I just don’t get why they’d withdraw the appeal or why anyone would try and coax them into it. It’s not a mankading. He walked straight out, and Carey threw the ball directly at the stumps after catching.
I’d say the spirit of the game is about things like walking after you’ve nicked the ball, or admitting you didn’t catch a ball. If Carey had waited for Bairstow to leave this crease and then stumped him I think there’s a better case for the ball being dead but also for the spirit of the game argument. But that’s not the case here
I don’t think so, personally. He clearly was not trying to go for a run. He thought it was dead ball.
Aus were completely entitled to go for the dismissal, and the English reaction is way over the top. But it’s hardly good sportmanship. They got a wicket not through playing well, or even the other side playing poorly, but thru someone misunderstanding the state of the game.
Exactly. Bairstow made a dumb mistake and as a result, he got out. The ‘spirit of cricket’ doesn’t mean you get a second chance if you do something dumb, otherwise Khawaja shouldn’t have been out when he shouldered arms and was bowled. “Oops that was silly of me. Can I have it over again?”
There was nothing deceitful about this - it’s not like they claimed a catch when they knew it hit the ground. The batter made a mistake and lost his wicket.
Not the same thing. One is a misjudgement that is part of the game (judging where your off stump is is a fundamental part of cricket).
One is a misjudgement about the state of the game, and doesn’t really relate to the core skills of the game.
As I said, Aus were will within their rights to do what they did. But other teams have withdrawn appeals in similar situations, and that is considered good sportsmanship. You can debate whether that has a place in the game or not, but Aus could have withdrawn their appeal, it wouldn’t have been unprecedented, and would have reflected well on them, at least from neutral’s perspectives.
Batting isn’t just the skill of hitting a ball, it’s also the athleticism and tactics of running. The batsman’s position in relation to the crease is a fundamental concept in batting tactics. This is absolutely not a case where the batsman would generally be considered ok to absent-mindedly wander outside the crease, such as for the off-strike batsman during a bowler’s run-up. There is no substance to the principle argument like with a mankad-style dismissal, just the vague suggestion that the fielding team should reasonably allow the batsman to self-determine whether the ball is live or dead.
It’s really not a neutral-sounding argument. McCullum has dismissed the same way, Bairstow has attempted to dismiss the same way, yet you’re holding Australia to this imaginary standard of sportsmanship which none of the involved parties can hope to live up to.
Both these things can be true.
I just don’t get why they’d withdraw the appeal or why anyone would try and coax them into it. It’s not a mankading. He walked straight out, and Carey threw the ball directly at the stumps after catching.
I’d say the spirit of the game is about things like walking after you’ve nicked the ball, or admitting you didn’t catch a ball. If Carey had waited for Bairstow to leave this crease and then stumped him I think there’s a better case for the ball being dead but also for the spirit of the game argument. But that’s not the case here
Yeah but the latter requires an arbitrary interpretation of the spirit of the game which is dependent on outcome
I don’t think so, personally. He clearly was not trying to go for a run. He thought it was dead ball.
Aus were completely entitled to go for the dismissal, and the English reaction is way over the top. But it’s hardly good sportmanship. They got a wicket not through playing well, or even the other side playing poorly, but thru someone misunderstanding the state of the game.
Exactly. Bairstow made a dumb mistake and as a result, he got out. The ‘spirit of cricket’ doesn’t mean you get a second chance if you do something dumb, otherwise Khawaja shouldn’t have been out when he shouldered arms and was bowled. “Oops that was silly of me. Can I have it over again?”
There was nothing deceitful about this - it’s not like they claimed a catch when they knew it hit the ground. The batter made a mistake and lost his wicket.
Not the same thing. One is a misjudgement that is part of the game (judging where your off stump is is a fundamental part of cricket).
One is a misjudgement about the state of the game, and doesn’t really relate to the core skills of the game.
As I said, Aus were will within their rights to do what they did. But other teams have withdrawn appeals in similar situations, and that is considered good sportsmanship. You can debate whether that has a place in the game or not, but Aus could have withdrawn their appeal, it wouldn’t have been unprecedented, and would have reflected well on them, at least from neutral’s perspectives.
Batting isn’t just the skill of hitting a ball, it’s also the athleticism and tactics of running. The batsman’s position in relation to the crease is a fundamental concept in batting tactics. This is absolutely not a case where the batsman would generally be considered ok to absent-mindedly wander outside the crease, such as for the off-strike batsman during a bowler’s run-up. There is no substance to the principle argument like with a mankad-style dismissal, just the vague suggestion that the fielding team should reasonably allow the batsman to self-determine whether the ball is live or dead.
It’s really not a neutral-sounding argument. McCullum has dismissed the same way, Bairstow has attempted to dismiss the same way, yet you’re holding Australia to this imaginary standard of sportsmanship which none of the involved parties can hope to live up to.