To me when the keepers standing up it’s a clear indication that if you leave your crease I’m taking you , I’m pretty sure everyone knows that . when the keepers standing back it’s a different thing imo … of course within the laws it’s allowed but spirit of the game and all that but let’s bin that and claim catches where we slide the ball on the floor and don’t walk when we middle it and are caught , let’s go law of the Cnut jungle , the fact on Sunday neither umpire saw it says how ‘live’ they thought the ball was .
I don’t think a keeper can just sneak up to the stumps when the bowlers running in either as long as he’s not within reach of the stumps he can move a few paces forward , otherwise penalty runs may be added
The batsman is not attempting a run in that instance just like people are saying about Bairstow on Sunday. So if a batsman is out his crease regardless of where the keeper is then he's fair game but not if he's an England player.
To me when the keepers standing up it’s a clear indication that if you leave your crease I’m taking you , I’m pretty sure everyone knows that . when the keepers standing back it’s a different thing imo … of course within the laws it’s allowed but spirit of the game and all that but let’s bin that and claim catches where we slide the ball on the floor and don’t walk when we middle it and are caught , let’s go law of the Cnut jungle , the fact on Sunday neither umpire saw it says how ‘live’ they thought the ball was .
I don’t think a keeper can just sneak up to the stumps when the bowlers running in either as long as he’s not within reach of the stumps he can move a few paces forward , otherwise penalty runs may be added
But Carey threw the ball all in one action. Ball into hand ball straight back to stumps. There was no delay in him returning the ball. And that's what's done Bairstow for me. If Carey had held onto it for a few seconds,waited for him to vacate his crease then maybe he' d have a case....but he didnt
Been searching online, but cannot find where the laws re Spirit of Cricket are listed
These are highly trained professionals - if there was a spirit of cricket they would be having a lunchtime beer or two with the oppo.
"Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket. The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, match officials and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Respect your captain, team-mates, opponents and the authority of the umpires.
Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Thank the officials and your opposition at the end of the match, whatever the result.
Cricket is an exciting game that encourages leadership, friendship and teamwork, which brings together people from different nationalities, cultures and religions, especially when played within the Spirit of Cricket".
Whether the keeper is standing up or standing back is irrelevant to the argument. If the batsman walks out of the crease as soon as the keeper takes the ball standing up and the keeper takes the bails off, that that is out. That is all that Carey did standing back. There was no delay in the attempted stumping. In fact, standing that far back a keeper simply cannot actually see exactly whether the batsman is standing be it inside or outside the crease, especially if it is a matter of inches either side of the line, so the shy at the stumps can be a "throw and hope". As I say, Carey threw the ball as soon as he gathered it. We can assume that this was because he had seen Bairstow do the same thing for the previous balls in the over but that is, once again, irrelevant because he did not wait to throw the ball until such time as Bairstow had left the crease.
The argument about the Umpire getting the cap out is also irrelevant if one considers, again, that Bairstowhad done exactly the same thing for the other balls in the over. The cap removal wasn't Bairstow's signal for him to leave his crease on those other occasions and it wasn't for the final ball either because, in each and every case, Bairstow was unilaterally deciding that the ball was dead - in that over he didn't actually once look back at where the ball was which I find, amazing because that is what you are meant to do in coming to an agreement with the fielding side that the ball is dead. You look to see if the keeper has released the ball to another fielder. Equally, tapping your bat does not make you in any more than doing so with the keeper standing back or standing up. Otherwise every batsman could just do so and shout "in".
Bairstow was dozy but also demonstrated his ignorance so far as the Laws are concerned. We've seen footage of him attempting to stump, standing back, the Aussies and in his head that's OK because the batsman might be standing out of his crease. Going for a walk before the ball is dead is exactly the same thing for the reasons I've set out above and it is not for him to decide when the ball is dead.
Having said all of the above, I still come back to this one thing. Why are people getting their knickers in a twist over this incident when it wasn't the reason we lost two Tests? Because it helps to hate the Aussies more or because they really do feel that it was the defining moment in this Test? I'm sure that the Aussies could argue the same thing about Starc's catch because he had both hands around the ball at the time the catch was taken . But he did not have control of the ball as defined by the Laws - and this is, as has been suggested, being looked at because in that situation it is dangerous, when moving at that speed, to brace yourself for a fall with your wrist pointing down because that can cause serious damage. But the current Law is that if you ground the ball on falling it is "not out". The Aussies had to suck that up. And we have to suck up the fact that Bairstow was out and we have far bigger issues to resolve if we are going to win back the Ashes.
