Controversy around Bairstow dismissal? Michael Vaughan has his say
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Jonny Bairstow's wicket created quite a stir at Lord's. Were England hard done? Michael Vaughan answers, on Cricbuzz Chatter
#Ashes2023 #ENGvAUS #JonnyBairstow #TestCricket #CricketNews #Test #AshesTest #CricketAustralia #ECB #LordsTest
Watch more cricket videos - www.cricbuzz.c...
For more cricket updates and content - www.cricbuzz.c...
For more updates on cricket follow us on facebook -
/
Follow us on twitter to get cricket related news -
/ cricbuzz
If you enjoy this video - then LIKE & SHARE with fellow cricket fans. SUBSCRIBE to Cricbuzz channel for more stories around the game we love!
Do remember 2019WC first.
English people always crying.
@@The_Falcon_Eye Planned move on the final ball of the over - only an idiot would not see that. But a win is a win.
Sorry mate! Can't share, soccer fans here.
@@The_Falcon_Eye Carey dropped catch to lose the game, what Karma.
I can understand the spirit of cricket argument if Carey had waited for Bairstow to drift out of the crease before throwing down the stumps. But he did it in all one motion and there are screenshots of the fact that Bairstow was inside the crease when the ball was halfway to the stumps. It was just carelessness on Bairstow's part. At the very least you should look behind to the keeper before coming out of the crease.
Cricket agar rule se chalta toh Mitchell Starc ne jo catch pakda usko 3rd umpire out deta lekin umpire ne apna opinion diya ki ye not out hai second thing ye hai ki over ki last ball khelne ke baad batsman agar non striker batsman ke paas baat karne jaye aur keeper stump pe bowl hit kar ke appeal kare toh kya ye leagal hona chahiye suppose world cup ka agar semi final chal raha ho india ko Pakistan ke against last 10 overs mein 80 runs chahiye ho aur Rizwan aisi harkat kohli ke sath kar de toh kyaa ham indians ke liye ye acceptable hoga 😢😢
@@R.F.C.74. The literal point was that this doesn't fall under spirit of the game argument at all. If Bairstow ventured out of the crease to a spinner and got stumped, no one would say a thing. People use spirit of game argument when it goes against them, when 99% of the time they would do the same thing.
@@aayushaudichya6014 No, according to the law, fielder has to be in control of catch and body. Starc was in control of catch but not in control of body. So it was not out by law.
@@nikunjdixit1175 what about Cameron green caught the catch of shubhman Gill in wtc final wo bhi toh ham keh sakte hain ki according to cricket law not out hona chahiye lekin 3rd umpire ko laga ki out hai what about Steven Smith catch waha to Ricky ponting ko lagta hai ki Smith control mein nahi thee lekin umpire ko laga ki control mein hai to out de diya what about the cricket wc final 19 cricket ke rules ke according to NZ ko champion hona chahiye thaa lekin eng champion hai kyuki umpire ko jo thik laga at that moment usne wo decision liya aise lots of lot example hain jo ye batate hain ki ultimately to cricket umpire ke opinion aur spirit of the game se hi chalta hai
@@R.F.C.74. No, its not totally different. It is only different because this happened to a seamer and not to a spinner. This is how any keeper would do a stumping off a fast bowler while standing back. What Bairstow was doing is irrelevant. Ball wasn't dead. Its taught to us in schoolboy cricket that you don't assume the ball is dead. If Carey had missed and it had gone for overthrows, you think Bairstow and Stokes wouldn't have tried to pinch a run.
"Don't leave your crease unless you are making a ran attempt" first thing I was taught about cricket
It's up there with "keep your bat grounded."
and the other, wait for the umpire to declare the over finished.
And don't put the ball on the ground when you take a catch
No advantage for bairstow whatsoever, utterly disappointing sportsmanship.
You must be a lying Australian.
it's in the spirit of the game to not let your opponents get away with carelessness. A brain fade moment for Bairstow. He's ofcourse in disbelief in the moment but deep down he knows he was in the wrong (although he'd never admit) being a wicketkeeper himself.
xBeing a wicket keeper that tried the same move 2 days prior.
The over was completed. Aussies are famous for cheating and consider it ‘clever’. It’s a difference in culture and education actually.
not really .. you can see that even the umpire didnt expect this, the guy was abt to return the bowlers cap, its a situation where now england has no trust in australia not a healthy situation for any sport.. its definitely within the letter of the law though
The most amusing thing was Steve Smith talking about fairness and integrity. What an embarrassment to Australian cricket yet he's still there.
@@stasysuter9939 Yes, and still claiming catches that have touched the ground. Good old Aussies, they will never change.
Carry threw it as soon as he collected it. It was labelled as stumping, so what's the debate about?
You wouldn't just throw the ball at the stumps if a player was in the crease. It was pre-meditated and sneaky from Carey. I can tell you have ZERO honour and respect as a man.
But back in 2006, McCullum also ran out Muttiah Muralitharan in a Test match after he left the crease to celebrate Kumar Sangakkara’s century......After the match, McCullum was quoted as saying: “I never thought it the wrong thing to do, the rules are there and you can’t reward stupidity.”
Brendon sure has a short memory.
Brendon Mcullum run out of Murali was pure cheating. Shameful
@@trovelemmanuel5627 But he has always been a nasty person and is only nice when things go his way,,,,
@@peterbrigden2124
He's a Kiwi, all Kiwi's play hard and complain about the opposition. Watch the All Blacks if you want to see it in your face, great Rugby teams when they aren't being brutal though ...
