Cricket!

[Lineker]

 

[Plubby]

Good shout, Rishi. I like it, too.

[Chris2K]

Some might say that Australia are doing so well, they don't need to start claiming catches where the ball is clearly on the floor... 

[Plubby]

Well...that's controversial.

[Chris2K]

Garbage really. Yes he was out of his ground and yes the ball wasn't officially dead, but not even the most pathetic of village sides try to get a wicket that way.

There's no big sign saying when the ball is or isn't live, you have to make an assumption that when the ball is in the wicket-keeper's hands that there's not going to be a stumping attempt off a fast bowler.

It's not like Australia weren't likely to win anyway. Stokes is Stokes, but not even he can score 230 by himself. This is why having someone like Woakes or Overton at number 8 is a necessity.

[lanky316]

Still a long way to go but that move which while "letter of the law" fine has really lifted the lid on the atmosphere. Place is going mental.

[Plubby]

1 minute ago, Chris2K said:

Garbage really. Yes he was out of his ground and yes the ball wasn't officially dead, but not even the most pathetic of village sides try to get a wicket that way.

There's no big sign saying when the ball is or isn't live, you have to make an assumption that when the ball is in the wicket-keeper's hands that there's not going to be a stumping attempt off a fast bowler.

It's not like Australia weren't likely to win anyway.

My initial reaction was to liken it to a mankad, and I didn't like it.

 

But Carey IMMEDIATELY threw it, and YJB immediately went off to bless the rains down at mid-on, didn't even turn around. 

 

Kind of funny that Broad made a song and dance about making sure the ball was dead when all Bairstow had to do was turn around...at all and I think he gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

Also given he's the resident expert in the English camp of staying in his crease 😆

 

Likelihood of winning is, of course, completely irrelevant.

[Colly]

I'm not a cricket guy at all, but surely you don't just go wandering out of your crease the second it goes past you?

[Chris2K]

14 minutes ago, Plubby said:

Likelihood of winning is, of course, completely irrelevant.

I think it is. I don't think this is being tried in the first over of the first innings. When you have a chance of winning when a team is chasing, and both wickets and time become much more pressured factors, you try to get wickets any way you can.

All that said, anyone in the Long Room making comments to the Australians as they walk past need to get thrown out as well. Simply not clapping as they walked past made a powerful enough statement.

[PantherFan22]

England were always a threat... Stuart Broad is a classy batsman, when he remembers how to bat.

[Chris2K]

4 minutes ago, Colly said:

I'm not a cricket guy at all, but surely you don't just go wandering out of your crease the second it goes past you?

It's dozy from Bairstow and out in the laws of the game, the issue is that there is no definitive "the ball is dead" moment, and there is a fair assumption that when the ball has gone through to the wicket-keeper off a fast bowler, that's the end of the delivery, or in this case, the end of the over.

[Plubby]

2 minutes ago, Chris2K said:

I think it is. I don't think this is being tried in the first over of the first innings. When you have a chance of winning when a team is chasing, and both wickets and time become much more pressured factors, you try to get wickets any way you can.

Probably, I was more saying that it's irrelevant to any consideration of how you see it.

 

Not sure if we're hopping on the back of a Sky feed or if our broadcaster is running their own feed, but there was an interesting few clips that Channel 9 here in Aus showed of Bairstow handling the short ball earlier in which he just ducks under, then stands up while looking down at the pitch and then wandering off. Didn't check once. Almost as if he thinks he gets to decide when the ball is dead himself.

3 minutes ago, Chris2K said:

It's dozy from Bairstow and out in the laws of the game, the issue is that there is no definitive "the ball is dead" moment, and there is a fair assumption that when the ball has gone through to the wicket-keeper off a fast bowler, that's the end of the delivery.

This was why I didn't like it at first. As I said before, the only thing that's turned me around on it is that Carey threw it so quickly that Bairstow hadn't even left his crease yet, and that Bairstow doesn't even check to see what the keeper is doing. You don't do that to a spinner because the keeper is *right there*, so surely you can wait a half-second to see what he's doing first. Like, how important is the mid-pitch fist bump at the end of the over that he had to leave without looking?

 

As I said earlier, I reckon if he'd turned to check first, the umpire would have given him the benefit of the doubt.

[PantherFan22]

I'm looking forward to Todd Murphy old man injury to Nathan Lyon.. cold perhaps

[Plubby]

Does something like this bring about a rule change?

 

How would you even make a rule to clarify this?

 

I love that it's Stuart Broad getting stuck into us when it was off his bowling that Bairstow himself did it to Colin de Grandhomme.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Plubby

[Chris2K]

I would argue the de Grandhomme incident was wildly different, mainly because de Grandhomme was clearly setting off for a run (most likely to distract the umpire from the LBW appeal) and was trying to get back into his crease after the run was turned down. Plus the ball had hit him and went to Pope in the slips, not straight through to the keeper.

I don't think there's anything you can legislate to prevent it, Bairstow is certainly at fault, but in a time where the lawmakers are desperately trying to speed the game up with over rates at a record low, forcing every over to end with a unanimous acceptance between both teams that the ball is dead is going to make it worse. 

[Plubby]

Broad might be taking it a bit too far now making a song and dance at the umpire about when over is called.

 

It's funny when he's doing it with our players, but you have to take the umpire's call with a bit more grace than that.

[Liam]

1 hour ago, Plubby said:

As I said earlier, I reckon if he'd turned to check first, the umpire would have given him the benefit of the doubt.

He took a step in his crease and then did look back at his stumps before moving - it wasn't exactly immediate.

I'll be very surprised if there isn't some form of apology from the Australian camp, even if it is more of a 'well, we were right by the letters of the law, but understand why people are upset'. It was a bad look and pretty poor not to withdraw the appeal.

It also becomes an apology that is easier to make when you win...which is looking more likely after that wicket.

[Chris2K]

With Stokes out the result is all but confirmed, so now we just wait for what happens after the game is finished...

[Plubby]

11 hours ago, Chris2K said:

I would argue the de Grandhomme incident was wildly different, mainly because de Grandhomme was clearly setting off for a run (most likely to distract the umpire from the LBW appeal) and was trying to get back into his crease after the run was turned down. Plus the ball had hit him and went to Pope in the slips, not straight through to the keeper.

I don't think there's anything you can legislate to prevent it, Bairstow is certainly at fault, but in a time where the lawmakers are desperately trying to speed the game up with over rates at a record low, forcing every over to end with a unanimous acceptance between both teams that the ball is dead is going to make it worse. 

Fair comment on CDG. But it's more than that.

 

Last year Ben Foakes stood by the stumps waiting for a grounded batsman to lift his foot (because of the way he was balanced) against Ireland and was lauded for smart thinking.

Bairstow himself tried it IN THIS TEST

Turns out this is just something England does on the regular and it's only poor form when it happens to them

Edited July 3, 2023 by Plubby

[The Lusophone]

Except that one was different, given that it happened with a live ball in the middle of an over.