[Cricket] The Ashes- England v Australia- 2nd Test, Lords, June 28 - July 02, 2023

[PeterT]

And by the way, the views on here will hopefully act as a wake up call when the cheating Aussie players log into North Stand Chat. There will no doubt be a few of them changing their locations now to avoid further abuse!

 

[Mackenzie]

Forgetting the rights and wrongs of Carey’s actions, it may have been a strategic failure by the Australians as there isn’t that much between the two sides and England will really have the bit between their teeth now. Also it’s fair to say the Headingly crowd (me included on day 1-please don’t rain!) will be even more hostile than usual.

Game bloody on.

 

[Lenny Rider]

I think what annoys me more than Cummins is the brass neck of Messrs Smith and Warner, publicly caught cheating and apparently 'rehabilitated', yet weve got Smith smirking like a schoolboy and Warner getting stuck into the MCC membership in the Long Room.

 

[PeterT]

I think what annoys me more than Cummins is the brass neck of Messrs Smith and Warner, publicly caught cheating and apparently 'rehabilitated', yet weve got Smith smirking like a schoolboy and Warner getting stuck into the MCC membership in the Long Room.

They haven’t changed a jot, the veil has been lifted. They put Cummins up because he hadn’t been caught before and has nice hair and teeth, but underneath they are all as bad as each other. Project ‘let’s pretend we have changed’ has failed again, like it did when Tim ‘dick pic’ Paine was skipper.

 

[Audax]

If you are only referring to the laws of the game, you are entirely missing the point. It‘s the spirit of the game that was violated here, and that is what the Australian cricket team are incapable of understanding.

The Kiwis discussing it here, by the way, it’s only 10 minutes long so there was not enough time to list all of the incidents by Australia against the Kiwis, never mind against other countries!

Did the Australian cricket team cheat, again?

The Australian cricket team are making new enemies and being accused of cheating at Lord's in the Ashes test series! Sky Sports producer and member of the alternative commentary collective James McOnie talks to Jesse.

www.rnz.co.nz

The "Spirit of the game" concept is doing an awful lot of work here. Keep in mind that a lot of people are of the opinion that the mankad is not within the spirit of the game. I've even seen some people suggest that switch-hitting is not in the spirit of the game. In the case of the long-distance-stumping, as I've mentioned in other posts, it's clearly a method of attempting a dismissal that has been accepted as being acceptable because it is commonly attempted across all forms of the sport. More commonly in the short-forms, granted, but even in tests. Here's an example of Bairstow trying it (badly executed) just a couple of days before he himself was stumped:



The only differences here:

1. Bairstow's throw was poor.
2. Labuschagne was a) watching so saw the throw, and therefore b) never left his crease (as can be seen by him checking where his foot was, and not moving once he knew he was grounded behind the line).

If Bairstow's throw had been accurate, and Labu had not been watching and left the crease, do we really think that there would not have been an appeal, and if successful it would have been withdrawn after the fact? It's very easy for Stokes to say that he would in a press conference, but the fact is that Bairstow himself - having attempted it - thinks it's within both the laws and the spirit, or he wouldn't have tried it.

Having said that: what I would like to see this generate is a good discussion about the specific law that allowed this dismissal to happen. Should it be legal? Should there be a defined point at which the ball is considered "dead"? If that mode of dismissal is removed from the game, should we also be removing the right of the batters to attempt a bye in situations where the 'keeper has cleanly collected the ball (often see in short-form cricket at the death)? How does any change to the law get structured - keeping in mind it must preserve the stumping off spinners as a legitimate form of dismissal?

 

[Flagship]

f*** the spirit of the game, play to the rules instead. That's what they are there for.

Surely it should be taught at a young age to wait for the umpire to call the end of the over. A bit like 'play to the whistle' in football .

Now we are all shocked that the Aussies place winning above the 'spirit of the game'.

I say this as someone who knows sweet FA about cricket and has probably lived in Aus for too long. Feel free to burn me at the stake.

As an aside, where does all the sledging and shit on the field sit within the 'spirit of the game?'

It's fine waiting for the umpire to call 'over', but that would only be called on the last ball of the over. For all other balls in the over, the ball is only 'dead' when both teams regard it as dead. Usually the batsman would make eye contact with the fielder who will give a nod to confirm the ball is dead.