The rules are correct until they are used against your team.. Everytime South Africa loses a game in cricket or rugby it's always the ref or the umpire who lost the game for them.I am just waiting for for the rugby world cup to see how we go...??
Jonny Bairstow obviously has his own version of the rules. Michael Vaughn explained it pretty well. Bairstow didn't even bother to see what happened to the ball after it passed his bat. Aussies love the booing as it helps them focus on the task ahead and boosts the morale. It also makes the taste if victory so .uch sweeter. English cricket fans should be booing their government for all the shite that they are causing in the UK.
The "spirit of cricket" is basically ambiguous, anyone can make what they deem "spirit of cricket" in their own interpretations, but other interpretations might be made by another player somewhere else.
As it concerns Bairstow, he made a serious mistake that we only see in grade cricket, it was a brain fade moment by a very experienced player of the game, but "the spirit of cricket" argument cannot be used when it comes to a rather stupid move by an experienced player. For Bairstow, he only has himself to blame.
the whole thing has been completely blown out of proportion.
its a stumping. period. If it were a spin bowl, the amount of time would be lesser and there would not have been any doubt. The ball taking time to hit the stumps from such a distance has created the controversy.
Perfect explanation of the laws at play here
Rubbish! It's got nothing to do with spin vs pace
Exactly
@@charavanStop bullshiting and actually give a logical reason to say your negative point. You can't just say Rubbish and not accept something.
Right thing from Alex Carey.
Well I guess in that particular test, the first time Bairstow (unsuccessfully) tried to do the same thing two days earlier - he first set the "spirit of the game".
100% correct. Bairstow, who is a fine cricketer, wondered out of his crease and made a school boy error. Carey seems to act instinctively and does the right thing. The first two tests of the Ashes have been smashing and could have gone either way. I still think England are in with a big chance and perhaps this incident will fire them up. If the next three tests are as good as the first two, this series will go down to the wire. Losing Nathan Lyon is going to be a big blow for the Aussies. I also think England need to manage the match situation a little better. Stokes had the game under control and just needed some calm heads around him to get England over the line. Too many English batsmen gave their wickets away too easily. Being aggressive is a good tactic but in some circumstances, a more pragmatic approach would have been the better option.
The Aussies will miss Lyon but England have big worries in the bowling department. Old, tired bowlers are telling their skipper they’re not bowling well and putting the load onto younger less experienced bowlers. I think after this series, the English selectors need to look to the future. I’m sure they want “entertaining” bowlers too..
Nathan Lyon is a big blow but toddy Murphy ain't no joke. U see what he did to Indian batsman. Im calling it now he be as effective as Lyon if not more as the english bowlers never faced him before
I agree it's careless from Bairstow, but you can't say that Carey acted instinctively when Bairstow was firmly in his crease when the ball was thrown and not looking to gain an advantage. There was absolutely no reason to throw the ball, he was being sneaky and chancing it.
Good to keep the rivalry and tensions up though.
@@robjervis3898 so let’s say a batter comes out of his crease to block a ball from a spinner and misses and isn’t taking a run or an advantage.. and if they’re stumped, they can’t be out because of not taking an advantage to score or attempt a run?
@@eM8e5 Well obviously the batter would be trying to gain an advantage by leaving the crease to negate the spin, that's a risk they take in open play, leaving them open to a stumping.
In this case, Bairstow is in his crease when the ball is bowled and remains there after the ball passes, until both umpires look away and start to leave their positions, which indicates that it is a dead ball situation, regardless of whether or not 'over' was called, they can't give it out if they weren't in their positions to see it.
If the rules do permit the 3rd umpire trumping the on field umpires lack off attention which signals a deadball, then it's undeniably out, but the umpires deserve a bollocking.
The thing I love about this the most is who wrote the Laws of the game? The MCC, homed at Lords.
Foreign minister of India once quoted "Europe's problems are world's problems but world's problems are not Europe's problems", I didn't understand that point clearly at that time. After Bairstow's runout incident it makes much sense to me
There's no question in terms of the law. The so called " spirit of the game" would atleast come in question if Carey had waited atleast half a second before he threw the ball. It was in one motion and absolutely instantaneous.
Fuck Spirit Of The game
There is a question in terms of the law. "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." The bowler's end umpire was not paying attention, and was reaching for the bowler's cap to hand it to him at the end of the over. If he didn't consider that the fielding side and both batters considered it dead, why was he not paying attention? Equally, the square leg umpire wasn't paying the slightest bit of attention either. Theoretically, a player could pick up on this behavior by the umpires and perfectly reasonably conclude the ball is dead.
Now I'm not saying that it definitely wasn't out. Clearly the fielding side hadn't ceased to regard the ball as in play, and it's only one interpretation to say that the umpires not paying attention means the ball is dead under this law. And I don't think Bairstow was influenced by the umpires in this instance. However it does raise a question in my mind. Certainly the umpires in this instance should get a behind close doors bollocking for this as they have not done their job at all well.
@sam1111979 as you answered your own question fielding team did not consider it is over and Bairstow was not influenced by umpire's action. You can probably question umpiers' ignorance but it's absurd to accuse the other team of any wrongdoing.
