No because everyone on the field other than Carey thought the ball was dead.Haven't seen the dismissal in question, but if Carey had missed the stumps and given away a chance for the batsmen to run, would people have expected Bairstow to not take advantage because he thought the ball was dead?
Lol that has nothing to do with Stokes.Claiming a WC win off an umpiring error is a way bigger breach of the "spirit of cricket" than the bairstow dismissal. He didn't even wait for Carey to throw the ball FFS.
Yeah, that is usually an attempt to take a run and therefore, far more likely to be a real run-out, no?Oh right.
I don't think anyone defending this is anti-Mankad tbh.
If anything it's kind of the other way, a few posters here think this is ****house but have zero qualms with a Mankad.
good let it dieForgot about it.
Now it's cheaters vs cheaters.
Whoever wins the spirit of cricket is gonna lose.
TBF this is a stumping, not a run out.Yeah, that is usually an attempt to take a run and therefore, far more likely to be a real run-out, no?
But the other reply gives more context.calling it a runout seems easier and better
This is a very stupid post. Disappointed in youClaiming a WC win off an umpiring error is a way bigger breach of the "spirit of cricket" than the bairstow dismissal. He didn't even wait for Carey to throw the ball FFS.
they’ll need a new job anyway once they are all rightfully sacked for losing the seriesI can't wait for half this England side to spend the three days off writing editorials for the Sun on this matter
Stokes honestly seemed reckless in that Green over. Wild swinging and a good bit of luck. If he is going to try to slog every ball, England definitely won't win.For all of Stokes' heroics, Australia still overwhelming favourites to win.
Both were legal and part of the rules. Deal with the fact Australia are falling apart and I predicted it
And whilst I am at it - Umpire Erasmus has had a good game and those two tricky decisions...he has nailed 100%....as per the Laws of Cricket.As a former umpire, I am more than happy to explain the situation.
The initial parts of the Dead Ball law (Law 20) explain it:
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.
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.
The ball wasn't finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper (Alex Carey), therefore the ball was still "Live" & in play. Good thinking by Alex Carey and also I've seen a few comments on Twitter that what Carey did was against the spirit of game. I'm telling you now, it certainly was not against the spirit of the game.
Judging by behaviour in the Long Room at lunch, “fun” is possibly not the word.this could be a fun afternoon. Unlikely but we’ve seen it before
Correct.As a former umpire, I am more than happy to explain the situation.
The initial parts of the Dead Ball law (Law 20) explain it:
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.
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.
The ball wasn't finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper (Alex Carey), therefore the ball was still "Live" & in play. Good thinking by Alex Carey and also I've seen a few comments on Twitter that what Carey did was against the spirit of game. I'm telling you now, it certainly was not against the spirit of the game.