Poor sportsmanship. Australians showing their colours. Can’t get blokes out fairly so resort to throwing down the stumps when the ball is effectively but not technically dead.
Poor sportsmanship. Australians showing their colours. Can’t get blokes out fairly so resort to throwing down the stumps when the ball is effectively but not technically dead.
Could have withdrawn appeal. They should hang their heads in shame at such poor sportsmanship. A decision they'll come to regret, but not today. Has lords ever been as noisy?
There is no doubt that it was within the Laws of the game because the ball was not dead. The positioning of the keeper is irrelevant to theses questions but I would ask, given the fact that Carey actually threw the ball before Bairstow moved, are:
(1) If Carey had been standing up to the stumps and taken the ball, would Bairstow have walked out of his crease like that or waited until he had released the ball to another fielder or "over" had been called?
(2) Remember Bairstow is a keeper himself and had he been standing up to Carey, would he have taken the bails off if Carey had left the crease in the same way?
There is no doubt that it was within the Laws of the game because the ball was not dead. The positioning of the keeper is irrelevant to theses questions but I would ask, given the fact that Carey actually threw the ball before Bairstow moved, are:
(1) If Carey had been standing up to the stumps and taken the ball, would Bairstow have walked out of his crease like that or waited until he had released the ball to another fielder or "over" had been called?
(2) Remember Bairstow is a keeper himself and had he been standing up to Carey, would he have taken the bails off if Carey had left the crease in the same way?
Yes and yes but you are missing point 3
(3) it happened against us and not by us so we are the victims 😂
no one has actually explained on here or the tv when a ball goes ‘dead’.
If it’s to do with the wicket keeper movement why did they only show side angle of the stumps on the analysis? With no sign of wicket keeper?
This is the definition:
The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
Ordinarily this would be when say the keeper throws the ball to another fielder but, as this was the final ball of the over, it would have been once the Umpire called "over".
As Atherton says, it was dozy cricket from Bairstow. You can't just walk out of your crease once a keeper has caught the ball.
I’d like to see a replay of what the umpire was doing immediately after the ball went through to Carey. It looked as though Bairstow looked up at him and the umpire moved towards bowler taking the bowlers hat/glasses off. If that was the case should the umpire have intervened before it went to tv umpire?
no one has actually explained on here or the tv when a ball goes ‘dead’.
If it’s to do with the wicket keeper movement why did they only show side angle of the stumps on the analysis? With no sign of wicket keeper?
This is the definition:
The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
Ordinarily this would be when say the keeper throws the ball to another fielder but, as this was the final ball of the over, it would have been once the Umpire called "over".
As Atherton says, it was dozy cricket from Bairstow. You can't just walk out of your crease once a keeper has caught the ball.
Thanks. I heard atherton a mo ago. Never knew the umpire spoke. (Calling ‘over’)
I’d like to see a replay of what the umpire was doing immediately after the ball went through to Carey. It looked as though Bairstow looked up at him and the umpire moved towards bowler taking the bowlers hat/glasses off. If that was the case should the umpire have intervened before it went to tv umpire?
I don't know the answer to that one but as the replays showed of all the previous balls in that over, Bairstow was wandering out after every ball without looking at whether Carrey has released the ball
The umpires' decision was wrong. Bairstow was not attempting a run. The wicket was broken by the wicket keeper, without an intervention from any other fielder.
According to Law 39.1 therefore, he was out, stumped
Comments
Moves down the leg side to catch Duckett
Throws down the stumps to get rid of Bairstow.
Can't blame the keeper as he was throwing the ball instinctively.
Carey was still in motion and never stopped with ball in hand to get it back.
(1) If Carey had been standing up to the stumps and taken the ball, would Bairstow have walked out of his crease like that or waited until he had released the ball to another fielder or "over" had been called?
(2) Remember Bairstow is a keeper himself and had he been standing up to Carey, would he have taken the bails off if Carey had left the crease in the same way?
(3) it happened against us and not by us so we are the victims 😂
The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
Ordinarily this would be when say the keeper throws the ball to another fielder but, as this was the final ball of the over, it would have been once the Umpire called "over".
As Atherton says, it was dozy cricket from Bairstow. You can't just walk out of your crease once a keeper has caught the ball.
According to Law 39.1 therefore, he was out, stumped