The Samit Patel one is very easy to defend though - it's just straightforwardly out. What it does do is make the "he wasn't trying to get an advantage!" line that's been trotted out ring very hollow - which it always was, it's a complete non sequitur.
Its dead when they call over. Broad's excuse making is back and filling justification because he's been caught out about the Marnus incident. A batsman who over balances or beaten down the leg side and is stumped isn't trying to take a run and lbw has already been taken out of the equation. But they still appeal if he's out of his ground. Nor does it really matter. The only thing you have to is be out of your ground. Neither the rules or the so called spirit of the game require a dismissal to be reliant on whether the batsman is taking "an advantage".
Broad to Cummins: 'All these boos are for you'
Stuart Broad said he was amazed that no senior Australian player questioned the morality of Jonny Bairstow's dismissalwww.espncricinfo.com
Can't really see footage of what the umps were doing. If the ump was indeed about to hand the cap back or whatever should it be a dead ball? Afaik as long as the bowler's end umpire is clear it's dead then it doesn't really matter what anyone else does.
No thats what I mean, you can't defend that as different to the Carey one. It's out. It's unfortunate but it's out.
Oh yeah but at the same time I think you have to be ludicrously naive to think that everyone would have been "oh okay whatever" had the exact same thing happened one ball earlier, which it could easily have because Bairstow was doing the same thing every single ball.
And then they went up 2-0, sat in those very plush changing rooms,had a winner's beer and never gave a **** about Stuart's slightly immature games. That's the folly of running your mouth then losing
No,I don't think that at all. But it's just too grey for me. Because Jonny could wait 2-3 seconds stood up to the stumps for Samit Patel but Carey could never have had that grace standing back. I think this would be an even bigger shitstorm if it wasn't the 6th ball, because it's very easy now to say over wasn't called. I don't like the decision or dismissal as a neutral but to me it's out all day long.
Haha I think you're agreeing with me here. I think the fact that it's the end of the over is a complete red herring and this reaction would have happened anyway, and the idea that it was the end of the over made a huge difference - which is the main line the English camp have run with - is just not true at all.
Not quite if I’m reading the laws correctly
Still funny though
We are in full agreement, absolutely. And I'd like to see the law updated to make it more black and white. And ironically as I said, by the MCC whose members made gigantic ****wits of themselves in opposition to a law their organization created, and fit that dismissal.
And entertaining as hell. I absolutely love it as a neutral.
Ok fair enough. But you'd think the 3rd ump would've checked if the ball was dead before giving his decision.
I think the on-field umpires sending it upstairs at all confirms that they didn't feel the ball was dead.
It's just Broad trying to catch up when he's been caught out. So the stumping of Bairstow is against the game's spirit but the jerk obviously forgot about the same player attempting the same dismissal on Marnus. So he spent the next 24 hours trying to invent a distinction and present it like he knew about it all along but only mentions it now because it's subsequently become an issue.
I actually think Broad is very self aware. He enjoys playing the villain and winding people up and he is pretty good at it.
You don't even have to go After what Head said about Jonny B
When you look at it like that (which is fair enough) it suggests they don't really care about the spirit of the game. It's just being used to wind up the crowd at Leeds.
Exhibit A being the two paragraphs of triggered dirge you’ve quoted