The Ashes 2023

[SpookyFrank]

Well it's nobody's fault but Bairstow's then, sorry. I'm with Ashwin on the mankad. Bowlers aren't allowed to step over the line so why should batsmen be allowed to sneak a few feet? Totally Bairstow's fault by the sounds of it. Read the rules johnny.

He wasn't backing up to get a head start on a run. He merely wandered off from his crease, as batters do at the end of an over. Probably responding to the umpire doing end-of-the-over things.

 

[planetgeli]

Stokes would have totally withdrawn it. Without a doubt.

Well he declared on 393-8 so there's always room for error, but someone told Stokes he was a psychologist half a dozen test matches back and he's rather taken to it. I wouldn't like to second guess anything he does, certainly not be sure of it.

I want England to win as much as any of you. I've had 50 years of a lot of shit. But there was nothing wrong with what happened to Bairstow, apart from Bairstow.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The bit I do believe about Stokes is that he has an incredible will to succeed when the pressure is on - his performances prove that - but that he doesn't think it's all about the winning. I genuinely think he strives for something better. He's not your normal cricketer.

 

[tommers]

I don't really care about the winning but I dont like unsportsmanlike behaviour. Same as Arteta kicking his injured player back onto the pitch so that we couldn't take a quick corner. It's just sport, play the game in the right way.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Probably responding to the umpire doing end-of-the-over things.

I still think this bit is relevant. Umpire's at fault here.

 

[Wilf]

I bet Cummins regrets it now. It takes a bit of the shine off the win and they probably would have won anyway.

The bit I don't like about it is that the umpire clearly already thought it was dead ball by the time the ball hit the stumps as he was already handing a cap back. But the throw took so long to hit the stumps that he wasn't doing that at the time the ball was thrown.

On reflection, if the ump thinks it's now dead ball, it's dead ball, so it should have been given not out. The handing back of the cap is the crucial point there. Hmmmm. Regardless of the appeal, I now think that was a wrong decision by the umpires. Ump may have been wrong to already be declaring dead ball - and I think he was, should have waited - but nothing can happen once dead ball is declared, and if dead ball hadn't been declared, why was the ump reaching for the cap?

Along similar lines, I wondered at the time why the umpires allowed a referral, given that at least one of them was doing things they do when the over is complete. Or if they couldn't stop the referral why the hell wasn't there a discussion between the 3rd umpire and on field umpire(s) along the lines of 'did you believe the over had finished'? It ended up like one of those daft football VAR penalties, where there's no way it would have been given by the ref, but the VAR person is making a purely technical judgement.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Along similar lines, I wondered at the time why the umpires allowed a referral, given that at least one of them was doing things they do when the over is complete. Or if they couldn't stop the referral why the hell wasn't there a discussion between the 3rd umpire and on field umpire(s) along the lines of 'did you believe the over had finished'? It ended up like one of those daft football VAR penalties, where there's no way it would have been given by the ref, but the VAR person is making a purely technical judgement.

Yep. Sorry, I fucked up, didn't notice that Carey had thrown the ball at the stumps, and I declared dead ball. So, by the laws, it is dead ball and not out. And sorry about that, Mr Carey.

Not so different from the situation where an ump calls no-ball and a wicket falls but it's not no-ball. Aussie Adam Voges was clean bowled once by Doug Bracewell. Umpire mistakenly called no-ball. The no-ball decision was reversed but once the ump's made that decision, it's dead ball, so not out. Voges had about 2 at the time. Went on to score a double century.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It's bad for the game if players can't have a certain amount of trust and respect for each other. If there's not that shared understanding that everyone is there to win by actually playing, and not by just fucking people over.

Mind you this is a team and a captain that sends an injured player out to bat so what can you expect.

 

[Wilf]

Cummins has said that it was planned by Carey

Yep, that's been my gripe all along. If you were trying to affect a traditional stumping, why would you throw the ball at the stumps when he was in his ground? Impossible to prove, but I think he did it because he knew it was the end of the over. He did it before Bairstow left his ground because he was trying to get in before the umpire officially called over.

