There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
"English cricket fans were left fuming after Alex Carey controversially stumped Jonny Bairstow(what's "contoroversial" about playing to the rules???) on Day Five of the second Ashes Test at Lord's.
Beginning the day on 114-4 and requiring 371 to win, Ben Duckett and Ben Stokes started well as England's captain passed 50.
Duckett was eventually dismissed for a well-made 83 as Carey took a sensational one-handed catch down the legside.
However, just as Bairstow and Stokes were developing a promising partnership, England's keeper was dismissed in bizarre fashion.
After ducking a bouncer from Cameron Green, he wandered out of his crease, believing the ball was dead.
However, Carey threw the ball back at the stumps and hit them, with Bairstow out of his ground, meaning the Aussies picked up an extremely cheap wicket as tempers flared.
The Lord's crowd was infuriated by the unsporting actions of the visitors as they vociferously booed them and in particular Carey and skipper Pat Cummins.
Stuart Broad was the next man in and he was also fuming, exchanging intense words with Marnus Labuschagne and Cummins.
England supporters on social media were also angry and shared their thoughts on the incident.
England fast bowler Jofra Archer led the reaction as he simply said: 'Wow.'
Meanwhile, Piers Morgan added: 'You cannot be serious??!! Australia, that is pathetic. How can you possibly want to win an Ashes Test match like that?'
Mail Sport's Paul Newman also said: 'That’s very very poor from Australia.'
It began a bizarre passage of play ahead of lunch as a riled up Stokes took the attack to Australia, scoring 50 runs in the next five overs as he raced to a superb hundred.
As the players headed off for lunch, the Aussies were on the receiving end of more vociferous criticism, including from MCC members as the players walked through the long room."
Beginning the day on 114-4 and requiring 371 to win, Ben Duckett and Ben Stokes started well as England's captain passed 50.
Duckett was eventually dismissed for a well-made 83 as Carey took a sensational one-handed catch down the legside.
However, just as Bairstow and Stokes were developing a promising partnership, England's keeper was dismissed in bizarre fashion.
After ducking a bouncer from Cameron Green, he wandered out of his crease, believing the ball was dead.
However, Carey threw the ball back at the stumps and hit them, with Bairstow out of his ground, meaning the Aussies picked up an extremely cheap wicket as tempers flared.
The Lord's crowd was infuriated by the unsporting actions of the visitors as they vociferously booed them and in particular Carey and skipper Pat Cummins.
Stuart Broad was the next man in and he was also fuming, exchanging intense words with Marnus Labuschagne and Cummins.
England supporters on social media were also angry and shared their thoughts on the incident.
England fast bowler Jofra Archer led the reaction as he simply said: 'Wow.'
Meanwhile, Piers Morgan added: 'You cannot be serious??!! Australia, that is pathetic. How can you possibly want to win an Ashes Test match like that?'
Mail Sport's Paul Newman also said: 'That’s very very poor from Australia.'
It began a bizarre passage of play ahead of lunch as a riled up Stokes took the attack to Australia, scoring 50 runs in the next five overs as he raced to a superb hundred.
As the players headed off for lunch, the Aussies were on the receiving end of more vociferous criticism, including from MCC members as the players walked through the long room."
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 279
|
By:
I don’t know much about cricket but it seemed a silly thing for Barstow to do.
|
|
By:
Exactly kenny. It's the batsman's responsibility to not be so ****g stupid to wander off without being certain the ball is in fact DEAD.
|
|
By:
Over annoyed fans clearly have no idea of the rules , it's a stumping not a run out.
Brainless batting , nothing else to see  |
|
By:
No one can argue that it was cheating, unsporting or sneaky or against the spirit of the game is a different matter. If it was the other way round I'm sure England would have appealed and been happy to take the wicket, but I still wouldn't be happy or agree with it.
It smacks of sneakiness, and hiding behind the rules to justify their actions. That's my take and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's certainly got the crowd going and if England do chase these down this afternoon it'll be one of the most memorable sporting days ever. C'mon England. |
|
By:
It was an interesting morning of cricket. A decent fight back after yesterday’s poor collapse but looks like that error has extinguished any slim hopes they had. Will we see Stokes go for it!
|
|
By:
He’s already gone for it. I missed the last half hour before lunch. He put some runs on in that time.
|
|
By:
He's gone into one day mode Kenbo and it's coming off, but one mishit and it's game over.
|
|
By:
Ha ha Smith catching a bar of soap.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
"It smacks of sneakiness, and hiding behind the rules to justify their actions." Utter garbage. The idea that any form of opponent sloppiness isn't fair game to be punished is RIDICULOUS.
And it's laughable that many are using this "ungentlemanly" argument. This is a sport(particularly between these 2 fierce rivals) that has accepted "sledging" for decades. |
|
By:
Utter garbage umm. You seem like a reasonable person that understands people sometimes have different opinions and don't in any way seem like you're up your own @rse.
|
|
By:
From the reaction of the crowd and even the gentlemen in the long room it would appear that a lot of ridiculous people have a different opinion to yours and must all be tools talking utter rubbish.
|
|
By:
Stokes 138 not out and means business.
