Along with the Pearl clutching Aussies. They love to dish it out but become like vicar’s wives when it comes back.
They are confirmed cheats but ones who win.
Cricket 2023
- Thread starter Spraggons Den
- Start date
They are confirmed cheats but ones who win.
Tarzan
pfm Member
This Test series thus far has certainly been entertaining, however the Carey/Bairstow turnout was not in the spirit of the game.....
Martian Sunrise
pfm Member
Rockmeister
pfm Member
Nothing like the same thing...not even close. A normal wickies reaction, and the batsman was watching what was happening behind.
Maybe you don't know what 'The spirit' means?
The Captain
~~~~~~~~~~
I wouldn't expect to see that in a village match. Perhaps at school I would.
The same would apply to a non-striking batsman walking out his crease as the bowler steams in & whips off the bails. Technically, it's out, but.. it's just not in the spirit of the game to do this; IF the batsman repeatedly does this -in order to gain an advantage- the bowler should stop, & warn the batsman. Umpire notes it.
Bairstow was not aiming to gain any advantage. That's the nub of this. The Aussies should've warned him, then the Cummins (if he was a man) should've retracted the appeal & continued on to win within the spirit of the game, &, would have garnered huge respect for the rest of his career.
Cheating desperate schoolboys instead.
The same would apply to a non-striking batsman walking out his crease as the bowler steams in & whips off the bails. Technically, it's out, but.. it's just not in the spirit of the game to do this; IF the batsman repeatedly does this -in order to gain an advantage- the bowler should stop, & warn the batsman. Umpire notes it.
Bairstow was not aiming to gain any advantage. That's the nub of this. The Aussies should've warned him, then the Cummins (if he was a man) should've retracted the appeal & continued on to win within the spirit of the game, &, would have garnered huge respect for the rest of his career.
Cheating desperate schoolboys instead.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
Have you got everybody in this thread on ignore, or do you not bother reading what anyone else writes?
Oh. I probably just wasted a post there then.
Martian Sunrise
pfm Member
come on. it is exactly the same thing. both wickies caught and threw back at the stumps. just because one was paying attention does not make it completely different
all of this 'not looking to gain an advantage' and comparisons to mankad are a complete nonsense, too.
Reading the comments from those whining about the dismissal of Bairstow whilst completely ignoring what happened in the above link certainly reinforces stereotypes....
Rockmeister
pfm Member
blind to subtleties.
Nobody is 'whining' These are 2 different things that some who can't see differences hope will prove that the occasion was 'fair' It wasn't.
Nobody is 'whining' These are 2 different things that some who can't see differences hope will prove that the occasion was 'fair' It wasn't.
Yeah actually you are whining like rather pathetic little school boys and as for the behaviour of the "puce faced snobs" in the Long Room... ? WTF ?
The laws written by the MCC were adhered to and as such he was correctly given out.
But enough of that.... Care to explain to me the "subtleties" to which you refer ??
The laws written by the MCC were adhered to and as such he was correctly given out.
But enough of that.... Care to explain to me the "subtleties" to which you refer ??
Whaleblue
Southbound
It really, really isn’t the same thing. In the linked video the batsman is slightly off balance on the edge of his ground, the keeper sees this and attempts a possible stumping.
In the game yesterday Bairstow does what he’s done in the previous two balls. He ducks a short ball, then stands up and makes a mark in his ground. He’s completely balanced. He then walks up the pitch, at which point the ball thrown in hits the stumps. Apparently the umpire was also in the act of removing the bowler's cap he’d been looking after in order to hand it back to said bowler, which Bairstow would surely have taken as the ball being dead.
The differences are subtle, but to anyone who’s played and watched the game for a while the differences are also obvious as far as the Bairstow incident not being in the spirit of the game.
FWIW I would judge the incident exactly the same if the tables were turned.
Rubbish. Complete and utter revisionist rubbish.
Carey underhanded the ball at the stumps BEFORE Bairstow moved out of his crease not because he did so.
The only differences between the two situations is that Labuschagne didn't moronically take his eye off the ball and do the same.....
Oh and Carey can throw straight.
Carey underhanded the ball at the stumps BEFORE Bairstow moved out of his crease not because he did so.
The only differences between the two situations is that Labuschagne didn't moronically take his eye off the ball and do the same.....
Oh and Carey can throw straight.
Martian Sunrise
pfm Member
explain the subtleties...
explain to me how bairstow and carey acted differently in those two incidents? catch ball. throw at stumps. BOTH.
Martian Sunrise
pfm Member
nothing to do with fair. i said up thread that i think it stinks. it's the classic english sanctimony that i am trying to point out.
"yeah, but when we do it..."
"yeah, but when we do it..."
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
The difference is that Bairstow clearly thinks the ball is dead. Carey knows it isn't and that this is a mistake by Bairstow and by taking advantage of this he can get a cheap wicket at a crucial time.
In the other case Bairstow is trying to catch the batter out of his ground because the batsman has left his ground by losing his balance as part of his attempt to play the ball.
In a village game, these things would be settled by simply not buying Carey a pint after the match. But this is the ashes so members in the long room blow a gasket and the foreign office sends a gun boat to sail past Sydney harbour bridge.
So yes, sharp practice by Carey but ultimately a mistake by Bairstow that cost England their best chance at winning.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
We’re both the end of the over? The point of the Bairstow incident is I think, that because the over is ending, he sees the umpire, handing the bowlers cap back, assumes that play has ended and steps forward. It’s a fine point it’s a subtlety, but as has been said, I wouldn’t have wanted to take a wicket in that way. However, as you say, it is entirely legal so, he was out.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
PS . The English never complain you know, just like Aussies never cheat. So we’ll not mention sandpaper. Or grumpy old men in the MCC.