@@sam1111979 the umpires wasn't paying attention because he wouldn't think any player is that stupid to not wait a couple seconds for the ball to be completely dead. If he waited 2 seconds after Carey caught the ball he would be still in his crease by the time the ball hit the stumps
@@nbmh360 Except my whole point is it's not what the fielding team do, it's what the umpire thinks the fielding team is doing. Bairstow may not have been influenced by the umpire, but he easily could have been. So it is up to interpretation, and is still questionable in terms of the law. If the umpires had given it as dead ball, and said it's because they had thought at the time that the ball was considered dead and moved on, a lot of people would have gone along with that. Also I don't accuse the Aussies of wrongdoing here, and whether the Aussies were in the wrong or not is irrelevant to my point.
If Stokes felt so strongly about the spirit of the game, a year ago when Cameron Green slammed his leg stump but the bails didn’t move, he would have walked off. The rule book says he wasn’t out because the bails didn’t dislodge - but it’s about the spirit, not the rules …. Isn’t it Ben?
And also in world cup final when throw from newzealand fielder hit his bat and went for four. today he is on loosing side so he cares about spirit of game 😑😑
@@thesurgeon251 In the spirit of that game, Stokes never claimed the overthrows, nor did he make any attempt to run for overthrows, in fact he looked quite embarrassed that it happened.
The bails didn't dislodge ,,,so not out
Spirit of the Game exhibit A: Bairstow attempted the exact same thing by trying to catch Marnus Labuschagne stepping out of his crease two days ago.
Spirit of the Game exhibit B: England coach Brendon McCullum has three instances of identical dismissals.
Spirit of the Game exhibit C: Broad edging a ball to slip but refusing to walk, an edge the English quick has since admitted to.
Spirit of the Game exhibit D: England keeper Ben Foakes stumping Irishman Andy Balbirnie after holding onto the ball for a far greater amount of time than what Carey did.
Spirit of the Game exhibit E: The MCC long room behaved disgracefully. Not surprisingly three MCC members are now suspended.
Spirit of the Game exhibit F: The crowd chanting that Australians are cheaters. Actually the only person convicted of cheating in this series is England's Moeen Ali.
Spirit of the Game exhibit G: England bowling 'Bodyline' on day 4, for a record 98% short balls. Also extremely boring to watch - so much for "entertaining bazball".
Spirit of the Game exhibit H: England/fans not respecting umpires decision. This was not a bad LBW call, a missed no ball (etc)... this was within the laws.
Spirit of the Game exhibit I: Ollie Robinson telling Usman Khawaja to "F*** off" after dismissing him on 141.
I won't add Duckett not walking re Starc's catch, because we respect that rules are rules.
I also won't add England's controversial win over New Zealand in the World Cup final involving Stokes himself as there's been no shortage of comments about that.
Well said Dave facts don't lie...
Etraordinary to see someone supporting the Aussies by complaining about people not walking....
Yes I agree al
@@solastaNice evade there cobber
@@solasta not walking to a fine snick I could understand.
Not walking for one that goes to third slip is what's extraordinary hahaha
Spirit of the cricket does not mean that you can let any fielding side or batting side to domistakes which are written in law books as punishable. If so we could have turned a blind eye if the non-striking batsman walks halfway across the pitch before delivering the ball or not run any batsman out if he get slipped while crossing over for a run, etc.
The Aussies play to win and winning is everything spirits is what you share after the match when you’re back in the dressing room
ofc go and tamper the ball as usual u guys used to. thats also spirit of game😂
Do you win at all costs? What I want to know is whether Adam Gilchrist would have done it. I think he would have. He epitomised the spirit of the game I think. He walked when he knew he was out.
@@bonaranjha 1977 - England bowler John Lever was accused of applying Vaseline on one side of the ball to make it swing better during the third test against India.
1994 - England captain Michael Atherton rubbed loose dirt from his pocket onto the ball during the first test against South Africa at Lord's.
2005 - Former England batsman Marcus Trescothick said in his autobiography that he used mint-induced saliva to keep the shine on the ball as his team recorded their first Ashes victory after 18 years.
2010 - England bowlers Stuart Broad and James Anderson were accused of ball tampering after the former treaded on the ball with his spikes while the latter appeared to be picking at the seam during a test against South Africa.
Sorry?
@@bonaranjha Are you going to respond to @paythepiper6283 ????
How about this quote from Monty Panesar -
"Whether we broke the laws depends on how you interpret them," he said. "We found that mints and sun cream had an effect on the saliva, and that helped the ball to reverse. "I might also have 'accidentally' caught the ball on the zip of my trouser pocket to rough it up a little."
Anything you would like to add?
The thing that wasn’t in the spirit of cricket was the behaviour of the MCC (Marylebone Casual Crew?) in the long room.
Quite so, and they have apologised for it.
As they should. I haven’t seen such loutish behaviour since they had to give Dickie Bird a police escort through the long room in the Centenary Test in 1980.
The 'spirit of cricket' is truly a nonsense. Rules are rules, and if you follow and respect the rules as a player, that should be the end of it.
Yep. This is where I stand on it too. If it's legal within the rules, it's fair game. This is professional sports, not some junior league hit & giggle at the park.
WRONG! There are good, decent honorable ways to behave and there are dishonorable classless ways to behave in life at whatever vocation. It's your moral choice - just like sneaking out of the bar when it's your round! The problem with society today is that it is souless. There are no values, no 'spirit' It is seen as perfectly ok to act immorally. In fact you are seen as weak and stupid of you if you do act in the right way. It has nothing to do with rules, there is just right and wrong. Your choice.
@@thomridgeway1438 Well Thom, all of your rhetoric here can be explained away by, of all things, RULES. Example, Warner and Smith re the sandpaper scandal - applicable rule is ball tampering and the offshoot is the immorality of it and the penalties applied. The RULES dictate the MORALITY expected of players, and the rule favours Carey and the Aussies in this instance.