Been searching online, but cannot find where the laws re Spirit of Cricket are listed
These are highly trained professionals - if there was a spirit of cricket they would be having a lunchtime beer or two with the oppo.
"Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket. The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, match officials and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Respect your captain, team-mates, opponents and the authority of the umpires.
Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Thank the officials and your opposition at the end of the match, whatever the result.
Cricket is an exciting game that encourages leadership, friendship and teamwork, which brings together people from different nationalities, cultures and religions, especially when played within the Spirit of Cricket".
It's the preamble to the Laws of Cricket.
There was nothing "unfair" about Bairstow's dismissal for the reasons I've set out above. But if we are doing "unfair".
Some years ago, Seb was playing for Kent U14s against Lancashire in the annual Taunton Festival but this particular game was also for the Freddie Flintoff Cup in recognition of the fact that he had played in that match decades before.
Seb was batting and the keeper standing back threw the ball at the stumps and hit them. "Howzat"!!! Square leg Umpire gave Seb out. "But Dad I never left the crease". One of the mothers was filming so we looked at the footage. Sure enough Seb hadn't moved an inch from his guard inside the crease but at the moment of impact the square leg Umpire was actually looking down. He was woken from his slumber by the death rattle of the bails coming off and his immediate reaction was to "trigger". No Third Umpire reviews there!
In that same game, the son of the mother filming was given out LBW with the ball hitting the batsman on the top of his thigh pad and clearly going over the stumps. She took great pleasure showing that Umpire the footage at lunchtime!
I'm given to understand that Lancashire usually won the Freddie Flintoff Cup.
I look forward to India or England Mankading an Australian at the Gabba, and all the Aussie fans and players taking it on the chin and not reacting.
There is "reacting" and there is "over reacting". There is using that as deflection from the stupidity of your own player and then threatening the keeper who threw the ball and did nothing wrong in doing so and his young family for doing just that.
I don't think anyone is saying he's 'not out' by the letter of the law or that Bairstow should have shown more diligence in retrospect Not in a million years do we win that Test even if he is in or any other month of Sundays Some expect England to struggle against the Aussies, so it's no surprise that the way we play is leading to this current scoreline .
to me the issue is the magical 'spirit of the game' which is down to individual choice or the above Chizz says about it
whether it was Bairstow throwing down the stumps after Carey marks his crease and wanders off or vice versa and the subsequent withdrawal of appeal doesn't take place , it's a cnut move big time , just like Mankading , the mancunt is just as filth ... backing up or gardening the wicket , i know which batsmen is seeking to gain an unfair advantage
now we'll have all the wankyness of batsmen exaggerating being in and twat keepers lobbing the ball at the stumps for a good while to come
not having it any other way , if this had happened in an India v Sri Lanka game or in favour of us , I'd be of the same opiniion , dick move
I look forward to India or England Mankading an Australian at the Gabba, and all the Aussie fans and players taking it on the chin and not reacting.
There is "reacting" and there is "over reacting". There is using that as deflection from the stupidity of your own player and then threatening the keeper who threw the ball and did nothing wrong in doing so and his young family for doing just that.
Like the ludicrous overreaction to Broad not walking all those years ago, which made him public enemy number 1 in Australia, and abused across the country?
A simple law change would solve this. Once the batter has completed their stroke and has made their ground, and is clearly not attempting a run, no run out or stumping is possible from then on
I look forward to India or England Mankading an Australian at the Gabba, and all the Aussie fans and players taking it on the chin and not reacting.
There is "reacting" and there is "over reacting". There is using that as deflection from the stupidity of your own player and then threatening the keeper who threw the ball and did nothing wrong in doing so and his young family for doing just that.
Like the ludicrous overreaction to Broad not walking all those years ago, which made him public enemy number 1 in Australia, and abused across the country?
And what did Broad say to Carey in the middle "you will forever be remembered as the player who did that". When he did nothing whatsoever wrong. At the time he threw the ball Bairstow might have had his guard outside his crease and he had not started to walk. Whereas Broad smashed the ball into slips hands and did not walk.
Let's take a poll with some very straightforward questions for those that have played Club cricket.
(1) With the keeper standing back would you check to see whether the ball you have left has been safely taken by the keeper and what he then does with it be it to shy at your stumps or pass it to a fielder thereby making the ball "dead"?
Or
(2) With the keeper standing back would you not look at the keeper and just wander out of your crease?
And
if (2) Would you do that for each and every ball in an over, regardless of whether that was the first or last ball?
