If you leave your crease before umpire calls “over” you’re out.
Bairstow needs to work on his match awareness. I’m betting it wasn’t a one off.
Also, Broad is a dick.
Interesting set of 3 similar replays where B just walks off his crease without checking on the ball or umpire. 4th time? He had the dismissal coming.
I thought it was a dead ball.
"20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when
20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler."
And about as shit a play as a mankad.
Left a blight over a great game and a great win
It never settled in Carey’s hands though, he caught it and threw it in one action and before Bairstow even left his crease.
The real rule is both teams have to consider the ball dead before it’s dead, and Australia never did.
Also kind of funny the English whining about “the spirit of cricket” when Bairstow himself tries the exact same dismissal against Labuschagne, only difference is he missed by about 8 stumps
It hadn’t settled. It was still in play. As others have posted, he clearly had done it more than once.
Bairstow even tried the same thing on Labuschagne the other day. Difference was that Marnus had enough game sense to be onto it.
https://twitter.com/samdjodan/status/1675575411344908288?s=19
And about as shit a play as a mankad.
So not shit at all?
Being serious: I think this play deserves to be quite controversial. Mankadding absolutely does not. Mankadding is only made possible by a batsman trying to sneak an advantage. If there’s no risk involved in that, it’s just an unfair advantage. Mankadding is that risk. Totally fair.
This situation is a little different. I think the right call was made, but there was no advantage to be gained by Bairstow. He just made a mistake in thinking the ball was dead when it wasn’t. (And if you think the rules quoted make it clear it was dead—well by my reading, the strictest interpretation of that wording would mean that stumping is literally always impossible, because an unpire can’t stump without having the ball in his hands.)
It left a blight because you’d always rather win without a controversial call, but it was the right call.
There’s the laws of the game, and the spirit of the game.
I’m just sad that the spirit of the game has been eaten by the win at all costs attitude.
The fact we’re even discussing this is embarrassing and saddens me, and I won’t comment any more on it.
I hope you stamped your foot furiously after writing this.
There’s the laws of the game, and the spirit of the game.
Sure, and I can see some ambiguity in whether or not the Bairstow stumping is within the spirit of the game.
But Mankadding? 100% fair play. It’s literally the only available counterplay to a batsman sneaking an advantage by advancing early. To suggest it’s not in the spirit of the game is to suggest that batsmen deserve to get free runs. I’d sooner say that advancing early is against the spirit of the game than I would say that of Mankadding.
Yes he was out. Nobody is saying he wasn’t. The Australians should have withdrawn the appeal though.
Yeah nahh, Bairstow strolling out of his crease is just arrogant considering he flings balls at the stumps himself.
No fucking way.
This is why people say Australia are bad sports. Well, this and the cheating.
You were very happy to deny Starc a catch yesterday, oh how the turns have tabled.
You can’t apply the laws when it suits you.
Ok but you can choose not to appeal if it would be unsportsman-like to. Anyway, one more to go - hopefully will get to bed soon.
“unsportsmanlike” is the biggest load of crap. The game has rules, stick to the rules or get out. Simple.
Starc’s catch wasn’t a catch because he did something stupid. Bairstow was out because he did something stupid.
