2nd Test Lords 28 July

Long and the short of it Cummings. Should’ve called JB back.

Can't believe some of the rubbish coming out on this. Look do you honestly think if the situation were reversed and it was Smith having a brain fade, and Bairstow stumped him Stokes would have called him back? Of course not. You might just as well say, "well you nicked that one Steve but we'll let you off this time. But don't do it again". Dear me.

Andy1210

I agree that the 1 thing that has been overlooked in all of this is that the umpires both seemed to make a mistake. as you said, the 1 at square leg wasnt watching as he started to walk into the wicket, whilst the other one had presumably declared the ball was dead as he was taking Greens cap to hand to him. Erasmus (the 3rd umpire) had to give Bairstow out in the laws of the game, but I wonder if he asked either umpire if they thought that the ball was dead and it was the end of the over.

Coatesy wrote:Andy1210

I agree that the 1 thing that has been overlooked in all of this is that the umpires both seemed to make a mistake. as you said, the 1 at square leg wasnt watching as he started to walk into the wicket, whilst the other one had presumably declared the ball was dead as he was taking Greens cap to hand to him. Erasmus (the 3rd umpire) had to give Bairstow out in the laws of the game, but I wonder if he asked either umpire if they thought that the ball was dead and it was the end of the over.

Hi Coatesy - I didn't understand why Erasmus was brought into the decision. Provided the ball wasn't dead which was a matter for the onfield umpires, Bairstow was very clearly out and there was no need to involve the third umpire.

As an aside, full credit to Erasmus for coming on tv the morning after Starc's ''catch'' and explaining why it was not out.

Starc’s catch you could never give that has out (simple decision)Cumming’s should’ve called back Bairstow ( no Brainer)Don’t get either fielders throwing the ball back into play yards over the Boundary Crazy.

Starc's catch was correctly given as not out; Bairstow was correctly adjudged out.
The moment you start suggesting that there was any moral obligation on the fielding side to change those truths you open up all sorts of whataboutery and ex. T

Starc's catch was correctly given as not out; Bairstow was correctly adjudged out.
The moment you start suggesting that there was any moral obligation on the Australians to change the latter,  you invite legitimate "whataboutery" and examples of hypocrisy involving Bairstow, Stokes and McCulllum's previous actions. Time to move on.

guildfordbat wrote:

Coatesy wrote:Andy1210

I agree that the 1 thing that has been overlooked in all of this is that the umpires both seemed to make a mistake. as you said, the 1 at square leg wasnt watching as he started to walk into the wicket, whilst the other one had presumably declared the ball was dead as he was taking Greens cap to hand to him. Erasmus (the 3rd umpire) had to give Bairstow out in the laws of the game, but I wonder if he asked either umpire if they thought that the ball was dead and it was the end of the over.

Hi Coatesy - I didn't understand why Erasmus was brought into the decision. Provided the ball wasn't dead which was a matter for the onfield umpires, Bairstow was very clearly out and there was no need to involve the third umpire.

Two possible reasons:-
i) neither umpire was looking, or if they were they weren't concentrating, so they didn't see when the ball hit the stumps or where Bairstow was a that point;
ii) it bought some time in which the appeal itself could have been reconsidered.

adelaide wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Coatesy wrote:Andy1210

I agree that the 1 thing that has been overlooked in all of this is that the umpires both seemed to make a mistake. as you said, the 1 at square leg wasnt watching as he started to walk into the wicket, whilst the other one had presumably declared the ball was dead as he was taking Greens cap to hand to him. Erasmus (the 3rd umpire) had to give Bairstow out in the laws of the game, but I wonder if he asked either umpire if they thought that the ball was dead and it was the end of the over.

Hi Coatesy - I didn't understand why Erasmus was brought into the decision. Provided the ball wasn't dead which was a matter for the onfield umpires, Bairstow was very clearly out and there was no need to involve the third umpire.

Two possible reasons:-
i) neither umpire was looking, or if they were they weren't concentrating, so they didn't see when the ball hit the stumps or where Bairstow was a that point;
ii) it bought some time in which the appeal itself could have been reconsidered.