@@thomridgeway1438sounds great. So how do you feel about Bairstow trying this same move only days earlier, or Foakes doing it against the Irish, or Broad not walking on a clear edge to slips, or McCullum doing the same run out against England? Because we can all say we have the moral high ground, but unless we’re beyond reproach than we have to be very careful.
This is why the sandpaper cheating was treated so seriously in Australia, our players always pushed the boundaries but played fairly. As soon as that trust was broken, they were flayed.
@@brick_noun Exactly!
The No.1 law and one that encapsulates the "Spirit if Cricket" is to always accept the umpires decision. The members of the MCC should remember they enshrined that passage in the MCC Laws of Cricket. Also, I would say Bairstow didn't uphold his end of the Spirit of Cricket by getting furious of his blunder. He is not the one to decide when play has ceased and it is end of over.
I'm English and view it as a fair dismissal. It wouldn't surprise me if it was engineered by Australia ie they had seen that Bairstow often just leaves his crease at the end of an over, so Green deliberately bowled a bouncer, expecting Bairstow to duck and then walk, so Carey seized the opportunity. But Michael Vaughan has 'hit the nail on the head' when he says that Bairstow didn't look back, which he should have done.
Bairstow literally did the same thing for all three of the previous deliveries. Carey spotted the behaviour and punished it.
Bairstow broke the so-called “Spirit of Cricket” when he attempted the very same thing with Labuschagne in the very same game.
And before Carey he did it first.
Out. The only slightly grating part is that Bairstow was still in his ground when the keep threw the ball.
Bairstow tried the same to Labachagne only two days prior, but missed the stumps and Marnus wasn't dopey enuf to leave his crease.
The fact he was still behind the crease when the ball was thrown shows what a complete and utter bonehead Bairstow is.
So, it was given out ... As an Australian I was hoping Cummo was going to call Bairstow back. It would've been a beautiful moment of graciousness and catharsis, and the crowd would've cheered 'Patrick the Merciful'.
I think that would have been great too. We could have won anyway.
Bairstow tried the ***exact*** same thing against Labachagne just two days prior! The carry on now, though! FFS. The difference is Marnus watched the ball and didn't leave his crease!
I think the problem is No1 has said if Bairstow was doing it repeatedly or given a warning prior to it happening. Bairstow has been dozey this series looks overweight for me especially as a keeper.
No
Don't forget he had a leg break he was recovering from
@@stevesmith-er8zd yes
1) there's no need for a keeper to give prior warning to a batsman "keep being foolish like that and I'll stump you"
2) it's not up to Australia to teach Bairstow on the basics of cricket
3) all keepers do it - Bairstow did it to Marnus Labuschagne two days earlier, none of them ever give "warnings". Only now we're hearing from England that they want to be warned. What next - get the bowler to tell them where and what type of delivery they'll bowl?
4) every junior cricketer is taught this
@@DaveWhoa Yes it was bad awareness on JB's part no doubt about that but it just felt like a desperation tactic. I mean you'd be a little pissed off if a keeper did that to you in village cricket wouldn't you? unless they gave you a friendly reminder or you were doing it every ball then fully justified. I just feel now the series will get a bit more tit for tat going forward the friendly nature will be gone which probably is best for Eng anyway as they need to get their arse in gear!
Team that won world cup by breaking spirit of cricket is now talking about it😂
School boy error by a professional, end of. This IS the Ashes ⚱️
England can see 5-0 on the horizon and need to find a scapegoat 😂
you will see them. aus arw cheaters first gill catch was not out and then bairstow. he clearly makes a stance before leaving but once a cheater always a cheater😂🎉 keep winning like this
@@bonaranjha So by definition this action makes the English team cheats as well as Bairstow applied the same action in the first innings!
The Stark catch that was given not out was way worse a decision that that run out.
Why didn't stokes requested to withdraw those extra 5 runs in wc final for spirit of cricket?
Bairstow tried getting marnus out in similar way in this series but failed to do so .
We must appreciate carey for his skills and presence of mind which bairstow didn't had
Ben Stokes, actually told the umpire that he was free to reverse the 4 runs, that was added to England's score in 2019.
have*
A lot of these Poms at Lord's and online are acting as though Bairstow fell out of his crease from slipping on a banana peel
I hear a lot of drinks are consumed by the Lords crowds. Maybe they really saw banana peels 😂
Perfectly legimate dismissal, poor play by Bairstow, great work by Carey, Bairstow is at fault here no Carey and as has since come to light Bairstow tried exactly the same thing a couple of days earlier, just whinging hypocrites.
This is why you can't get a nice girlfriend. You have zero honour or respect and it's easily identifiable.
@@msv7856 I have zero honour or respect because I think getting someone out legitimately under the laws of the game due to the incompetence of the batsman is the correct way to play cricket and you feel the need to insult me, I think it's pretty obviousl who has zero honour or respect!
@ra5aus They got him out when he was trying to gain no advantage. It's like stealing money from a blind person who just dropped. You could, but should you... No
@@msv7856 They got him out because he was stupid, wasn't paying attention to what was going on in the game, clever play by Carey to see what he was doing and executing a plan to perfection, just great cricket thinking. But the blind person has a legitimate reason for not seeing the money, Bairstow had no reason AT ALL to be wandering down the pitch before ensuring it was safe to leave his crease.
Is player who shoulders arms to the ball and is bowled trying to gain an advantage? No.