 

[Wilf]

Well it's nobody's fault but Bairstow's then, sorry. I'm with Ashwin on the mankad. Bowlers aren't allowed to step over the line so why should batsmen be allowed to sneak a few feet? Totally Bairstow's fault by the sounds of it. Read the rules johnny.

But this isn't about gaining an advantage. Bairstow perhaps should have looked behind him and is technically at fault, but was reacting to the end of the over as most batters do.

 

[planetgeli]

Yep, that's been my gripe all along. If you were trying to affect a traditional stumping, why would you throw the ball at the stumps when he was in his ground? Impossible to prove, but I think he did it because he knew it was the end of the over. He did it before Bairstow left his ground because he was trying to get in before the umpire officially called over.

No. You're seeing it (perhaps fractions of a second, plus the rules) wrong.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm with Ashwin on the mankad fwiw (we've had furious arguments about that too on here ), but this was nothing like a mankad situation.

 

[Wilf]

Yep. Sorry, I fucked up, didn't notice that Carey had thrown the ball at the stumps, and I declared dead ball. So, by the laws, it is dead ball and not out. And sorry about that, Mr Carey.

Yep, that's precisely how this should have ended. Honour all round and a clear reminder to Bairstow to stand his ground a wee bit longer.

Take your point about the spirit of cricket being at best subjective and outdated. Same time, what's the outcome for the rest of the series, batters having to play statues for 20 seconds each over? Some conventions are useful.

 

[Wilf]

No. You're seeing it (perhaps fractions of a second, plus the rules) wrong.

But the question remains, why did he throw at the stumps when the batter was in his ground and it was the end of the over? It was planned in one of 2 ways: either he just thought Bairstow tends to wander or he thought he might catch him out assuming the over had finished. Can't prove which of these it was, but the idea that Carey would just throw at the stumps of someone in his ground seems far fetched.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

tbh I don't think the spirit of cricket is outdated. I don't think it's ever really existed. Would be great if it did.

 

[planetgeli]

But the question remains, why did he throw at the stumps when the batter was in his ground and it was the end of the over? It was planned in one of 2 ways: either he just thought Bairstow tends to wander or he thought he might catch him out assuming the over had finished. Can't prove which of these it was, but the idea that Carey would just throw at the stumps of someone in his ground seems far fetched.

It happens all the time with slow bowlers, wicket-keepers or short leg flicking it.

But also, is their video to prove your assertion? Seemed to me the ball took ages to reach Carey and Bairstow was well out of his ground (Carey's throw wasn't exactly dynamite either, just accurate and slow- by which time Bairstow was halfway down the pitch).

 

[strung out]

But the question remains, why did he throw at the stumps when the batter was in his ground and it was the end of the over? It was planned in one of 2 ways: either he just thought Bairstow tends to wander or he thought he might catch him out assuming the over had finished. Can't prove which of these it was, but the idea that Carey would just throw at the stumps of someone in his ground seems far fetched.

Loads of stumpings are effected when the batsman is still in their crease. Jack Russell was a master of starting to whip the bails off before the batsman had left their ground. Sometimes it came off, sometimes it didn't, but I don't think there's much wrong with a speculative shy at the stumps per se, it's more that Bairstow was neither attempting a run or playing a shot, coupled with the preempted nature of it that makes it a bit rum.

Slightly foolish from Bairstow, but I don't think you can blame him too much for taking his cue from the umpire making like the ball was dead.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It happens all the time with slow bowlers, wicket-keepers or short leg flicking it.

But also, is their video to prove your assertion? Seemed to me the ball took ages to reach Carey and Bairstow was well out of his ground (Carey's throw wasn't exactly dynamite either, just accurate and slow- by which time Bairstow was halfway down the pitch).

Ok I've watched it again. I was wrong about it being absent-minded from Carey. he was celebrating before the ball even hit the stumps. but Bairstow was in his ground at the moment he threw the ball and he did that scrape of the line with his boot before stepping out, and the umpire is turned away and reaching for the cap before the ball hits the stumps.

Sorry, shit decision. Dead ball, over called, not out. And the Aussies can complain to the umpire and ask him not to call over so quickly next time, but that's what happened.

 

[planetgeli]

The scrape of the boot happens as Carey is throwing the ball. He also only celebrates a milisecond before the ball hits the stumps, because he can see this will happen and Bairstow is now 4 yards down the pitch.