The reason why Erasmus was brought into making the decision was because neither umpire was looking. The square leg 1 was walking towards the wicket to start the new over, with head down. The other umpire was looking at taking Greens and giving it back to him, and ive seen a picture at the time that the ball has hit the stumps he has no idea as to what has happened as he also isnt looking

Cummings should’ve nipped it in the Bud from the get go.A warning should’ve sufficed.

Coatesy wrote:The reason why Erasmus was brought into making the decision was because neither umpire was looking. The square leg 1 was walking towards the wicket to start the new over, with head down. The other umpire was looking at taking Greens and giving it back to him, and ive seen a picture at the time that the ball has hit the stumps he has no idea as to what has happened as he also isnt looking

If neither umpire is looking, that kind of implies that they thought that the ball was dead, I would have thought, but they had to reconsider when the stumps were disturbed. Otherwise it is dereliction of duty and they should be banished into the wilderness!

Calling (or not calling) "over" is not really the issue as although it is less likely it could easily happen on any ball in the over.

I honestly can't see what the problem is.Carey did nothing wrong.He caught the ball and in one fell swoop threw it at the stumps immediately.100% down to dopey Bairstow.
At what point could the Umpire possibly call "over" ?

Jhe10077 wrote:Cummings should’ve nipped it in the Bud from the get go.A warning should’ve sufficed.

But why? He was out. Why should they do us any favours? I bet you that Stuart Big Mouth Broad would be the first to appeal if the boot was on the other foot. I've lived in Australia and I understand the Aussie sych. They go hard to win and don't pander about with this "not in the spirit of the game" nonsense. I really do see why they call us whinging poms.

Leaves a bad taste! Going for a bye I can understand the keeper going for the dismissal.

Bairstow Stumped Carey Bowled Green 10...................................NEXT CASE.

Chinaman wrote:

Jhe10077 wrote:Cummings should’ve nipped it in the Bud from the get go.A warning should’ve sufficed.

But why? He was out. Why should they do us any favours? I bet you that Stuart Big Mouth Broad would be the first to appeal if the boot was on the other foot. I've lived in Australia and I understand the Aussie sych. They go hard to win and don't pander about with this "not in the spirit of the game" nonsense. I really do see why they call us whinging poms.

does that explain sandpapergate in SA a few years then

Coatesy wrote:

Chinaman wrote:

Jhe10077 wrote:Cummings should’ve nipped it in the Bud from the get go.A warning should’ve sufficed.

But why? He was out. Why should they do us any favours? I bet you that Stuart Big Mouth Broad would be the first to appeal if the boot was on the other foot. I've lived in Australia and I understand the Aussie sych. They go hard to win and don't pander about with this "not in the spirit of the game" nonsense. I really do see why they call us whinging poms.

does that explain sandpapergate in SA a few years then

Sandpapergate was meant to be hidden. Careygate was done in plain sight!

adelaide wrote:

Coatesy wrote:

Chinaman wrote:

Jhe10077 wrote:Cummings should’ve nipped it in the Bud from the get go.A warning should’ve sufficed.

But why? He was out. Why should they do us any favours? I bet you that Stuart Big Mouth Broad would be the first to appeal if the boot was on the other foot. I've lived in Australia and I understand the Aussie sych. They go hard to win and don't pander about with this "not in the spirit of the game" nonsense. I really do see why they call us whinging poms.

does that explain sandpapergate in SA a few years then

Sandpapergate was meant to be hidden. Careygate was done in plain sight!

Someone accused me of "false equivalence" for what I maintain is a legitimate and damning contrast between Stokes' insistence that he would never want to win a test match in this way and his evident lack of any qualms at deflecting a throw away from the wicket-keeper's hands to the boundary for four extra runs in the last over of the world cup final. I was shocked to learn that there was no way those runs could be chalked off, and to this day I don't know whether the law has been changed as a result. I doubt that Stokes knew in the heat of the moment, but the point is he didn't even ask the umpires the question, yet he implied that he would have acted differently in this instance. As Victor Meldrew used to say, "I don't believe it".  