Is a player run out at the bowlers end when the batsman hits the ball back down the pitch and it brushes the hand of the bowlers and hits the stumps but he was dumb enough to be out of his ground and not attempting a run trying to gain an advantages? No
I'm sure I can come up with a few more scenarios where a batsman is out when not trying to gain an advantage.
There's no use talking to someone who doesn't believe in the spirit of cricket or has any deep morals.
The whole point of competitive sport is to win within the rules or laws of the game you are playing.
All keepers have done it. But most miss. Bairstow won't do that again. Ooh how come Stokes didn't say to umpire that Starks catch was all good. Same think.
Starc's 'catch' shouldn't even be up for discussion. He slid along the ground with the ball touching the turf - never out in a million years.
A sensible opinion from an ex England cricketer who could have gone down the biased pro-England route…but chose instead to focus on the rules of cricket.
If the over has not been called, the ball is still live…Piers Morgan and Geoff Boycott would do well to remember that before going on their ‘spirit of cricket’ and ‘tarnishing the game forever…’ rants.
The videos of Bairstow and McCullum doing the same (or worse, even) completely blows the tantrums about Carey’s smart and within the rules dismissal of Dozey Bairstow out of the water.
Even American Jomboy provided a very well thought out analysis of this incident which was right on the money.
If the ball had missed the wicket and gone for four 'overthros' and E ngland had won by three runs there would no controversy
I remember Kapel Dev whipping off the bails, coming in to bowl when Kepplar Vessels was wandering out of his crease. Bairstows mistake, end of.
I got one question though to those who thinks Bairstow should be out.
What’s the difference to when batsmen walk away from their crease because they are not ready when the bowler is in the middle of their bowling run up and the Bairstow incident?
The umpires doesn’t call it a dead ball beforehand but only as a result from the batsmen’s actions. The same when a bowler fails to bowl a knuckle ball and drops it mid release. Surely what Bairstow did was the same. He re-marked his crease before setting out every time after a ball is bowled, signalling to everyone that he thinks that ball is done and is not looking for a run and is preparing for the next. His actions, therefore, says that it is a dead ball.
Not saying that Bairstow shouldn’t be out. But just curious to why he should or shouldn’t be.
The way I see it is the ball was mid air when he left his crease, yeah he remarked his but if Carey had missed it and after the remarking his crease would he not have run for a single if stokes had yelled to him to run?
The purpose of a law or a rule is to apply it when the situation arises. Not using it just for the "spirit of the moment" is plain ridiculous. It's like enacting a law where the speed is 60 km per hour. You install a speed camera. A motorist drives past at 63 km per hour and you say "Oh well lets let him or her off because it is in the spirit" What is the point of having a rule or law if you are not going to enforce to the letter of the law? That is why I don't understand the spirit of the game argument.
My u10 cricket coach is the first who taught me that if a batter is unintentionally leaving his crease early he gets a warning and that message was repeated throughout my days in cricket.
The day that Lords disgraced themselves forever.
In cricket a wicketkeeper has the opportunity to stump a batsman. He could be close up to the stump with a spinner or further back for a fast bowler. Let's use the scene of a wicketkeeper close up to the stumps for the spinner. The ball beats the batsmen. He notices the batman is slightly out of his crease. The instance he catches the ball he throws the ball back on the stumps and stumps him. It is in the letter of the law. How is that different from a wicketkeeper standing further back to a fast bowler and does the same thing? Carey instantly released the ball after catching and it and hit the stumps. The ball is still alive! The ball is not dead until the batsman who will be in his crease gives a slight glance to the keeper to confirm he is in his crease. Unfortunately for Bairstow he was not in his crease. This is why I find people who say it is not in the spirit of the game is very naive. Rules and rules. Keep in your crease until the ball is dead.
As an Australian commentator said, this thing about “the spirit of the game is just like a fart in the wind”. I agree 100%!
This is why I like Australian cricketers because they do anything to win and always one player protects other player.
The spirit of the game does not win you matches unfortunately
It let England win against NZ when they did this shit to deGrandhomme
Here's an interesting question....would there be the same hullabaloo if Bairstow had have done the same thing to Carey? I think not...
Probably, but from Australia rather than England. Bairstow would be lauded as a hero in England for it. All supporters are one eyed and ignore the spirit of the game excuse if its not in their favour.
Yes there would, because the Aussies would be crying about it. They are massive hypocrites.
If it had been up to me this would never have happened, Bairstow would not have been in the team neither would Crawley and Foakes would not have made this mistake.
Captain Ben Stokes has said he would not like to win a game in this manner, England did have a similar situation but retract it, do you remember the Ozzies cheating with the sandpaper, not a good look for them I have to say.
Sorry,giving Bairstow run out was the most pathetic in a very long time. The over was up, he planted his foot in the crease and he was just walking towards his partner. Cricket rules need to be amended to prevent the abuse that it is subjected to by the Aussies. Once the ball reaches the gloves of the keeper, if the batsman gets his foot behind the crease, and he is not trying to take a run, then he is NOT OUT. He is free to walk around.
Sometimes players walk off the field at the end of the days play not even waiting for the umpire to call the end of play. The keeper does not throw down the wicket and appeal and they are not given out.
Why is the batsman the one to determine when the over is? Bairstow scratching his mark means F all to an umpire, he’s the one who says when an over is up. Also if the ball hits the keepers gloves he can’t initiate any sort of play? That’s complete bullshit, the keeper is still a fielder. If Carey was keeping up to the stumps none of this would happen.