Well yes, it's 1. As implied, I don't think Australia did anything wrong at all here and the moral panic is grotesque. But I would seek to clarify the laws so as to prevent this happening again
The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
They didn't see it - both were looking down, one to get a cap, the other just because he thought the ball had been done, I guess
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
Umpires hardly ever make decisions in the professional game. How many run outs are given automatically and how many are referred to the Third Umpire. Almost every single one of them.
The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
They didn't see it - both were looking down, one to get a cap, the other just because he thought the ball had been done, I guess
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
So I'll ask a different question, what would have happened if there was no DRS?
Good question, who knows?
You'd have to think that they can't give what they've not seen, so the umpire may have taken the easier approach of saying nope, was looking away as ball was dead.
The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
They didn't see it - both were looking down, one to get a cap, the other just because he thought the ball had been done, I guess
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
So I'll ask a different question, what would have happened if there was no DRS?
Then the Umpires can't give it out. But the question is irrelevant because there is DRS. That is the purpose of DRS and it is used for every single stumping too.
The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
They didn't see it - both were looking down, one to get a cap, the other just because he thought the ball had been done, I guess
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
So I'll ask a different question, what would have happened if there was no DRS?
Then the Umpires can't give it out. But the question is irrelevant because there is DRS. That is the purpose of DRS and it is used for every single stumping too.
Did they use DRS for Crawley and Bairstow in the first test when they were well out?
Bairstow was at least a yard out the fact that the square leg umpire was walking away and not looking, he only turned his head once the ball hit the stumps, suggests he believed the ball to be dead as well?
For what it's worth I don't think the Australians did anything wrong but I can also see that Bairstow AND the umpires belived the ball was dead.
Poor from Bairstow and very ordinary from the umpires though.
Yeah. I think Australia were within their rights to do it and appeal. Umpires should have probably given a dead ball. The issue is with the laws and the officiating, not the Australians
I don't think anyone is suggesting it wasn't out. And I think there are plenty of other parallels where shady, within-the-laws acts have been carried out which, while not illegal, are unsporting. Bairstow should have had his wits about him. The (three) umpires eventually came to the right decision. Cummins didn't do his reputation any good by not withdrawing the appeal. He might be utterly sanguine about his reputation, however.
I think the best analogy isn't the numerous mankads that have taken place; various stumpings from keepers standing up or back; or Stuart Broad not walking when given not out, ten years ago at Trent Bridge having hit the ball into Haddin's gloves who then spilled the catch, taken by Clarke at slip.
The best analogy, in my view, is Ian Bell's "run out" at the same ground, two years earlier. Eoin Morgan flicked a ball off his legs towards the square leg boundary. The fielder dived to save the ball and landed the other side of the rope, unaware that he'd prevented the boundary. He picked it up and lobbed it back in. Dhoni effected a relay return, a fielder took the bails off, appealed and, eventually Bell was given out. Correct decision made. Fielding team acting immediately within the laws of the game. And, as Shane Warne commentating said "if you go by the Spirit of the Game, that's not on".
Where the events of 2011 and 2023 differ is that India's captain took the magnanimous, sporting decision to withdraw his appeal and allow Ian Bell to continue his innings. He won an ICC Spirit of Cricket award for doing so. Cummins failed in this regard. Within the Laws, outside the Spirit.
The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
They didn't see it - both were looking down, one to get a cap, the other just because he thought the ball had been done, I guess
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
So I'll ask a different question, what would have happened if there was no DRS?
Then the Umpires can't give it out. But the question is irrelevant because there is DRS. That is the purpose of DRS and it is used for every single stumping too.
Did they use DRS for Crawley and Bairstow in the first test when they were well out?
Bairstow was at least a yard out the fact that the square leg umpire was walking away and not looking, he only turned his head once the ball hit the stumps, suggests he believed the ball to be dead as well?
For what it's worth I don't think the Australians did anything wrong but I can also see that Bairstow AND the umpires belived the ball was dead.
Poor from Bairstow and very ordinary from the umpires though.
If a batsman knows he's well out of his ground then they will automatically walk off the pitch. Why would you stay unless you had some doubt that the keeper had taken the ball cleanly. But that would be picked up by DRS anyway.
I do agree that the Umpires were probably wrong because they should have called "over" before reaching for caps etc. But the fact is that Bairstow was doing it for every ball so the cap issue would have been irrelevant to those. Had Carey thrown the ball at the same time for any of those other balls the circumstances would have been the same. It is not for the batsman to decide when a ball is dead. Which is why I posed the questions above to club cricketers. You do not leave your crease whether the keeper is standing up or back until you are satisfied that it is dead. The usual definition of that is when the keeper releases the ball to another fielder. And Bairstow did not look behind him once in that over to satisfy himself of that.