If ever there were a false equivalance, it is between "Sandpapergate" and this incident. One was blatant cheating and those responsible were quite rightly held to account. The other was playing entirely within the established boundaries of the game. There is literally no comparison.

There is no doubt that Stokes deflected boundary was not a deliberate act ,if it not crossed the boundary he probably wouldn’t have run any more runs than had been run. The rule is if it hadn’t crossed the boundary no more runs would have been scored. Unlike Carey’s act was deliberate as was Cummins decision not to withdraw the appeal. No similarities between the two events.

The worst things i have seen in my Cricket watching days,1963 to date.In no particular order.............

The Brian Rose declaration 1979.

The Trevor Chappell underarm 1981

Any and all "Mankads."

ANTIGUA 2018.Possibly the worst thing i've ever personally witnessed on a Cricket field.With Kent winning easily only 1 wicket down they denied Crawley a first century by bowling wides.Dickson,on strike,tried to block a deliberate wide but got too strong a touch.2 fielders then shepherded the ball to the boundary with no attempt to stop it.Crawley ended 99*

https://wisden.com/matches/scorecard/197469/leeward-islands-v-kent-at-north-sound-regional-super50-group-b-6-feb-2018


Captain Hodge and bowler Berridge were the culprits.

I'm liking the fake names put out on social media for the suspended MCC members a couple of days ago. Apparently, quite a few people thought they were real.

Bartholomew Frinton-Smythe
Humphrey Wigbert-Porter
Quinten Brackenridge

Thought that Bairstow was out and am surprised at the fall out. According to Agnew, he'd wandered out of the crease on the 4th and 5th ball of the same over (which probably gave Carey the idea).

I think Carey is excellent, one the major differences between the sides. Shows the benefit of picking a proper keeper.

Badges wrote:The worst things i have seen in my Cricket watching days,1963 to date.In no particular order.............

The Brian Rose declaration 1979.

The Trevor Chappell underarm 1981

Any and all "Mankads."

ANTIGUA 2018.Possibly the worst thing i've ever personally witnessed on a Cricket field.With Kent winning easily only 1 wicket down they denied Crawley a first century by bowling wides.Dickson,on strike,tried to block a deliberate wide but got too strong a touch.2 fielders then shepherded the ball to the boundary with no attempt to stop it.Crawley ended 99*

That's interesting. Mankading an opponent who is trying to make it easier to score a run is unacceptable, even after a warning, but dismissing someone who is not trying to get any advantage is fine. I don't get that.

adelaide wrote:

Badges wrote:The worst things i have seen in my Cricket watching days,1963 to date.In no particular order.............

The Brian Rose declaration 1979.

The Trevor Chappell underarm 1981

Any and all "Mankads."

ANTIGUA 2018.Possibly the worst thing i've ever personally witnessed on a Cricket field.With Kent winning easily only 1 wicket down they denied Crawley a first century by bowling wides.Dickson,on strike,tried to block a deliberate wide but got too strong a touch.2 fielders then shepherded the ball to the boundary with no attempt to stop it.Crawley ended 99*

That's interesting. Mankading an opponent who is trying to make it easier to score a run is unacceptable, even after a warning, but dismissing someone who is not trying to get any advantage is fine. I don't get that.

PLEASE IGNORE MY POSTS.YOU GET ON MY FUCKING NERVES.THANKYOU.

Badges wrote:
ANTIGUA 2018.Possibly the worst thing i've ever personally witnessed on a Cricket field.With Kent winning easily only 1 wicket down they denied Crawley a first century by bowling wides.Dickson,on strike,tried to block a deliberate wide but got too strong a touch.2 fielders then shepherded the ball to the boundary with no attempt to stop it.Crawley ended 99*

I remember a couple of years back, Vince was left stranded on 98 not out for the Sydney Sixers when AJ Tye deliberately bowled the most ridiculous wide bouncer off the last ball of the match. Given scores were level and the wide lost the game, it was nothing more than petty minded vindictiveness to stop Vince getting the 100.

Having spent a lot of time in Oz, it's sadly true that they have an ingrained contempt for English cricket and cricketers and really see the Ashes as an opportunity to validate it.