Learn basic park cricket rules before commenting on anything ashes related.
I am an absolute devoted English cricket fan, I have spent quite a bit of time In Aus, it’s a great nation with great people, I love it there. As much as I hate losing to them at cricket, this is out, end of! Sloppy by Bairstow, foolish assumption he was safe. No complaints here!
It is an entirely legitimate way to get a batsman out, BUT Bairstow believed that it was the end of the over and that the ball was therefore dead, AND that he had deliberately touched / marked himself "in" before he walked anywhere, AND he wan't trying to gain any advantage whatsoever, AND he was in control of his movements / wasn't overbalancing, for example (like in "more regular" stumping examples) ... Having ducked the bouncer (which Bairstow played from inside his crease anyway), Bairstow DID then touch / mark / scratch inside the crease too (with his foot), probably out of habit but also thinking he was marking himself as "in" prior to then walking down the wicket (as many batsmen do between balls, to inspect / dab the wicket / where the ball just pitched, not just at the end of the over when they go to chat with the other batsman) - Cricketers worldwide do this, this is nothing out of the ordinary at all ... CRUCIALLY, Bairstow did not just play the ball from outside his crease / stay outside of his crease without ever touching back "in" after the ball had passed him and ended up in the hands of Carey (which is when many wicket keepers "shy at the stumps", trying for a long range stumping if the batsman has not reatreated back "in" after the ball has been played / missed / avoided and ended up in the hands of the keeper). In this case / at this time, the umpire at the bowlers end was also preparing to give the bowler his baggy green cap back, therefore also implying that the over was indeed over, and the bowler thought the same, as he prepared to receive his cap from the umpire. HOWEVER, crucially, Carey the keeper HAD received the ball (after Bairstow had ducked under the bouncer) and HAD instantly thrown it at the wicket, without anyone really noticing it (not Bairstow, not the umpire, not even the bowler) until the ball hit the wicket and Carey led the appeal for the "long range stumping" ... By all means, if a batsman has advanced out of his crease during the delivery of the ball (or is batting outside of his crease for the delivery of the ball), and has NOT touched back in to their crease after the ball has passed / been played / missed / avoided, then the batsman is completely at risk of being "stumped" having never touched back "in to their ground" (behind the crease line). HOWEVER, if you watch, you will see that Bairstow not only avoided the ball from within his crease, but all he did very deliberately touch back "in" (scratch or mark inside the crease with is foot) after avoiding the ball. Yes, It is true that he was then absent minded enough to not notice that Carey had thrown / was throwing the ball at the stumps and Bairstow then took those crucial few steps down the wicket and out of his ground but never in the attempt to get an advantage / take a run. BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW, IT'S OUT, but because he did clearly touch back inside the crease before he walked out again, and because he wasn't seeking to gain an advantage, and because he believed it was the end of the over, there is definitely a very grey area to be discussed / interpreted ... We heard the Aussies' interpretation, we heard Ben Stokes' interpretation ...
It doesn't matter what he believed.
@@peterbedford449 Exactly!
1974 ; england (Tony greig) did same to alwyn kalicharan
1982: england did the same to krish srikkanth ..
YOU JUST DONT deserve to talk about SPIRIT OF CRICKET..
Now its same to Australia .. dont bull shit about mankading
They would have noticed Bairstow leaving his creasing and then took their opportunity when it came along.
Finally a respectable, rational Englishman providing reasonable commentary on this issue. The English papers are in twilight zone on this issue, as is Boycott, Piers Morgan, the England captain and coach and many others
Bairstow was a goose. He didnt check snd the ball wasn't dead. Play was alive. Grest play by Carey.
Bairstow trued the same move on Labuschagne but missed. Whst eould have been saud if the ball hit the wicket.
Regardless grest knock by Stokes this shoukd be the talking point.
All anyone should be talking about is the cleverness and skillfulness of Carey in that situation. Brilliant wicket 👏👏👏keeping.
Both the straight and square leg umpires along with Bairstow started moving when the ball was hitting the stumps considering completion of the over and none of them looked at the stumps.
Field umpires should also have been consulted and took the decision.
Rules are rules, so it’s an unfortunate way of getting out.
yes RULES ARE RULES, thats why the rule book agrees he was out, that's why the English umpire agreed he was out, and that's why every junior cricketer would know he was out.
Every way of getting out is unfortunate if you are the batsman...:) But really it's so cringy seeing England banging on about this...If the boot was on the other foot they would have had no problem with it...
@@naturalfibrein fact they did it to Colin DeGrandhome last year. Same circumstances
The over is complete ONLY when the umpire literally calls out "over!". Law 17.4. That call had not been made, so the ball was very much still alive. This is not a matter of opinion; the rules are very clear.
It was definitely OUT.
That's sheer callousness by Bairstrow.
So Michael Vaughan was Stuart Broad following the spirit of cricket when he refused to walk when he knew he hit the catch he was caught out on and did not walk I think in 2015.
Yes and don't forget the sandpaper cheats who should have been barred for life and aussie's crying on TV because they were caught, pathetic .
Hmmm,,, I think the Spirit of the Game was broken by Englishmen a long time ago. W.G. Grace refused to walk when bowled out giving the excuse that he could not be out because people had paid to see him bat! And who was it that brought Harold Larwood to Australia to use 96mph bodyline bowling to defeat Don Bradman? Why of course! It was the wonderful English gentleman Douglas Jardine! Yep, the Spirit Of The Game is only raised when it suits England. To the MMC members I say, "Get yer hand off it, you'll go blind". Carn Australia!