The big question I have is why did neither of the on field umpires give it out? He was "out" by a mile.
They didn't see it - both were looking down, one to get a cap, the other just because he thought the ball had been done, I guess
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
So I'll ask a different question, what would have happened if there was no DRS?
Then the Umpires can't give it out. But the question is irrelevant because there is DRS. That is the purpose of DRS and it is used for every single stumping too.
Did they use DRS for Crawley and Bairstow in the first test when they were well out?
Bairstow was at least a yard out the fact that the square leg umpire was walking away and not looking, he only turned his head once the ball hit the stumps, suggests he believed the ball to be dead as well?
For what it's worth I don't think the Australians did anything wrong but I can also see that Bairstow AND the umpires belived the ball was dead.
Poor from Bairstow and very ordinary from the umpires though.
Agree. I think the umpires were at fault. No idea why they sent the decision up to the third umpire - Stevie Wonder could see that Bairstow was out of his ground. They should have wondered over to each other, and conferred on whether in their opinion the ball was dead. If they both thought it was then not out - tell Cummins it was over. If they agreed that technically it wasn't dead, ask Cummins if he'd like to withdraw his appeal. Real abdication of responsibility from the pair of them.
Comments
when the keepers standing back it’s a different thing imo … of course within the laws it’s allowed but spirit of the game and all that but let’s bin that and claim catches where we slide the ball on the floor and don’t walk when we middle it and are caught , let’s go law of the Cnut jungle , the fact on Sunday neither umpire saw it says how ‘live’ they thought the ball was .
I don’t think a keeper can just sneak up to the stumps when the bowlers running in either as long as he’s not within reach of the stumps he can move a few paces forward , otherwise penalty runs may be added
If Carey had held onto it for a few seconds,waited for him to vacate his crease then maybe he' d have a case....but he didnt
These are highly trained professionals - if there was a spirit of cricket they would be having a lunchtime beer or two with the oppo.
"Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket. The major responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the captains, but extends to all players, match officials and, especially in junior cricket, teachers, coaches and parents.
Respect is central to the Spirit of Cricket.
Respect your captain, team-mates, opponents and the authority of the umpires.
Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision.
Create a positive atmosphere by your own conduct, and encourage others to do likewise.
Show self-discipline, even when things go against you.
Congratulate the opposition on their successes, and enjoy those of your own team.
Thank the officials and your opposition at the end of the match, whatever the result.
Cricket is an exciting game that encourages leadership, friendship and teamwork, which brings together people from different nationalities, cultures and religions, especially when played within the Spirit of Cricket".
It's the preamble to the Laws of Cricket.
The argument about the Umpire getting the cap out is also irrelevant if one considers, again, that Bairstow had done exactly the same thing for the other balls in the over. The cap removal wasn't Bairstow's signal for him to leave his crease on those other occasions and it wasn't for the final ball either because, in each and every case, Bairstow was unilaterally deciding that the ball was dead - in that over he didn't actually once look back at where the ball was which I find, amazing because that is what you are meant to do in coming to an agreement with the fielding side that the ball is dead. You look to see if the keeper has released the ball to another fielder. Equally, tapping your bat does not make you in any more than doing so with the keeper standing back or standing up. Otherwise every batsman could just do so and shout "in".
Bairstow was dozy but also demonstrated his ignorance so far as the Laws are concerned. We've seen footage of him attempting to stump, standing back, the Aussies and in his head that's OK because the batsman might be standing out of his crease. Going for a walk before the ball is dead is exactly the same thing for the reasons I've set out above and it is not for him to decide when the ball is dead.
Having said all of the above, I still come back to this one thing. Why are people getting their knickers in a twist over this incident when it wasn't the reason we lost two Tests? Because it helps to hate the Aussies more or because they really do feel that it was the defining moment in this Test? I'm sure that the Aussies could argue the same thing about Starc's catch because he had both hands around the ball at the time the catch was taken . But he did not have control of the ball as defined by the Laws - and this is, as has been suggested, being looked at because in that situation it is dangerous, when moving at that speed, to brace yourself for a fall with your wrist pointing down because that can cause serious damage. But the current Law is that if you ground the ball on falling it is "not out". The Aussies had to suck that up. And we have to suck up the fact that Bairstow was out and we have far bigger issues to resolve if we are going to win back the Ashes.
