!

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Can see a Headingley crowd being incredibly fired up for this one in the light of the media circus this incident has generated.

Nah, it’ll all have been long forgotten by Thursday….maybe in 2032!

[canarydan23 4,060]

5 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

The entire point is that we’d have almost certainly lost anyway, so why was there any need to act against the spirit of the game.  It quite rightly leaves a sour taste and one that they will have to carry for a long time.

If Bairstow batted his average, that would have reduced the deficit by more than 30 runs. And Stokes wouldn't have had to protect him the same way he did Broad; how many singles did he refuse in that knock, at least another half dozen. And with an inactive pitch and soft ball, Bairstow could easily have exceeded his average.

You can argue Stokes might not have had the fire to fuel that knock without the actions of the scu*miest team in sport, but who knows.

They will deservedly get dog's abuse all series and Broad is right about Carey, this is his legacy.

[Aggy 758]

5 hours ago, ricardo said:

Bairstow clearly grounded his bat and even marked the crease with his foot while looking back at the keeper before walking away at the end of the over. The fact that it was done at the end of the over and without a warning  is quite telling in my opinion.  A bit of pre meditated sharp practice at the very minimum.

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/20876/12913515/the-ashes-was-jonny-bairstows-controversial-dismissal-fair-dozy-and-within-the-spirit-of-the-game
 

multiple angles of it on the video at the top of this page. Best angle at 1:05. 

He doesn’t ground his bat (he is well within his crease at the moment the keeper throws the ball though), he doesn’t look around, and his scratching of the ground is one toe very briefly as he is on his way down the wicket. He doesn’t even check to see if the keeper has actually even caught it. 

If the keeper hadn’t taken it cleanly and Stokes called him through, he’d be on his way for a run - there was no chance Bairstow knew for certain the keeper even had hold of it when he started walking down the track.

The bowler hasn’t even started to turn around, none of the fielders have started to walk to the other end etc. 

 Schoolboy.

 

edit: in fact all three views after 1:05 show really good angles of it. The penultimate one - noticeably Stokes is still in his crease.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Aggy

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

3 minutes ago, Aggy said:

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/20876/12913515/the-ashes-was-jonny-bairstows-controversial-dismissal-fair-dozy-and-within-the-spirit-of-the-game
 

multiple angles of it on the video at the top of this page. Best angle at 1:05. 

He doesn’t ground his bat (he is well within his crease at the moment the keeper throws the ball though), he doesn’t look around, and his scratching of the ground is one toe very briefly as he is on his way down the wicket. He doesn’t even check to see if the keeper has actually even caught it. 

If the keeper hadn’t taken it cleanly and Stokes called him through, he’d be on his way for a run - there was no chance Bairstow knew for certain the keeper even had hold of it when he started walking down the track.

The bowler hasn’t turned around, none of the fielders have started to walk to the other end etc. 

 Schoolboy.

He clearly put his foot down, assuming that was enough for the dead ball - it’s what he did every ball.  If the Aussies didn’t consider it enough they should have warned him. It’s what should happen in cricket.  It’s that simple.  If it weren’t, why do you think so many are angry/annoyed about it?  If you can’t see it, perhaps cricket isn’t for you. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[Aggy 758]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

He clearly put his foot down, assuming that was enough for the dead ball - it’s what he did every ball.  If the Aussies didn’t consider it enough they should have earned him. It’s that simple.  If it weren’t, why do you think so many are angry/annoyed about it?  If you can’t see it, perhaps cricket isn’t for you. 

Lol, why are you so worked up. It’s a game, grow up.

Bottom line is (as lots of pundits who have actually played the game have said multiple times, perhaps it isn’t for them either) - yeah the Aussies could have called him back but bottom line is if he waits for over to be called before aimlessly wandering down the pitch before the keeper even has it in his hands, then he isn’t out. 

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

8 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Lol, why are you so worked up. It’s a game, grow up.

Bottom line is (as lots of pundits who have actually played the game have said multiple times, perhaps it isn’t for them either) - yeah the Aussies could have called him back but bottom line is if he waits for over to be called before aimlessly wandering down the pitch before the keeper even has it in his hands, then he isn’t out. 