I remember this happened when I was keeping. The batsman turned a ball to fine leg and strolled a single. The non striker turned slowly, not intending to run, but stepped out of the crease. The ball got back to me and I took the bails off. None of my team saw me do it and the umpires were totally oblivious. I retracted my appeal immediately.

 

[Mellotron]

The "Spirit of the game" concept is doing an awful lot of work here. Keep in mind that a lot of people are of the opinion that the mankad is not within the spirit of the game. I've even seen some people suggest that switch-hitting is not in the spirit of the game. In the case of the long-distance-stumping, as I've mentioned in other posts, it's clearly a method of attempting a dismissal that has been accepted as being acceptable because it is commonly attempted across all forms of the sport. More commonly in the short-forms, granted, but even in tests. Here's an example of Bairstow trying it (badly executed) just a couple of days before he himself was stumped:



The only differences here:

1. Bairstow's throw was poor.
2. Labuschagne was a) watching so saw the throw, and therefore b) never left his crease (as can be seen by him checking where his foot was, and not moving once he knew he was grounded behind the line).

If Bairstow's throw had been accurate, and Labu had not been watching and left the crease, do we really think that there would not have been an appeal, and if successful it would have been withdrawn after the fact? It's very easy for Stokes to say that he would in a press conference, but the fact is that Bairstow himself - having attempted it - thinks it's within both the laws and the spirit, or he wouldn't have tried it.

Having said that: what I would like to see this generate is a good discussion about the specific law that allowed this dismissal to happen. Should it be legal? Should there be a defined point at which the ball is considered "dead"? If that mode of dismissal is removed from the game, should we also be removing the right of the batters to attempt a bye in situations where the 'keeper has cleanly collected the ball (often see in short-form cricket at the death)? How does any change to the law get structured - keeping in mind it must preserve the stumping off spinners as a legitimate form of dismissal?

You missed a couple of differences.

1. Labu was consistently standing ahead of his crease, and this gains an advantage - Bairstow gained no advantage whatsoever by leaving his crease at the end of the over. Bairstow is completely within his rights to attempt the stumping because part of Labu standing further forward is he gains an advantage if he runs a quick single.
2. Labu's one was mid-over. Bairstow's was at the end of the over, and he marked his crease with a tap to show he had marked himself in, and everyone started moving on for the next over. The umpires weren't looking.

Small but important differences IMO.

 

[BadFish]

It's fine waiting for the umpire to call 'over', but that would only be called on the last ball of the over. For all other balls in the over, the ball is only 'dead' when both teams regard it as dead. Usually the batsman would make eye contact with the fielder who will give a nod to confirm the ball is dead.

I remember this happened when I was keeping. The batsman turned a ball to fine leg and strolled a single. The non striker turned slowly, not intending to run, but stepped out of the crease. The ball got back to me and I took the bails off. None of my team saw me do it and the umpires were totally oblivious. I retracted my appeal immediately.

So should Bairstow have either waited for the umpire to call over or by making eye contact with the wicketkeeper?

Sounds to me as a non cricket person the the spirit of cricket needs to be more embedded in the rules. As in most walks of life you have to create the rules to cater for the lowest common denominator.

 

[PeterT]

The "Spirit of the game" concept is doing an awful lot of work here. Keep in mind that a lot of people are of the opinion that the mankad is not within the spirit of the game. I've even seen some people suggest that switch-hitting is not in the spirit of the game. In the case of the long-distance-stumping, as I've mentioned in other posts, it's clearly a method of attempting a dismissal that has been accepted as being acceptable because it is commonly attempted across all forms of the sport. More commonly in the short-forms, granted, but even in tests. Here's an example of Bairstow trying it (badly executed) just a couple of days before he himself was stumped:



The only differences here:

1. Bairstow's throw was poor.
2. Labuschagne was a) watching so saw the throw, and therefore b) never left his crease (as can be seen by him checking where his foot was, and not moving once he knew he was grounded behind the line).

If Bairstow's throw had been accurate, and Labu had not been watching and left the crease, do we really think that there would not have been an appeal, and if successful it would have been withdrawn after the fact? It's very easy for Stokes to say that he would in a press conference, but the fact is that Bairstow himself - having attempted it - thinks it's within both the laws and the spirit, or he wouldn't have tried it.

