*Official* Second Test (Lord's, London) 28 June–2 July

[Gob]

That's well found but not comparable. Bairstow only left his ground because he thought the ball was dead. Not though a brain fade or because he over balanced.

Yeah this is exactly what I felt too

Its actually down to this bit that I'm little on the fence. Its absolutely out as per the rules of the game but spirit of the game bit, if such a thing exists, is probably questionable. That being said Carry threw it before realizing that Bairstow was taking a walk down the pitch

They are blowing it out of proportion in the media I see. Probably to shadow the fact that they have played horrible cricket for the most part of the game

 

[Neil Young]

Nah I remember watching that dismissal live, he definitely thought that ball was dead. There was like a few seconds delay between the ball being taken and the bails coming off.

Ok, then it's the same. And I don't agree with that dismissal either.

 

[Spark]

It depends on your view - if you think any action which is in the rules of the game is OK then fair enough.

But sometimes things happen that may be within the rules but not the spirit.

Those of us of a certain age will remember the Trevor Chappell underarm delivery - legal but widely condemned.

We've talked alot on here about the ODI WC final when the ball hit Stokes and went for 4 overthrows. If it had stopped short of the boundary, by the law you can still run but players don't. If the ball had stopped on the boundary edge, Stokes could have run under the laws of the game- would that have been OK?

What Carey did today wasn't at that kind of level but just because something is legal doesn't make it right or OK to do.

I actually agree that unwritten conventions are important but this all only works if it's something both sides have clearly agreed to abide by, implicitly or explicitly. If one side decides it doesn't want to follow those conventions or it never agreed to it in the first place then the other side can't then demand that they be followed despite the rules allowing the action.

 

[Spark]

Nah I remember watching that dismissal live, he definitely thought that ball was dead. There was like a few seconds delay between the ball being taken and the bails coming off.

Huh seems I was wrong about this, seems that they were in one action. This was too tbf.

I do think "one action" is a good compromise. You can throw down stumps immediately but you can't baulk, wait for the batsman to think the ball is dead, then take the bails off/throw the stumps down.

 

[Uppercut]

I believe Stokes when he says he would’ve withdrawn the appeal. Just means he agrees with about half of CW and it’s consistent with his view of cricket IMO.

Though I also think a younger Stokes would’ve upheld it then danced around the dismissed Aussie batsman giving him the finger with both hands.

 

[Gob]

I believe Stokes when he says he would’ve withdrawn the appeal. Just means he agrees with about half of CW and it’s consistent with his view of cricket IMO.

Though I also think a younger Stokes would’ve upheld it then danced around the dismissed Aussie batsman giving him the finger with both hands.

I honestly think, with his team 1 nil, he would not have withdrawn it. I can think of few players who would have but Stokes isn't among them

Ofcourse we will never know

 

[Daemon]

It’s a lame af dismissal. There’d be dozens of times in the last test alone where batsmen have wandered out the crease without an acknowledgement from the keeper, first slip, the bowler, the umpire and the match referee that the ball they just left was dead. Maybe they should start drafting up a contract every time it happens so parties can come to a mutual agreement.

That said I don’t think it warrants a rule change given it’ll rarely happen, but on the off chance if it becomes commonplace I’d like to see it somehow eradicated as a mode of dismissal, though I’m not entirely sure how. Best way would probably be to allow umps discretion on whether the batsman was at any point attempting a run or not after regaining balance post playing a shot. Idk.

 

[Woodster]

Yeah but in this case it wasn’t Carey even holding back like in that Foakes video or even to an extent the Prior video. Carey literally throws the ball straight after he catches it. Bairstow isn’t expecting a stumping off a fast bowler and walks out of his crease, thats all there is to it.

I don’t think it matters that Carey threw it immediately, that doesn’t mean it’s fine and he should be out! I have no problem with what Carey did, keepers do it all the time without thinking.

I just think once it’s played out the way it did it needed the skipper to say ‘hang on I don’t think feels right’ and retract the appeal. That would’ve been a huge call by Cummins and he needed the experienced men to give him some clarity on the right thing to do. Lot of pressure on the skipper and I’m not sure he’d have received any helpful advice from Smith or Warner on the spirit of cricket.

