• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Bairstow Dismissal

Was the Bairstow dismissal against the spirit of the game?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 28.6%

  • No

    Votes: 60 71.4%
  • Total voters
    84
A

Ali TT

International Vice-Captain
TheJediBrah said:
Probably. I don't think you'd have had the whinging reaction from the Aus set up and former players like we've seen from England though
Click to expand...
Well, given recent history of England in Australia you'd have still won the match so less of a detrimental impact from the incident but sanctimoniousness is an universal human trait. I seem to recall the Aussies under Ponting trying to claim they were custodians of the spirit of the game at one point then cheated and sledged their way to a test series win over India.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
As it stands the law is vague. When it relies on interpretation as to when the ball is dead (by it being regarded as dead by both teams, which is pretty vague) situations like this will be created.

Why not just say the ball is not dead until the keeper throws it to a teammate at slip or back to the bowler? Then there’s no vagaries and the onus is on the batsman to check where the ball is and therefore if it’s “dead”, as he should need to, before he leaves his crease.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Red said:
As it stands the law is vague. When it relies on interpretation as to when the ball is dead (by it being regarded as dead by both teams, which is pretty vague) situations like this will be created.

Why not just say the ball is not dead until the keeper throws it to a teammate at slip or back to the bowler? Then there’s no vagaries and the onus is on the batsman to check where the ball is and therefore if it’s “dead”, as he should need to, before he leaves his crease.
Click to expand...
Seems pretty reasonable, so likely will never be adopted.
 
Chin Music

Chin Music

State Vice-Captain
I never had any dispute over the dismissal (Bairstow was dumb). My only issue is that it gave Green one more wicket than he utterly didn't deserve. Think he is very much a batter who bowls a little from what I've seen.
 
Last edited:
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Red said:
As it stands the law is vague. When it relies on interpretation as to when the ball is dead (by it being regarded as dead by both teams, which is pretty vague) situations like this will be created.

Why not just say the ball is not dead until the keeper throws it to a teammate at slip or back to the bowler? Then there’s no vagaries and the onus is on the batsman to check where the ball is and therefore if it’s “dead”, as he should need to, before he leaves his crease.
Click to expand...
To add another layer of vagueness, it's when the umpire thinks both teams have regarded it as dead.
 
A

Ali TT

International Vice-Captain
loterry1994 said:

haha get in there Johnny
Click to expand...
Meh, I think it's easily arguable that this example isn't comparable. Bairstow walked out of his crease, thereby leaving his stance, whereas Patel's momentum caused him to lift his foot while still in his stance. He then stepped back behind the crease again.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Chin Music said:
I never had any dispute over the dismissal (Bairstow was dumb). My only issue is that it gave Green one more wicket than he utterly didn't deserve. Think he is very much a batter who bowls a little from what I've seen.
Click to expand...
Yeah but he missed out on a wicket when the Starc catch was ruled out, so surely this balances it out.
 
NZTailender

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Ali TT said:
Meh, I think it's easily arguable that this example isn't comparable. Bairstow walked out of his crease, thereby leaving his stance, whereas Patel's momentum caused him to lift his foot while still in his stance. He then stepped back behind the crease again.
Click to expand...
I don't entirely agree with this. Patel had completed his 'shot' and when he started lowering his arms he would thus consider the action complete and delivery completed. He stepped back into the crease as a natural action because he's facing a slow bowler, not to return to the crease to avoid being stumped.

They're both guilty of being complacent and not looking to see what was happening behind the stumps.
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
According to the letter of the law, Bairstow was out. The law may be adjusted/clarified in the future but, until then, we should all move on.
 
flibbertyjibber

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Spark said:
Former Aus players are possibly the whiniest of the lot, you absolutely would have seen it from them.
Click to expand...
Yeah look at how they are slagging off Robinson a bloke who averages 22 with the ball all because he gobbed off at Khawaja. You'd think he was Mark Ealham the way they are going at him.
 
R

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Red said:
Why not just say the ball is not dead until the keeper throws it to a teammate at slip or back to the bowler? Then there’s no vagaries and the onus is on the batsman to check where the ball is and therefore if it’s “dead”, as he should need to, before he leaves his crease.
Click to expand...
Would legit love to see this because you can create all sorts of fakeouts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top