Interesting set of 3 similar replays where B just walks off his crease without checking on the ball or umpire. 4th time? He had the dismissal coming.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)
Cricket
253 readers
1 users here now
Upcoming fixtures:
Men's Ashes
| Date | Match | Result | |
|
|
| | 16th June | 1st Test | AUS by 2 wickets | | 28th June | 2nd Test | AUS by 43 runs | | 6th July | 3rd Test | ENG by 3 wickets | | 19th July | 4th Test | Draw | | 27th July | 5th Test | |
Women's Ashes
| Date | Match | Result | |
|
|
| | 22nd June | Only Test | AUS by 89 runs | | 2nd July | First T20I | AUS by 4 wickets | | 6th July | Second T20I | ENG by 3 runs | | 9th July | Third T20I | ENG by 5 wickets | | 12th July | First ODI | ENG by 2 wickets | | 16th July | Second ODI | AUS by 3 runs | | 18th July | Third ODI | ENG by 69 runs (DLS) |
Series drawn - AUS retain the Ashes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
100%
I thought it was a dead ball.
"20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler."
And about as shit a play as a mankad.
Left a blight over a great game and a great win
It never settled in Carey's hands though, he caught it and threw it in one action and before Bairstow even left his crease.
The real rule is both teams have to consider the ball dead before it's dead, and Australia never did.
Also kind of funny the English whining about "the spirit of cricket" when Bairstow himself tries the exact same dismissal against Labuschagne, only difference is he missed by about 8 stumps
And about as shit a play as a mankad.
So not shit at all?
Being serious: I think this play deserves to be quite controversial. Mankadding absolutely does not. Mankadding is only made possible by a batsman trying to sneak an advantage. If there's no risk involved in that, it's just an unfair advantage. Mankadding is that risk. Totally fair.
This situation is a little different. I think the right call was made, but there was no advantage to be gained by Bairstow. He just made a mistake in thinking the ball was dead when it wasn't. (And if you think the rules quoted make it clear it was dead—well by my reading, the strictest interpretation of that wording would mean that stumping is literally always impossible, because an unpire can't stump without having the ball in his hands.)
It left a blight because you'd always rather win without a controversial call, but it was the right call.
There's the laws of the game, and the spirit of the game.
I'm just sad that the spirit of the game has been eaten by the win at all costs attitude.
The fact we're even discussing this is embarrassing and saddens me, and I won't comment any more on it.
I hope you stamped your foot furiously after writing this.
There’s the laws of the game, and the spirit of the game.
Sure, and I can see some ambiguity in whether or not the Bairstow stumping is within the spirit of the game.
But Mankadding? 100% fair play. It's literally the only available counterplay to a batsman sneaking an advantage by advancing early. To suggest it's not in the spirit of the game is to suggest that batsmen deserve to get free runs. I'd sooner say that advancing early is against the spirit of the game than I would say that of Mankadding.
It hadn't settled. It was still in play. As others have posted, he clearly had done it more than once.
Bairstow even tried the same thing on Labuschagne the other day. Difference was that Marnus had enough game sense to be onto it.
https://twitter.com/samdjodan/status/1675575411344908288?s=19
view more: next ›