HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
I disagreed with that at the time aswell - you play until the umpire confirms the ball is dead - assume it’s live until otherwise stated
I disagreed with that at the time aswell - you play until the umpire confirms the ball is dead - assume it’s live until otherwise statedDhoni then withdrew the appeal
Fair play between us and the Aussies went out the window in the 30s when we tried to kill their star batsmanHave to add, I am always for fair play. Whichever team, theirs or ours. I don't even like the City shithousing to win a game.
I guess I am just old school like that.
Ok, you want to win like a c**t.I disagreed with that at the time aswell - you play until the umpire confirms the ball is dead - assume it’s live until otherwise stated
Grow up mate - you play within the rules. Cricket has been rife with ways like this all the time. We won the ashes in 2005 by using mints to make the ball swing more. Don’t recall any English fans being disgusted at thatOk, you want to win like a c**t.
Fairplay
I disagreed with that at the time aswell - you play until the umpire confirms the ball is dead - assume it’s live until otherwise stated
Of course this wouldn’t have mattered had Bairstow grounded his batI agree with this in theory, I just don’t think it happens in practice. The argument would then be, should the umpire be handing back hat etc to bowler without calling over/ball dead which is what started to happen here apparently (not seen clip yet though)
That happens in club cricket on a Saturday it ends in a fight.
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
Happened in my game on Saturday. Our keeper was a little excitable. We called the lad back and withdrew the appeal.That happens in club cricket on a Saturday it ends in a fight.
Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
He made a point of putting his foot behind the line after the keeper had the ball in his hand. He clearly wasn't trying to take a run and It wasn't like he'd overbalanced whilst playing a shot or anything and left his ground accidently.Of course this wouldn’t have mattered had Bairstow grounded his bat
He made a point of putting his foot behind the line after the keeper had the ball in his hand. He clearly wasn't trying to take a run and It wasn't like he'd overbalanced whilst playing a shot or anything and left his ground accidently.
The square leg umpire should have called it not out in my opinion. Had he done so then the fact that Bairstow had grounded his foot would have justified the not out decision.
I saw a documentary about that. The Bodyline tour.Fair play between us and the Aussies went out the window in the 30s when we tried to kill their star batsman
I don't see anything old school about it, personally - most other nations have the mindset of winning whatever the cost when it comes to sport.Have to add, I am always for fair play. Whichever team, theirs or ours. I don't even like the City shithousing to win a game.
I guess I am just old school like that.
Law - 20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.its out he can’t say it’s not out
It's a highly paid professional sport that needs to maintain income streams. As one of the Aussies said excitement comes from winning. Compare it to Rugby which has become far more cynical in the professional era in terms of gamesmanship.I don't see anything old school about it, personally - most other nations have the mindset of winning whatever the cost when it comes to sport.
Few points later, you could argue the fielding side still regarded it as in play.Law - 20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
At that time Bairstow was in/had made his ground. Dead ball.
Had Bairstow made any attempt to run ir take a run? NoFew points later, you could argue the fielding side still regarded it as in play.
20.1.2 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
It's just the way I was brought up SB. To be honest.I don't see anything old school about it, personally - most other nations have the mindset of winning whatever the cost when it comes to sport.
Law - 20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
At that time Bairstow was in/had made his ground. Dead ball.
May I say you had a good upbringing with morals like that.Mine included being honest we were rich in love if not in wealth.Just the way I was brought up.
Still a relevant part of the law, can't just quote the first bit. I'd understand more if Carey had waited a few seconds then sneakily taken them off but he throws it straight away.Had Bairstow made any attempt to run ir take a run? No
Had he overbalanced leaving his crease ie whilst playing a shot? No
Therefore the passage of play for that ball was finished and the ball should be dead.
The umpires have got it wrong in my opinion.
Yes but not just Gerry Daly all of us at that end of the ground saw it.So a few more players saw it and showed no honesty.Do those old enough to remember think Gerry Daly should have told the referee Clive Allen scored when it was not given?
Bairstow has thrown at the stumps but at batsman who are still in the process of playing a shotI think the fact they've said they'd noticed Bairstow doing this earlier in his innings makes it worse for me. Goes from something that happened in the heat of battle to something pre-meditated. As with mankads it's the kind of thing you'd really expect a warning about first and then if he keeps doing it fair enough
But at the end of the day its 100% out and spirit of cricket is always going to be a subjective thing
Fired up England to win 3-2?
Just for those who don’t think Bairstow does it
Quoted for posterity!Grenners example is pretty much spot on
I will accept when anyone has a pointQuoted for posterity!
Yes but not just Gerry Daly all of us at that end of the ground saw it.So a few more players saw it and showed no honesty.
This is the pointAgain, a lot of this is nuance/subjective when making comparisons. From memory the Aussies were trying to stand outside their crease to negate swing/seam movement, in which case they’re open/fair game to potential run out as they’re trying to gain advantage. Bairstows was a belief ball was dead and he was not looking to gain any advantage
If you watch the umpire he clearly doesn't think the balls in play, he's handing a cap backThe issue is Bairstow had clearly thought the over was done and was not looking to gain any advantage
exactly and Bairstow probably see's that as that is the end he is looking atIf you watch the umpire he clearly doesn't think the balls in play, he's handing a cap back
Yes and we should have given Ireland back to the Irish too.Do those old enough to remember think Gerry Daly should have told the referee Clive Allen scored when it was not given?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?