I’m not at all worked up, have a word with yourself!  It is what it is, you look in the scorebook and he was out.

But that isn’t to say it can’t-shouldn’t be questioned.  I’ve been following cricket for over 50 years, more so than football, and this is one of the more dubious things I’ve ever seen.  Stokes has said he would have retracted the appeal. The vast majority of pundits have queried it, including many Aussies - more than enough for it to suggest something was amiss. 

It does seem the Aussies play fast and loose with the idea of what’s ‘sporting’, but they are 2-0 up largely due to sloppiness from England.  They need to make any anger at what has happened work for them to turn it round.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

"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."

I have  heard that the bowlers end umpire was looking to hand the bowler back his cap, which, if correct (I haven't seen this), would suggest that the umpire considered the ball dead.

If the umpires considered the ball live, why did they need the 3rd umpire to clarify that Bairstow was a yard out of his ground?

I thought England's chances prior to the stumping were slim at best, then Stokes goes on a rampage....it's the hope that kills ☹

[Aggy 758]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

I’m not worked up,  have a word with yourself!  Most pundits have queried it, including many Aussies - more than enough for it to suggest something was amiss.  I suppose you think the catch was fine as well?

I’ll be alright without having a word with myself thanks. I’m not the one giving out the “perhaps x isn’t for you, I’m right you’re wrong” fingers waggling on noses playground nonsense while pretending not to be worked up about it.

The catch clearly wasn’t out. He grounds it while sliding and before he gains control of his body.

The run out, Aussies could have called him back and that would have been fair. But they didn’t. Bairstow stands in his crease for an extra two seconds until the keeper has caught it, thrown it, and the umpire calls over, he isn’t out. Really very simple. 

 

[Aggy 758]

6 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

"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."

I have  heard that the bowlers end umpire was looking to hand the bowler back his cap, which, if correct (I haven't seen this), would suggest that the umpire considered the ball dead.

If the umpires considered the ball live, why did they need the 3rd umpire to clarify that Bairstow was a yard out of his ground?

I thought England's chances prior to the stumping were slim at best, then Stokes goes on a rampage....it's the hope that kills ☹

Possibly - see sky sports news link above at about 45 seconds in. The umpire literally just moves his hands to the cap as the ball hits the stumps - after the keeper has thrown it though.

Edit: and to be fair to the Aussies, if the umpires did think the ball was dead it’s on the umpires to say so.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Aggy

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

 I’m not the one giving out the “I’m right you’re wrong” fingers waggling on noses playground nonsense while pretending not to be worked up about it.

 

Oh, aren’t you?  Telling someone who disagrees with you to “grow up” is a particularly pathetic thing to do. 

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

6 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Possibly - see sky sports news link above at about 45 seconds in. The umpire literally just moves his hands to the cap as the ball hits the stumps - after the keeper has thrown it though.

Edit: and to be fair to the Aussies, if the umpires did think the ball was dead it’s on the umpires to say so.

The point is that it is out, it’s in the books and it is what it is.

But that doesn’t stop people talking about it because it is unusual- unusual enough for the papers to be full of it. The Aussie argument that “he kept doing it” makes you wonder why there was no warning.  It’s what the intangible thing of the “spirit of cricket” is meant to be all about.  It seems the Aussies have lost sight of it a bit, but that’s just the way it is and maybe it has reset things between the teams.

The dead ball thing is tricky as it is generally accepted that it is dead when the ball is with the keeper - ie when he throws to the slip/gully/whoever, there if he fumbles it they wouldn’t seek an overthrow - that tends to be the end of the play, though obviously not always.

[horsefly 4,310]

15 minutes ago, Aggy said:

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/20876/12913515/the-ashes-was-jonny-bairstows-controversial-dismissal-fair-dozy-and-within-the-spirit-of-the-game
 

multiple angles of it on the video at the top of this page. Best angle at 1:05. 

He doesn’t ground his bat (he is well within his crease at the moment the keeper throws the ball though), he doesn’t look around, and his scratching of the ground is one toe very briefly as he is on his way down the wicket. He doesn’t even check to see if the keeper has actually even caught it. 