Slo-mo it, pause it.

It's not as you say.

 

[Wilf]

It happens all the time with slow bowlers, wicket-keepers or short leg flicking it.

But also, is their video to prove your assertion? Seemed to me the ball took ages to reach Carey and Bairstow was well out of his ground (Carey's throw wasn't exactly dynamite either, just accurate and slow- by which time Bairstow was halfway down the pitch).

Well, I can't prove it because I'm talking about what was in the keeper's mind (though domestos may have something).

On a slightly different point, you can see at around 1:00 in the clip here that the umpire at the far end didn't even see the ball hitting the stumps:

Ben Stokes: Jonny Bairstow dismissal not in the 'spirit of the game' | Pat Cummins: I thought it was fair

Jonny Bairstows dismissal for 10, stumped by Alex Carey after leaving his crease at the end of an over, proved a major talking point as England were beaten by 43 runs on the final day of the second Test of this years mens Ashes series at Lords

www.skysports.com

Realise that's not itself conclusive, given that the square leg umpire normally gives stumpings and the review system is also available to review stumpings. Same time, it adds to the idea the over was done. Again, LBJ's point that this is perhaps more about weak umpiring or umpires failing to get involved with the 3rd umpire.
.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The scrape of the boot happens as Carey is throwing the ball. He also only celebrates a milisecond before the ball hits the stumps, because he can see this will happen and Bairstow is now 4 yards down the pitch.

Slo-mo it, pause it.

It's not as you say.

Bairstow was in his ground as the ball was thrown. Carey starts celebrating before the ball hits the stumps, and by that point, as you say, Bairstow is 4 yards down the pitch as the throw took so long to get there, while umpire Raza is turned away and reaching for the cap at the point the ball hits the stumps. So... rightly or wrongly, dead ball, cos the umpire had decided so. Weak umpiring from Raza. He should have stepped in and made the decision of dead ball after the appeal.

Bairstow is dozy for not checking behind him, but he is given the signal that it is over by the umpire's actions. The umpire decides over, not Carey or Cummins.

 

[Wilf]

Loads of stumpings are effected when the batsman is still in their crease. Jack Russell was a master of starting to whip the bails off before the batsman had left their ground. Sometimes it came off, sometimes it didn't, but I don't think there's much wrong with a speculative shy at the stumps per se, it's more that Bairstow was neither attempting a run or playing a shot, coupled with the preempted nature of it that makes it a bit rum.

Slightly foolish from Bairstow, but I don't think you can blame him too much for taking his cue from the umpire making like the ball was dead.

Yeah, keepers do whip the bails off, hoping the batter might totter over etc. Though taking a shy at the stumps when he's still in his ground.... dunno, less common? Agree with the rest of your post though.

 

[Petcha]

Well, I can't prove it because I'm talking about what was in the keeper's mind (though domestos may have something).

On a slightly different point, you can see at around 1:00 in the clip here that the umpire at the far end didn't even see the ball hitting the stumps:

Ben Stokes: Jonny Bairstow dismissal not in the 'spirit of the game' | Pat Cummins: I thought it was fair

Jonny Bairstows dismissal for 10, stumped by Alex Carey after leaving his crease at the end of an over, proved a major talking point as England were beaten by 43 runs on the final day of the second Test of this years mens Ashes series at Lords

www.skysports.com

Realise that's not itself conclusive, given that the square leg umpire normally gives stumpings and the review system is also available to review stumpings. Same time, it adds to the idea the over was done. Again, LBJ's point that this is perhaps more about weak umpiring or umpires failing to get involved with the 3rd umpire.
.

Looking at that, its only Bairstow to blame. I can't see anything at all wrong from an Aussie perspective.

 

[planetgeli]

On a slightly different point, you can see at around 1:00 in the clip here that the umpire at the far end didn't even see the ball hitting the stumps:

Because he's looking at the cap, which he has yet to remove. Which kinda undermines LBJ's version of the timings. No dead ball had been declared, at all.

The umpire decides over, not Carey or Cummins.

And certainly not Bairstow.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why is the umpire turned away and reaching for the cap if he does not think it is dead ball?

He decides when it is dead ball.