Having said that: what I would like to see this generate is a good discussion about the specific law that allowed this dismissal to happen. Should it be legal? Should there be a defined point at which the ball is considered "dead"? If that mode of dismissal is removed from the game, should we also be removing the right of the batters to attempt a bye in situations where the 'keeper has cleanly collected the ball (often see in short-form cricket at the death)? How does any change to the law get structured - keeping in mind it must preserve the stumping off spinners as a legitimate form of dismissal?

As I have said, you guys are incapable of understanding what the spirit of the game means. Winning at all costs is the only thing that matters.

You’ve apparently changed but no one is that easily fooled. Showing examples where you think others have also done wrong is not the best defence - it always comes back to Australia and their cheating cricket team. Why not take some responsibility for your own actions?

In this series alone we’ve had 3 catches claimed that were clearly grounded, now this. Every competitive series you play is the same.

No morals, no shame, embarrassing. Any win you have in this series will be hollow, after 22 years of failing to win here I guess you already knew you had to try something a bit ‘underhand’ to gain an advantage, congratulations.

Did the Australian cricket team cheat, again?

The Australian cricket team are making new enemies and being accused of cheating at Lord's in the Ashes test series! Sky Sports producer and member of the alternative commentary collective James McOnie talks to Jesse.

www.rnz.co.nz

 

[PeterT]

As others have mentioned, do we have to now formalise what happens when you pick up the ball and pass it to the closest fielder (out - handled the ball) or use your bat to pass it back (out - hit the ball twice)? When you have a team so consistently incapable of normal, decent, human behaviour on a sports ground, all of these unwritten rules start to cause problems.

I wonder if the Aussies also need a Kiwi in charge of their team, if any would stoop so low, as it seems they are the ones in that corner of the world who know how to act in a decent manner. The contrast is quite astonishing.

 

[Berty23]

Thin edge to the keeper who dropped it but deflected to slip. Aus had used reviews. Amazed people still say he edged it straight to slip.

 

[Berty23]

Berty23 That is plain enough. Is that in the spirit of the game ?

Watch it again. He gets a thin edged to the keeper who dropped it. It hit the keeper and went to slip. Maybe if Australia had not wasted their reviews then they could have used one? Why is this edge to the keeper different to every other edge to the keeper? Is it different because this one ended up at slip off the keeper?

 

[Berty23]

While prior examples / similar attempts are not identical, I'd argue that the very fact he would attempt it shows he understands it is within the laws of the game.

I'd also point out that the bit I bolded in your quote is wrong. Carey didn't wait for Bairstow to leave his ground. He collected the ball and immediately released it to make the stumping attempt. Bairstow then left his ground as the ball was on its way. Would you all be complaining if the bowler had been a spinner, with the 'keeper standing up, and the ball had gone through to the 'keeper who held it, paused, and then took the bails off a split second after the batter lifts their back foot? Because I've seen that happen many times in cricket and no one has ever complained - and that includes similar situations to Bairstow's where the batter was just a bit dopey (they'd been stable, and voluntarily left their ground and were then stumped).

Anyway, as I said in my first post: I don't like it. But at the same time, as someone who plays the sport, I'm still firmly of the opinion that Bairstow needs to take responsibility for preserving his own wicket. It sucks seeing a team exploit this rule, but it was 100% within Bairstow's power to prevent it happening.

No you have not seen it lots of times when a batsman scrapes their crease to show it running and then being stumped. This is not the same as a stumping with the keeper up.

As I explained - bairstow’s attempt on labu was when he was batting outside his crease to negate lbw and not getting back quickly. He was seeking an advantage. Hence bairstow ended up stood up to Anderson. To compare the two is proper whataboutary so well done.

 

[Berty23]

Come on, I'm not having that. Broad visibly and audibly edged that - it wasn't even a nick. And he didn't "edge through to the keeper", it went to slip FFS. To not walk in that situation is plainly not in the spirit of the game any more than Bairstow's dismissal.

Not that yesterday's incident is any less shameful.

Watch it again. It was a thin edge to the keeper. It hit the keeper’s glove and went to slip. It is not rare for a spinner to bowl a ball without a Nick which ends up at slip via keeper’s glove.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Come on, I'm not having that. Broad visibly and audibly edged that - it wasn't even a nick. And he didn't "edge through to the keeper", it went to slip FFS. To not walk in that situation is plainly not in the spirit of the game any more than Bairstow's dismissal.

Not that yesterday's incident is any less shameful.