 

[Ashes81]

I honestly think, with his team 1 nil, he would not have withdrawn it. I can think of few players who would have but Stokes isn't among them

Ofcourse we will never know

I don't think any captain would have withdrawn the appeal.

The problem is the law.

 

[Daemon]

given Bairstow was out of his crease when Carey actually received the ball and he never even turned around to look at him.

This is not true lol. He leaves the crease right after Carey throws it, not that it matters.

 

[peterhrt]

I don't think any captain would have withdrawn the appeal.

The problem is the law.

Exactly right.

Preamble to The Laws of Cricket below. The Spirit of Cricket is both within the Laws and outside them, which doesn't make sense.

The umpires should intervene if they consider actions fall outside the spirit of the game.

Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket. The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, match officials and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.

 

[anil1405]

"I wouldn't want to win a game like that," Australian quick Cummins said in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday.

"It didn't really sit well with me ... it was a pretty bad look.

"If a batsman is trying to steal a run you can kind of understand but I didn't think Jos was doing anything untoward."

Cummins slams Ashwin's controversial 'Mankad'

'I wouldn't want to win a game like that'

wwos.nine.com.au

- Our beloved Pat's reaction to Ashwin Mankading Jos.

 

[Anil]

Ball is dead only when both sides + umpires decide it's dead. The umpires hadn't yet and Carey hadn't yet.

Got it thanks. Anyway, it was careless from Bairstow who should have known better and pretty opportunistic from Carey...

 

[Neil Young]

"I wouldn't want to win a game like that," Australian quick Cummins said in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday.

"It didn't really sit well with me ... it was a pretty bad look.

"If a batsman is trying to steal a run you can kind of understand but I didn't think Jos was doing anything untoward."

Cummins slams Ashwin's controversial 'Mankad'

'I wouldn't want to win a game like that'

wwos.nine.com.au

- Our beloved Pat's reaction to Ashwin Mankading Jos.

Well, that's a little inconvenient.

 

[loterry1994]

That’s the thing with spirit of the game it goes straight out the window when it benefits their team. Stokes could say he would have withdrawn it but imagine bairstow done that to smith with 40 runs remaining to win the game. I doubt his with drawing that, what about stokes extra runs from the over throw in the World Cup do you think he would withdraw that if he could of

there’s been a few incidents recently. You had Chahal from csk tried to mankad someone in ipl recently but failed don’t think dhoni would of withdrawn that if it went right as the game was tight

 

[mackembhoy]

I believe Stokes when he says he would’ve withdrawn the appeal. Just means he agrees with about half of CW and it’s consistent with his view of cricket IMO.

Though I also think a younger Stokes would’ve upheld it then danced around the dismissed Aussie batsman giving him the finger with both hands.

But if Carey had missed the stumps and England had a chance of an overthrow they’d have taken it. So they all become massive hypocrites

The Bairstow dismissal is irrelevant and shouldn’t overshadow how bad England have been

 

[Kirkut]

I honestly think, with his team 1 nil, he would not have withdrawn it. I can think of few players who would have but Stokes isn't among them

Ofcourse we will never know

It's all virtue signaling to play mind games here. Broad never walked in 2013.

 

[Blenkinsop]

Walking is usually seen as the individual's choice though. Gilchrist was unusual in that he chose to do it, I don't remember any other members of his side following suit.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

No idea why so much is being made of a Bairstow brainfart?

Just mankad Smith with no warning next match.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think bullying is OTT.

They had to ask that question that's their job and if Stokes had done the same they would have asked him the se question.

I remember a one day match v NZ a few years back when near the end of the match, Ryan Sidebottom collided with NZ batsman who was going for a quick single. England ran the batsmen out.

It was within the rules but not the spirit of the game. Collingwood was our captain and was given alot of stick by our media for not withdrawing the appeal.

Yes, it was Grant Elliot who England ran out. NZ won by one wicket on that occasion.

A year later Collingwood was dismissed controversially against NZ and Vettori showed he was the bigger man by letting him back.