So if he thinks it's dead ball, it's dead ball.

We need John Holder here but I reckon he'd agree with me.

 

[planetgeli]

Why is the umpire turned away and reaching for the cap if he does not think it is dead ball?

Because he has made an error.

What he hasn't done is call a dead ball.

 

[GarveyLives]

...

The bit I don't like about it is that the umpire clearly already thought it was dead ball by the time the ball hit the stumps as he was already handing a cap back. But the throw took so long to hit the stumps that he wasn't doing that at the time the ball was thrown.

On reflection, if the ump thinks it's now dead ball, it's dead ball, so it should have been given not out. The handing back of the cap is the crucial point there. Hmmmm. Regardless of the appeal, I now think that was a wrong decision by the umpires. Ump may have been wrong to already be declaring dead ball - and I think he was, should have waited - but nothing can happen once dead ball is declared, and if dead ball hadn't been declared, why was the ump reaching for the cap?

I agree that Bairstow is at fault and Carey caught and threw the ball in one motion. But who decides when it's dead ball? I'm lawyering the rules here a bit, but the laws of cricket are clear - once the ump decides dead ball, nothing can happen, and here the ump had (mistakenly as it happens) decided dead ball, not having seen the ball slowly approaching the stumps.

I don't feel strongly about it. Mostly I think Bairstow was dozy. But I think there's an argument to be had there that the ump had declared dead ball, so not out. After all, Bairstow could see what the ump was doing.

Maybe. It didn't look calculated, but maybe it was. If it was, I don't like it, but it's still mostly Bairstow's own fault so I'm not going to cry about it. I still think the ump reaching for the cap is relevant, though. Umpires have been weak all series if I'm honest. Host of bad decisions and doing absolutely nothing about the over rates.

I still think this bit is relevant. Umpire's at fault here.

Yep. Sorry, I f*cked up, didn't notice that Carey had thrown the ball at the stumps, and I declared dead ball. So, by the laws, it is dead ball and not out. And sorry about that, Mr Carey.

...

Ok I've watched it again. I was wrong about it being absent-minded from Carey. he was celebrating before the ball even hit the stumps. but Bairstow was in his ground at the moment he threw the ball and he did that scrape of the line with his boot before stepping out, and the umpire is turned away and reaching for the cap before the ball hits the stumps.

Sorry, sh!t decision. Dead ball, over called, not out. And the Aussies can complain to the umpire and ask him not to call over so quickly next time, but that's what happened.

Bairstow was in his ground as the ball was thrown. Carey starts celebrating before the ball hits the stumps, and by that point, as you say, Bairstow is 4 yards down the pitch as the throw took so long to get there, while umpire Raza is turned away and reaching for the cap at the point the ball hits the stumps. So... rightly or wrongly, dead ball, cos the umpire had decided so. Weak umpiring from Raza. He should have stepped in and made the decision of dead ball after the appeal.

Bairstow is dozy for not checking behind him, but he is given the signal that it is over by the umpire's actions. The umpire decides over, not Carey or Cummins.

Why is the umpire turned away and reaching for the cap if he does not think it is dead ball?

He decides when it is dead ball.

So if he thinks it's dead ball, it's dead ball.

We need John Holder here but I reckon he'd agree with me.

Bairstow† st Carey† b Green 10

The inconvenient reality.​

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They make good points but it's still weak umpiring. If you haven't called over don't reach for the cap to hand back. Pay attention to the action until the ball is dead.

Meanwhile why the fuck is the square leg umpire calling for the tv umpire? He was miles out of his ground. What is he asking to be checked exactly? Also very weak umpiring.

Both on field umpires come out of that very badly.

 

[Wilf]

Bairstow† st Carey† b Green 10

The inconvenient reality.​

At the very end of that you can see the square leg umpire goes to the third umpire straight away, without even consulting the other umpire to see if the ball was dead. As littlebabyjesus said, it makes no sense. He could see he was miles out of his ground, so what was the referral for? If it was to see whether the ball was dead, he just needed to ask his mate. And if he had asked the other umpire, an honest answer would have been 'I didn't see it, I was giving the cap back', which has got to lead to not out.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry situation. Everyone comes out of it badly.