He did edge it to the keeper, the ball deflected of the keeper's gloves to slip.
I assume that the umpire didn't hear the sound of the edge because he confused it with the ball bouncing off the keeper - in other words if he'd actually managed to take the catch it might have been given.
In any case, I'm not sure why the perceived obviousness of an edge affects how sporting it is to walk. And I can't think of a single English batsman who was known for walking in the whole time I've been watching cricket anyway.

 

[amexer]

Watch it again. It was a thin edge to the keeper. It hit the keeper’s glove and went to slip. It is not rare for a spinner to bowl a ball without a Nick which ends up at slip via keeper’s glove.

What difference does it make he still got a big nick. All those supporters that were praising Broad for not walking then are now saying that was ok but Bairstow stumping wasnt. Bairstow threw ball at stumps in last test match because batsmen was out of his ground which was why Corey did it
Apart from when none left Thank fully reviews have mostly stopped batsmen cheating.

 

[Simster]

Watch it again. It was a thin edge to the keeper. It hit the keeper’s glove and went to slip. It is not rare for a spinner to bowl a ball without a Nick which ends up at slip via keeper’s glove.

Fair enough, I hadn't spotted the fact it went to the keeper. I am, however, struggling to believe that Broad didn't know he'd hit it. That was a significant edge, not some tiny nick that was barely audible. Sorry, it was poor.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I'm not a big cricket man so I don't really care that much about the rights and wrongs of Bairstow's stumping. What I like about it is that it appears to have really riled up the cricketing world/fanbase in England which, IMO, is a good thing.

For most of that test the Lords crowd was silent, deathly silent. Then this one action roused them to a level of fury I didn't know was possible, particularly at Lords.

I'm hoping that the press keep stoking the embers so that come the third test the headingly crowd is as noisy, volatile and intimidating as Elland road at it's worst/best and the England team are fired up, ending in England winning by an innings and 200 runs.

Because at the end of the day, it's all about smashing the Aussies, isn't it?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

So ... prefacing this by admitting I'm biased. I'm an Aussie, and that's going to colour my view on it.

Anyway, few points from my side of the bias fence:

* I don't like what happened. It doesn't feel good. But then, I don't like "mankad" run outs either - but the laws of the game continue to ensconce it in the rules, and...

* ...IMO, it is the responsibility of the batter to preserve their own wicket. When I play club cricket, there's two things I always do when batting:

1. Ensure I remain in my ground until the ball is bowled when at the non-strikers end (yes, I've seen mankad's in club cricket)
2. Ensure I remain in my ground when at the strikers end until the ball is definitively "dead" (ie 'keeper has begun returning the ball to the bowler or umpires have called over).

(I may have a slight advantage in that I played a lot of indoor cricket in Australia, and in that version of the sport the ball is never dead unless the umpire has called over or a wicket has been taken. You can't turn your back as a bowler or the batsmen will sneak a run. You can't leave your crease at any time without risking being run out).

* From what Cummins has said, Carey spotted that Bairstow was wandering out of his ground before the ball would normally be considered dead.

* Given that Carey collected the ball, and then immediately initiated the stumping attempt, IMO Bairstow needs to look to himself - especially as (while not successfully) he's attempted the same thing himself historically, which suggests he's aware of how the rules work.

* It's interesting this has kicked up so much fuss after it's happened in a test match, as historically similar attempts at stumpings / runouts are common enough in one-day and Twenty20 cricket to suggests that players accept it is within both the rules and the spirit of cricket. Indeed, the opposite (ie, batsmen attempting to run a bye when the ball has gone through to the 'keeper) is categorically accepted as within the rules. It's therefore clear that the ball remains "live" for a period of time after the 'keeper has collected it and therefore what Carey did was entirely legal and Bairstow was careless in wandering out of his ground before the ball was dead.

The umpire does not announce every time the ball goes dead. There wasn’t even any confusion caused by an ambiguous rule. It was premeditated. There is a convention in cricket to warn in these situations and you can’t defend yesterday with whataboutery about when some other cheat cheated.This was premeditated cheating by a bunch of cheats.

 

[The Mole]

Generally batsmen do not walk when they’ve hit it (remember the great Atherton vs Donald match - although no MGS ex pupil ever walked). The difference with Broad was that it was obvious. but it is the same if it is a faint glove or a big edge, you are waiting for the umpire’s decision.

on a personal note I always used to walk, but played with many who didnt