Some years ago, Seb was playing for Kent U14s against Lancashire in the annual Taunton Festival but this particular game was also for the Freddie Flintoff Cup in recognition of the fact that he had played in that match decades before.
Seb was batting and the keeper standing back threw the ball at the stumps and hit them. "Howzat"!!! Square leg Umpire gave Seb out. "But Dad I never left the crease". One of the mothers was filming so we looked at the footage. Sure enough Seb hadn't moved an inch from his guard inside the crease but at the moment of impact the square leg Umpire was actually looking down. He was woken from his slumber by the death rattle of the bails coming off and his immediate reaction was to "trigger". No Third Umpire reviews there!
In that same game, the son of the mother filming was given out LBW with the ball hitting the batsman on the top of his thigh pad and clearly going over the stumps. She took great pleasure showing that Umpire the footage at lunchtime!
I'm given to understand that Lancashire usually won the Freddie Flintoff Cup.
Not in a million years do we win that Test even if he is in or any other month of Sundays
Some expect England to struggle against the Aussies, so it's no surprise that the way we play is leading to this current scoreline .
to me the issue is the magical 'spirit of the game' which is down to individual choice or the above Chizz says about it
whether it was Bairstow throwing down the stumps after Carey marks his crease and wanders off or vice versa and the subsequent withdrawal of appeal doesn't take place , it's a cnut move big time , just like Mankading , the mancunt is just as filth ... backing up or gardening the wicket , i know which batsmen is seeking to gain an unfair advantage
now we'll have all the wankyness of batsmen exaggerating being in and twat keepers lobbing the ball at the stumps for a good while to come
not having it any other way , if this had happened in an India v Sri Lanka game or in favour of us , I'd be of the same opiniion , dick move
Slightly underwhelming Tests next summer, with 3 against the Windies in June, and 3 against Sri Lanka in late August and early September
The white ball series are Pakistan T20s in May, then a long series of games against our Aussie friends in September...
No international men's cricket between the 30th June and 21st August.
They'd have assumed it was thrown in by the wicketkeeper etc, but you can't give what you didn't actually see.
(1) With the keeper standing back would you check to see whether the ball you have left has been safely taken by the keeper and what he then does with it be it to shy at your stumps or pass it to a fielder thereby making the ball "dead"?
Or
(2) With the keeper standing back would you not look at the keeper and just wander out of your crease?
And
if (2) Would you do that for each and every ball in an over, regardless of whether that was the first or last ball?
For me it's (1) For Bairstow it was (2)
You'd have to think that they can't give what they've not seen, so the umpire may have taken the easier approach of saying nope, was looking away as ball was dead.
Bairstow was at least a yard out the fact that the square leg umpire was walking away and not looking, he only turned his head once the ball hit the stumps, suggests he believed the ball to be dead as well?
For what it's worth I don't think the Australians did anything wrong but I can also see that Bairstow AND the umpires belived the ball was dead.
Poor from Bairstow and very ordinary from the umpires though.
I think the best analogy isn't the numerous mankads that have taken place; various stumpings from keepers standing up or back; or Stuart Broad not walking when given not out, ten years ago at Trent Bridge having hit the ball into Haddin's gloves who then spilled the catch, taken by Clarke at slip.
The best analogy, in my view, is Ian Bell's "run out" at the same ground, two years earlier. Eoin Morgan flicked a ball off his legs towards the square leg boundary. The fielder dived to save the ball and landed the other side of the rope, unaware that he'd prevented the boundary. He picked it up and lobbed it back in. Dhoni effected a relay return, a fielder took the bails off, appealed and, eventually Bell was given out. Correct decision made. Fielding team acting immediately within the laws of the game. And, as Shane Warne commentating said "if you go by the Spirit of the Game, that's not on".
Where the events of 2011 and 2023 differ is that India's captain took the magnanimous, sporting decision to withdraw his appeal and allow Ian Bell to continue his innings. He won an ICC Spirit of Cricket award for doing so. Cummins failed in this regard. Within the Laws, outside the Spirit.
I do agree that the Umpires were probably wrong because they should have called "over" before reaching for caps etc. But the fact is that Bairstow was doing it for every ball so the cap issue would have been irrelevant to those. Had Carey thrown the ball at the same time for any of those other balls the circumstances would have been the same. It is not for the batsman to decide when a ball is dead. Which is why I posed the questions above to club cricketers. You do not leave your crease whether the keeper is standing up or back until you are satisfied that it is dead. The usual definition of that is when the keeper releases the ball to another fielder. And Bairstow did not look behind him once in that over to satisfy himself of that.