@@chrisstewart8259 Typical aussie 💩
Could only happen in cricket, 'SO DOZY', call it as it is man. He was as 'THICK AS A BRICK'.
Bairstow marked the crease with his foot and left, also there was no unfair advantage or an attempt to take any run, most importantly it is coinciding with the end of the over as Bairstow left to talk to the non striker as it happens naturally between overs. Spirit of game under question
Also when Carey collected ball, Bairstow was well within the crease as can be seen in the visual. Even when ball thrown was in midway, Bairstow was well within the crease, just that when the ball hit stumps, he was outside unfortunately and Aussies claimed it as run out, when there was no intention to take any run at all
Same kind of incident happened in 2016 under-19 World Cup final, where Rishab Pant got out in very first over of the match. So even on that moment.. it was clearly given Out. Here blaming Carey for Bairstow dismissal is not fair..
It's all about Ashes.. it will be like dis only..
Would Bairstow have gone to smell the flowers if he was facing a spinner?
Why is the team claiming run out were attacked by saying spirit of the cricket what about the batsman(or non striker) not staying in the crease,is it allowed by any law.
Not sure why the big stink is made about Mankad and the JB dismissal...
If a batsman (batter is a baseball term and a cuisine term for Gordon Rams😂), leaves their ground at the nonstriker's end, before the delivery, seeking to shorten their making good their ground for a single, they imperil themselves (bit of a botch of grammar there😂), so I am not sure why anybody feels it is an unfair dismissal in that scenario?
Nobody in cricket is out without an appeal...so the player on the midwicket fence may appeal for an LBW out, despite having an inconclusive or weak view of the necessary grounds for that dismissal...
An appeal covers all ways of being out.
As an umpire, a fielder reminded me in a similar scenario, "No offense ump. My job is to appeal. Yours is to adjudge if out or not"😂
Here is the wonderful aspect that has been overlooked...
Why RUNOUT vs stumped 😮
Silly me always kept the notion that- Only the striker can be stumped and only the wicket keeper can stump the striker. - What if the keeper was up to the wicket and effected the same fair putting down of the wicket? I am sure the commentators would have said "...what a brilliant piece of glovework..." or words to that effect...
Finally...had the umpire at the bowler's or nonstriker's end called "Over!", nobody would be talking about fair or unfair...
This clip speaks about the 2000 Law Code change's preamble about the spirit of the game...in this era where making good your ground in instances of bats and or person, bouncing up after grounding, it is interesting to note that the malignant "walkabout" by JB is being called "dozey"😂...he was not seeking a run nor was he off balanced by a crafty delivery...
If Australia is so superior, why resort to "bush" cricket to win a match...do not tell me that the "outback" = bush😂
Never is not as long as it used to be...because after "sandpapergate", Sneaky Smith was NEVER ever supposed to be a captain or involved in a management level of any Australian team...
Howzaat!!!😂
Barstow goose of the week award. Why wouldnt Carey not take the opportunity to dismiss him.
Isn't the spirit thing all about throwing the ball at the stumps when the batsman is outside the crease? Fact is he was already there. This was a void bouncer, not a play expecting a run. This is a temptation issue, so sporting behaviour is undermined by expecting the batsman not to ensure the ball hasn't been thrown to another fielder at the end of the over, or the umpire not to declare over quick enough. It's only technically live ball as Carey tosses the ball slowly without hesitation. The ball is in mid air by the time Bairstow left the crease. Sneaky in my opinion. Maybe players should be told to stare at the screen before wandering.
English players have a habbit of leaving crease early. Ian Bell in 2011, Butler in IPL,Charlie Dean in 2022 and now Bairstow. They should be careful instead of crying foul everytime.
As do most players in every team...
Spot On !
It’s not a normal stumping to throw the ball at the stumps when the batsman is inside his crease. From now on wicket keepers should throw the ball at the stumps EVERY ball, just in case the batsman is foolish enough to assume that the ball is dead and step out of the crease.
What is in the rules of the game,is in the spirit of the game,they are not different things... playing with in the rules of game is the oath we takes..what is not in the spirit of the game is what is not with in the rules ,laws...
Who is not in the laws is criminal..
Who is in the laws is innocent..
No spirit and rules are not the same. We all know that a set of rules can never be set out for all possible circumstances, nor be so detailed that they will never leave any ambiguity. That is why we have the concept of "spirit" of the laws. We all know that was way outside what a stumping is..... the best unwritten law of all is "if you wouldn't like it done to you don't do it to others".
Only difference is Carey actually hit the stumps. Bairstow had his go earlier that game and in previous games
Well said Michael Vaughan
There is a massive difference between this case and somebody being Mankadded.
When a Mankad takes place, it's because the batsman is trying to gain an unfair competitive advantage by leaving the crease early. I've warned players for this, but never run one out, nor have I allowed appeals to be made when I was captain unless there had been a prior warning.
Bairstow was not trying to gain any sort of playing advantage. He was neither trying to take a run or trying to make it easier to play the ball by advancing down the wicket. Run out and stumped are designed to deter players from doing those two things, not going down the wicket to speak with the non-striker.
When a bowler sprinting to bowl mistakenly lands his foot few centimeters outside the crease, is he trying to gain advantage? I don't think so, still as per rules it's an illegal delivery and bowler is punished with extra run plus free hit.