If the keeper hadn’t taken it cleanly and Stokes called him through, he’d be on his way for a run - there was no chance Bairstow knew for certain the keeper even had hold of it when he started walking down the track.

The bowler hasn’t even started to turn around, none of the fielders have started to walk to the other end etc. 

 Schoolboy.

 

edit: in fact all three views after 1:05 show really good angles of it. The penultimate one - noticeably Stokes is still in his crease.

Sorry but that's bordering on nonsense. He very clearly and intentionally grounded his foot behind the crease in the way he always does to register he is in. Are we now seriously contemplating the prospect that players have to wait after each ball for the umpire to declare the ball dead? If so, over rates are going to slow, and the game will become extremely tedious.

The idea that there is any scenario in which his amble forward of the crease could be described as being potentially "on his way for a run" is absolutely ridiculous. 

It is standard practice for a batsman backing up to be warned by the bowling side if he is discovered to be attempting to steal an unfair advantage. There is no possible description of Bairstow's movement as an attempt to steal any kind of advantage.

It is simply a truth of any rule governed game that there can be decisions that fall within the rules but which quite clearly bring the game into disrepute on particular occasions. This was definitely such an occasion. Christ! even in football we have seen managers instruct his team to allow the opposition to score against them to redress a "fair" but seriously egregious decision. 

 

[Aggy 758]

18 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Oh, aren’t you?  Telling someone who disagrees with you to “grow up” is a particularly pathetic thing to do. 

Err the growing up comment was clearly about your “perhaps cricket isn’t for you” nonsense. 

I can see the argument about “not in the spirit of the game”, but bottom line is one person could easily have stopped it all by simply not leaving his crease until the umpire had called over. 

I’ve coached at all age groups and know young kids who wouldn’t leave their crease until over is called. Most of them would also cry less about being given out for failing to follow the rules than many full grown Englishmen are doing on behalf of Bairstow right now. 

Bairstow more to blame than anyone else. Stays in his crease until over is caused, he isn’t out. As an ex England test captain has said (is cricket for him?) - dozy cricket. No point blaming the Aussies for an Englishman’s “dozy” play.

 

[Branston Pickle 3,669]

9 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Err the growing up comment was clearly about your “perhaps cricket isn’t for you” nonsense. 

I can see the argument about “not in the spirit of the game”, but bottom line is one person could easily have stopped it all by simply not leaving his crease until the umpire had called over. 

I’ve coached at all age groups and know young kids who wouldn’t leave their crease until over is called. Most of them would also cry less about being given out for failing to follow the rules than many full grown Englishmen are doing on behalf of Bairstow right now. 

Bairstow more to blame than anyone else. Stays in his crease until over is caused, he isn’t out. As an ex England test captain has said (is cricket for him?) - dozy cricket. No point blaming the Aussies for an Englishman’s “dozy” play.

 

It was?  Not to me - I found it particularly unnecessary.

My main point is that there should have been, or it should have been, a warning. It’s what a good sporting team would do. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Branston Pickle

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,827]

For the people who think it is out, what do you think about the Mankad? It's a very similar situation, and if anything, this is worse, because at least with a Mankad the non-striker is gaining a slight advantage by being half a yard up the pitch (whether intentional or not) whereas in this instance Bairstow was clearly not attempting a run.

[Aggy 758]

1 minute ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

For the people who think it is out, what do you think about the Mankad? It's a very similar situation, and if anything, this is worse, because at least with a Mankad the non-striker is gaining a slight advantage by being half a yard up the pitch (whether intentional or not) whereas in this instance Bairstow was clearly not attempting a run.

I’ve been involved in games where we’ve warned a batsman at the non-striker’s end for backing up too much. Some where we’ve warned first, some where the bowler has run him out and then withdrawn the appeal.

I don’t think this is that similar. Bairstow isn’t trying to get any advantage. And I do think if I was on the fielding team I’d have withdrawn the appeal. But I wasn’t ever playing test match cricket, on day 5 of an important second test, in an ashes series, where this wicket gets us into the long tail and probably wins us the match. Which brings me back to the point - from the batsman’s view, just don’t let that situation arise.