This would be up there with the best of them. |
|
By:
128....
|
|
By:
I can go back to Wally Grout the Aussie keeper who refused to whip the bails off when the English batsman, may have been Barrington collided with the australian bowler and was knocked over, he was yards out of his ground when Grout received the ball from the fielder and could easily have knocked the bails off but didn't, proper sportsmanship in those days.
|
|
By:
Aussies now 1.62 to win....wonder if the faithful are lumping on?
|
|
By:
Remember these Aussies have form,Trevor Chappell bowled an under arm pea roller when opposition needed 6 off last ball.
One bounce only now cos of this. |
|
By:
Sportsmanship belongs in the last century for me , fans want to see dog eat dog stuff with nothing asked or given.
That's what modern sport is all about , none of this gentleman nonsense. |
|
By:
Flip flop, England 1.94.
|
|
By:
Agree,and fair play if spotted a flaw in the rules,but then they ll change rules.
Dennis lillees aliminium bat,which is now banned,plus the sandpaper Always seems to be the Aussies. Expect atherton with the soil in his pocket. |
|
By:
The "stumping" wasn't in the spirit of the game.
Rather like not giving the ball back in football when your opponent kicks it out so one of your players can receive treatment. |
|
By:
It’s not even in the spirit.
It now makes a farce of every missed bowl.no trust He was stumped,but he wasn’t accidentally out of his crease,so they knew it was sneaky. |
|
By:
Yes, it was a disgrace tbh.
Everyone with eyes could see he wasn't try to seek an advantage. |
|
By:
*trying
|
|
By:
I like to see sportsmanship in any game. I think it makes victory even sweeter.
|
|
By:
After sandpapergate,I thought the Aussies agreed to play within the spirit of the game,that lasted long didn’t it.
Warner and smith on the field were at the centre of it. This might be lost in the excitement of the game, |
|
By:
The irony of the situation is that had it not been for the apparent transgression of the spirit of the game principle Stokes wouldn't have been so fired up in unraveling the Aussie lead.
funny ol' game |
|
By:
Suppose we can hardly call them.
Bodyline comes to mind,I suppose we started it.pmsl |
|
By:
Only about 90 years ago
 Bowling bouncers is still a legitimate part of the game albeit not to a legside loaded field. |
|
By:
It was Bairstow’s fault.
The key is that the keeper hadn’t even received the ball back and he was already wandering off. That’s on him but England did not lose this game because of this. |
|
By:
He grounded his foot before wandering off cos it was end of over, hardly his fault.
|
|
By:
ProSniper 02 Jul 23 13:46
Exactly kenny. It's the batsman's responsibility to not be so ****g stupid to wander off without being certain the ball is in fact DEAD. not a cricket fan but..if balls in wkeepers hands and its last ball of over..when is it presumed 'dead'? |
|
By:
He could've grounded his c0ck before wandering off. The point is he left himself open to be taken out - 'LEGALLY'
Law 20.1.2 states that: “The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.” |
|
By:
Should be changed to,when the batter misses the ball and makes no attempt to run,or is off balanced out of his crease.
Similar to the catch,if in control and chooses to walk out of crease then can’t be stumped,same as if caught and in full control of ball. |
|
By:
wasnt that the case? very unsportsmanlike imo
|
|
By:
WK,s do it 4 times an over in one day cricket during a run chase, once theyve done it and batsmen walk out of crease,THE RULES OF THE GAME TAKE OVER
ozzies could have called him back but duckett could have walked off after last nights catch,englands coaches said today it was out in their opinion |
|
By:
According to MCC’s Dead Ball law (law 20),
“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. 20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.” If we apply the listed 20.1.1.1 law to the Bairstow incident, the ball was not dead when Bairstow wandered off his crease as the ball never ‘settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper’. Carey threw the ball immediately after he caught it, and it was Bairstow who prematurely left the crease. And if we apply the 20.1.2 law, again it becomes clear that the ball was not dead since the fielding side clearly did not regard the ball to be dead. There is also another important law that is pertinent: 20.2 Ball finally settled. According to the ‘20.2 Ball finally settled’ law, “Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.” In this case, the third umpire Marais Erasmus clearly concluded that the ball was not settled, and was very much live. This was why Bairstow was (rightly) ruled out. |
|
By:
Both the catch. Start. The stumping bairstow. We’re technically out.
But bairstow was harsher as everyone was in full control. Starc was using his hand to break his fall,and was silly to drag the ball on the ground within the catch. Difference is,umpire pulled starc,not England,the Aussies were crafty knowingly crafty. It is a form of cheating,the game would become unplayable if after every ball batters have to get clarification if ball is dead.it’s taken on trust,they conned bairstow. |
|
By:
walofs
|