Why is batsman not expected to respect spirit of the game? I haven't seen one instance where a batsman is questioned w r.t spirit of the game
@@yogeshfd "When a bowler sprinting to bowl mistakenly lands his foot few centimeters outside the crease, is he trying to gain advantage? I don't think so".
You've clearly never played cricket, then, because he/she is.The bowler is trying to minimise the time the batsman has to react by getting his front foot as far forward as possible. As a fast bowler myself, I know that.If I overstep, I've gone too far.
You all seem to be missing the point, the criticism isn't of Carey throwing down the stumps, it's not withdrawing the appeal when you can clearly see that he wasn't attempting to take a run , you keep bringing up different scenarios where the players are trying to gain an advantage like the Mankad for instance, Australian can hide behind the mantra that they did nothing wrong but they are wrong they did something that was unethical and it will be remembered long after the result of this series is long forgotten. I find it staggering how after all the cheating that Australia have done that they didn't do the right thing, they never seem to learn and there are and have been many Aussies that would be furious with this current team . There are some Aussies who get it and can see clearly that you are your own worse enemy, it's counterproductive and will come back to bite you in the future. I'll say one more thing that might strike a cord with your Macho persona , your actions come across as being unmasculine, weak and somewhat effeminate, I guess you either have integrity or you don't Miller and Benaud had it Cummins, Smith and the rest of your team don't.
Is there a distance limit, what if carey was up at the stumps
In club cricket we do this. If we notice that you leave your crease while the ball is live, we will attempt to run/ stump you out. 😊players are not umpires. Spirit of the game I feel is defined by an individual and then accepted by the majority or all relevant parties to the thing they share common interest in terms values not written in the laws or rules or the “thing”. The thing here being cricket the sport. So spirit of the game is not a cricket law. It is irrelevant here. But Johnny has shown poor spirit/attitude with his reaction at that moment.
We decided to have a seance and got in touch with "The Spirit of Cricket" . Kept on coming out with just 3 words:..."wake up Jonny, wake up Jonny, wake up Jonny". Go figure!
Bairstow was not out,since he ha put his leg back into the crease he clearly stayed at crease with Mark on the crease with his right foot then he left the crease
It was end of the over and Johnny Bairstow was changing sides. So, The decision by the umpire had to take the context of the situation at the time. If it was the 5th ball of the over Bairstow would have stayed in the crease.
True. The striker's end umpire started moving before the ball had hit the stumps. Should have been null and void.
The umpire at the bowling end was looking down to his pocket when it was happening. Why did he do that before calling over?
How could he call over with the ball in motion? Carey caught the ball and threw it straight away. At no time was the ball at rest in order for over to be called.
@@scdingundaroo He wasn't watching, that's my point. Even he was just going through the motions, not expecting Carey to do what he did .
To MCC MEMBERS.
This is part of your own "Spirit of the game" preamble.
Maybe you should re read it to remind yourself what you guys asked for from professional cricketers.
"Play hard and play fair.
Accept the umpire’s decision."
You have trouble accepting the umpires decision when you are losing.
An Appeal was made, the umpire gave 'OUT', end of story.
spot on good on carey for noticing it
he is was on crease when keeper catch the ball. Second thing he also touch the cease and then leave it so i think third should give him not out.
Was the dismissal within or not within the rules of the game?
It's nothing about the spirit, however the rules are not well defined for a dead ball, which is leading to confusion. That makes the audience perplexed.
In the spirit of the game you accept the umpires decision just like Australia did when starcs catch was denied and the rules were made up by the mcc so it’s just cricket accept it
Technically out...Match protocol says Bit naughty by the Aussies. Their are various ways to deliver the ball many of which are unfair and dangerous to the batsman. So we tend not to do so..If you want to talk about the rules.
I accept that the dismissal is legitimate but i still think maybe carrey could have avoided that, reason being, unlike in mankading, here the batsman is not trying to steal the run. But yeah i get it Bairstow was careless, fine but as a spectator i want to see contest between bat and ball not these type of dismissals which kills the game you know.
It's common sense to wait at least 3 seconds after the wicket keeper caught the ball. Bairstow didn't even wait at all, didn't even look back. Only way he will learn
The spirit of the game is playing fair according to the rules AND accepting the umpires decision. In the spirit of the game Stokes should have made those points to his fan base, he a great cricketer but not so great sportsman and captain.
This guy refused to walk, when he clearly snicked. Very short memory 😂
Bairstow didn't "drift out of his crease" as the interviewer says here. He tapped the toe of his bat behind the line to signify 'I'm in' and then walked out - it was naive, but he knew what he was doing so I don't see why people keep trotting out this idea that he had a brain-fart moment and just wandered off aimlessly. The Aussies like to play the 'spirit of cricket' card when it suits them - remember Ponting's fury when he was run out by a brilliant young substitute fielder in the 2005 Ashes? How quickly he and the rest of them turn when they need a different result out of moral arguments. It's also ironic that Australians are whingeing about Starc's catch not standing when the strict laws of the game clearly say it wasn't out. The Australians want to keep moving the goalposts for their own ends and for that alone, I find it difficult to have any respect for them.
Instead of boooing , the England team should be thinking about winning the 3de Test , that would make it interesting . Cheers from Oz
Agree with what Vaughan had said,once Batman plays the ball he should show his hand to the keeper to leave the crease.
Finally, a reasonable and reasoned opinion on this question from an Englishman
How often do you see batters ask the fielding side if it's ok to leave the crease?!
there is no need for this both teams are professionals England should not cash this dismissal it was indeed a fair runout Englan should give answer with their performance