Cheating bastard Aussies. That was a despicable piece of unsportsmanlike behaviour. It was evident Bairstow thought the ball was dead - as almost everybody else did. Cummins could have withdrawn the appeal. A decent captain would have done
The ball was dead. A short ball taken by the ‘keeper standing far back. Bairstow wasn’t attempting a run. He’d already placed his foot back behind the line, before walking down the wicket. If you’re saying it wasn’t dead, why was the bowler’s umpire not even looking and removing the bowler’s cap to hand back to him? Unsporting and no place for it.
That is what Carey will be remembered for long after his career ends , Cummins not covered himself in glory either
Carey threw at the stumps as soon as he collected it. It's tough but its the ashes and Australia want to win. Bairstow is lax not to be aware. No way was the ball dead.
Disagree to a degree. Barstow was arguably complacent, but he had finished the action of avoiding the bouncer and looked back into his crease before slowly walking down the track. Carey knew this and that he wasn't attempting a run. One, if not both on field umpires clearly by their actions considered the over complete. Do I understand why Carey appealed? Yes Do I see why the off-field umpire gave it out? Yes But there was a huge 'spirit of the game' issue and the responsibility fell on Cummings or Carey to withdraw the appeal. That they chose not to should - and probably will - come back to haunt them down the line. It nearly cost them this match, as Stokes was, well, stoked as a result! Maybe a technically correct decision, but bad form in any game, even an Ashes game.
I'm not convinced it was technically correct. There is no precedent in other sports; the umpire doesn't have a whistle for the players to play to. But there is a convention. It's usually obvious when the ball is dead and the players ready themselves for the next bal/l/over. Players and spectators could see the ball was dead here. Stokes said the umpire had called "over". Bairstow had offered no stroke; he was not attempting either a shot or a run; Carey had taken the ball miles back. There was nothing going on to suggest the ball was still in play. On what basis has the 3rd umpire concluded the ball is still in play? Is the umpire required to do more than call "over", look away from the batsman's end of the pitch and start to hand his cap back to the bowler before it is apparent that the ball is dead? If so, what? Even if it was "technically correct", it's bad sportsmanship as it should be clear to everybody on the field of play that Bairstow had treated the ball as dead and is not seeking to take any advantage by walking slowly down the pitch. It is the sort of thing footballers would be slated for - if there is an equivalent in football.
How far back Carey was is irrelevant, the point is he caught the ball and threw it at the stumps. Bairstow came up from ducking and walked without checking where the ball was. On the basis you are describing stumping would not exist. Yes it's a poor way to get out just as being run out is but that's the rules of cricket. The spirit of the game does not include turning a blind eye to the rules. Are bowling balls that are aimed at the batsman in the spirit of the game? Is sledging in the spirit of the game? The spirit of the game involves taking note of the umpires decisions. So in other words barracking, timewasting, intimidation, pain are included in cricket. Bairstow is a wicket keeper which gives him less reason to behave in the casual way he did, (he should have known better) a way Carey had no doubt noted and took advantage of. Be nice is not in the remit of teams playing in the ashes as far as I know. You can go back to Bodyline, and there have always been tough playing in test cricket. From the great West Indian fast bowlers and Lille & Thomson, bombarding the opposition out to Boycott boring them to death. It's hugely annoying, I agree, but there is no room for being casual playing test cricket. On a lighter note England have done enough to show they CAN beat the Aussies if they take their chances, we are not dead yet, still 3 tests to go. Stokes is magnificent.
If that was the case then the decision was definitely incorrect. The umpire calling 'over' or 'dead ball' are finite actions.
We can do a Brian Clough? Talk about it for 20 minutes and then agree that I'm right I somehow think you might not agree to that.
I don’t agree that any of this is the point though, Spurf. Apart from Carey, was there anybody else who acted as if the ball was still live? The on field umpires didn’t, which is significant. If “over” was called, then surely Bairstow could treat the ball as dead? The examples you give are legitimate tactics in the game. What happened today isn’t. Carey wasn’t at fault because he probably acted instinctively. But Cummins is because it was in his power to withdraw the appeal. Was it not obvious to all the players what had gone on? The only equivalent in football is where a team kicks the ball out because of injury and rather than following the convention of the opposition throwing the ball back, they leave a forward in the penalty area unmarked, throw it to him unchallenged and he scores. That would be frowned upon as very unsportsmanlike. This is equally so. Sport requires players to be sportsmanlike in situations where it would be perverse to apply the rules strictly.
If over was called then I agree but if that was the case you would not expect the umpires to accept a review. The replay shows Carey collecting the ball as it goes over Bairstow's head and immediately throwing at the stumps. Where in that is the time to call over? Where in that is the ball dead? The fact that Carey was aware and others weren't does not make the decision wrong. The fact that all the commentators think Bairstow was 'sloppy' in his actions and see no fault with Carey also should count for something. A lot of the crowd clearly share your view as did Broad but it doesn't make it right within the rules. We will have to agree to differ on this because we have surely exhausted our arguments. I will give you the moral high ground but rules often ignore them as we see in life as well as cricket.
