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

[Spark]

Wasn't it a Daily Mail journalist who asked Pat Cummins about underarm bowing and mankading?

If he was Paul Newman then he is a complete clown. Lawrence Booth is a good writer, as befits a former Wisden editor, but Newman might just be the biggest hack in a field of them.

 

[Spark]

Yes, this formed the basis of the CA claim that he knew of a "potential" plan by his players to ball tamper. Which is just a weaselly way of saying that as far as they could find, he had no direct knowledge of it at all.

Though in reality I think most players and coaching staff were aware. This makes them little different to other teams with fast bowlers (especially where reverse swing is concerned) and especially the team we were playing who had been pinged for it more than once.

But it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks. When you're talking about ruining players careers over it, what you can sufficiently demonstrate is more to the point. In a proper impartial proceeding many of CA's "findings" would have had them laughed out of the place. To this extent I have long admired the way the Indian players and board stand up for their players.


edited to change a "your" to its proper "you're".

It's abundantly clear that CA hoped to hang the entire thing on the necks of Warner and Smith and absolve themselves of all responsibility for creating and fostering that culture in the first place.

 

[Bahnz]

I don't know if it's been discussed already, but one thing this has made me think about is how long it's reasonable for the umpires to take before calling over and how they should be acting until that call is made. In the case of the Bairstow dismissal, neither umpire was actually watching what was happening when the run out happened. Gaffney had his head down as he was walking in from square leg and Raza was handing Green his jersey. Regardless of how you feel about the method of dismissal, I think it's pretty cruddy umpiring to so obviously switch off before calling over.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't know if it's been discussed already, but one thing this has made me think about is how long it's reasonable for the umpires to take before calling over and how they should be acting until that call is made. In the case of the Bairstow dismissal, neither umpire was actually watching what was happening when the run out happened. Gaffney had his head down as he was walking in from square leg and Raza was handing Green his jersey. Regardless of how you feel about the method of dismissal, I think it's pretty cruddy umpiring to so obviously switch off before calling over.

Green was still standing in the middle of the pitch as Carey threw it as soon as he caught it. He wasn't being handed anything.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah sorry, he was removing his cap off his buckle. Still wasn't watching the play though.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah sorry, he was removing his cap off his buckle. Still wasn't watching the play though.

Haha no worries. If Green was actually being handed something when the stumps were broken, I would be on the Poms' side with the stumping. It would have been funny if Bairstow and Stokes were deep in conversation and then Carey threw the stumps down and appealed.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't know if it's been discussed already, but one thing this has made me think about is how long it's reasonable for the umpires to take before calling over and how they should be acting until that call is made. In the case of the Bairstow dismissal, neither umpire was actually watching what was happening when the run out happened. Gaffney had his head down as he was walking in from square leg and Raza was handing Green his jersey. Regardless of how you feel about the method of dismissal, I think it's pretty cruddy umpiring to so obviously switch off before calling over.

Yeah it was dire umpiring, but it would have been even direr if they called over due to not watching given Carey did a catch-and-release in one motion. Can't call over before Carey even gets the ball, surely, and he didn't pause before throwing it.

 

[Spofforth]

The British Empire was just Nazi Germany with English tea

Prove me wrong

Lol.

I get (and agree with) the sentiment but think that could largely be proven wrong. Nazism was largely inspired by European colonialism (they especially loved the British version) but really, as any honest historian would acknowledge, the US provided the template for them. The similarities are uncanny all the way down to using US race laws as the basis for their own.

The British Empire was in a class all by itself. Shame I can't post links yet, but there was an interesting research paper in the "World Development" journal recently that looked into the effects of British policy in India alone. The level of mortality and enforced poverty (not to mention what really amounts to theft) is staggering and means that all other genocidal regimes combined would be mere lightweights in comparison.

 

[CricAddict]

yes but we do not go on about the spirit of cricket. if we find that ****ing spirit we will burn that **** too

One of the best ever posts of CW.

 

[Neil Young]

Wasn't it a Daily Mail journalist who asked Pat Cummins about underarm bowing and mankading?

I genuinely don't know, but I would be surprised if it was Lawrence Booth. Maybe one of their sports writers.

 

[Spark]

I genuinely don't know, but I would be surprised if it was Lawrence Booth. Maybe one of their sports writers.

I think it's Newman - Booth just writes for them, he's not the correspondent so wouldn't be asking questions at pressers.

Dickhead hack question very much fit's Newman's oeuvre.

 

[ColomboGeoff]

England squad: Ben Stokes (c); Jonny Bairstow (wk), Ollie Pope (vc/wk); Harry Brook, Zak Crawley, Ben Duckett, Dan Lawrence, Joe Root; James Anderson, Stuart Broad, Matthew Potts, Ollie Robinson, Josh Tongue, Chris Woakes, Mark Wood; Moeen Ali, Rehan Ahmed
Australia squad: Pat Cummins (c); Alex Carey (wk), Jimmy Peirson (wk); Marcus Harris, Travis Head, Usman Khawaja, Marnus Labuschagne, Matt Renshaw, Steve Smith (vc), David Warner; Cameron Green, Mitchell Marsh; Scott Boland, Josh Hazlewood, Mitchell Starc; Nathan Lyon, Todd Murphy

While this may not be the correct place to pose this question.... regarding the Mitch Starc catch....I did not see any 'appeal' by the Australians. I saw Druckett walk.I saw Stokes talking to the Umpire. What was the decision that the field umpire referred referred to the third umpire?
Do the current laws allow the field umpire to refer an incident without an appeal?

 

[Victor Ian]

**** me! Cheating poms again.

 

[Spofforth]

While this may not be the correct place to pose this question.... regarding the Mitch Starc catch....I did not see any 'appeal' by the Australians. I saw Druckett walk.I saw Stokes talking to the Umpire. What was the decision that the field umpire referred referred to the third umpire?
Do the current laws allow the field umpire to refer an incident without an appeal?

Good points.

It seems (afaik) that Stokes alerted the umpires to the replay of the catch which showed Starc grounding the ball. So they sent it upstairs. It was clearly not out on replay (you can't ground the ball like that). You make some good points but I'm happy enough the correct decision was reached.

 

[honestbharani]

Do the current laws allow the field umpire to refer an incident without an appeal?

Yeah, they do.

 

[ColomboGeoff]

Yeah, they do.

Then it seems that it was solely the existence of and timing of the replay being shown on the screen that instigated the review. That means that the TV broadcast is now an integral part of the game not just a tool for umpiring. If the video of the catch was not shown until Druckett had left the field it would read B. Druckett..
Retired.

 

[ColomboGeoff]

Good points.

It seems (afaik) that Stokes alerted the umpires to the replay of the catch which showed Starc grounding the ball. So they sent it upstairs. It was clearly not out on replay (you can't ground the ball like that). You make some good points but I'm happy enough the correct decision was reached.

The rational consequence of the Starc non-catch, would be for the deciding umpire NEVER to make his decision until he sees the video replay of the potential wicket. Can you imagine the crowd reaction?

 

[andruid]

the arbiter of cricket’s spirit is back hooray

Or conjurer?