There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 279 comments are related to the topic:
Legit stumping is branded "CHEATING"
Legit stumping is branded "CHEATING"
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 279
|
By:
A couple of points. I don't think the Aussies are any better or worse than other cricket nations when it comes to Cricket etiquette over the years, very competitive and very annoying at times but the vast majority of the times they play fair like most sides. If the boot was on the other foot I believe England would have appealed and taken that wicket. Finally the best side over the 5 days most definitely won the match.
Having said all that it doesn't change my opinion that things like what happened today, whilst not being against the rules, are not good for the game and the reaction of the paying fans today show that, regardless of which team does it. On the whole it was brilliant to watch over the 5 days and this series and the new England style of play is breathing real life back into what was a struggling format but will always be the purest and best version of the game. |
|
By:
Regardless of where your allegiances lie it's nonsensical to not admit that it was unsporting.
I'd much rather the Aussies came on and said, yes it was unsporting and we fecking love it. |
|
By:
Duffy your ex england cricket pro's said there was nothing unsporting about it. Are they all nonsensical as well.
|
|
By:
Anyway everyone has a right to their opinion I accept that.
|
|
By:
One word to describe the current Aussie cricket authorities: Sandpaper
|
|
By:
Smith should have been banned for life. His actions were unforgivable.
|
|
By:
Crying like big babies over a legit stumping. You couldn't make it up. For the sad losers who R suggesting it was "unsporting", was it worse that Foakes one? The same level of unsporting filth? Or was that one "clever", "sly fox" like play by that "sneaky" bastard?
FTR Eye don't consider either "unsporting". However, if both are to be judged as such, Foakes' would have to be considered a ton more filthier given that batsman had no intention of leaving the crease, and Foakes slowed his action, waited and then immediately pounced on opportune moment after batsman lost balance.. Where does this "fair play" nonsense begin and where does it end? |
|
By:
They have selected memory this lot ProSniper.
|
|
By:
At the use of sandpaper Pro Sniper!
|
|
By:
Either way it's going to be fun when Carey comes out to bat in the next test
 |
|
By:
cant compare foakes to carey.pathetic bit of whataboutery.clutching at straws now
|
|
By:
MCC own the rules/laws of the game and are the only ones who can change them and then we are supposed to disregard the current rules. Talk about being hypocrites.
|
|
By:
3 MCC thugs have had their membership suspended subject to an investigation. For actually making contact with players. Shameful.
|
|
By:
Lol Try My Best, you're a good windup merchant, I'll give you that.
|
|
By:
As unsporting as it was, I won't argue, it did make great TV.
|
|
By:
That's the pointsy, you can't compare, for 1 is much worse than tother. So the best thing to do is IGNORE, DENY or SWEEP UNDER THE RUG like it doesn't exist. Who needs the inconvenience of facing up to living in bubble full of hypocrisy? certainly not your typical one-eyed moron.
|
|
By:
Bairstow ducked,he didn’t miss it,a hint that the bowl is over.
He then stubbed his foot in the crease,a clear sign he was indictating he was in his crease and for him the ball is dead.then he walked out. He couldn’t have been any clearer in his actions.Corey threw the ball all before this happened,just chancing his arm. He stubbed his foot in crease to clarify he was not out of his ground and was safely behind the crease.before he walked out of crease. The Aussies weren’t switched on,has when Corey threw the ball,bairstow was in his crease,he threw it cos it was the end of the over,so why not.he got lucky in this regard. It’s not Carey’s fault,its the umpires for not overturning it.. On run outs and stumping being in the crease is seen as safety,bairstow highlighted this with his stub. |
|
By:
Its clear from the replay that Carey was just going thru the motions.
Other keepers do it too. Just instinctive. 9 times out of 10 they miss the stumps and nothing ever is said. Cummins in his post match interview just said he put it in the hands of the umpire. So there we have it. Someone else said it. The man in the middle only had to say 'I called Over' and that would have been the end of it. Unfortunately he had to be a dudley do-right and refer it upstairs. Sometimes as an official you have to do the right thing even if you have to ignore the correct procedures. |
|
By:
this whole spirit of the game chatter is nonsense..........the rules are the rules.
look how soccer players behave.........half the game is pretending to be fouled and pretending to be injured. |
|
By:
They make drama out of anything now it's quite sad
He was out the crease before over was called, therefore the ball is live and it's out simple as that |
|
By:
To say it wasn’t premeditated by the Aussies is bs
It’s no different to when the bowler runs in, stops then stumps the non batsman for backing up too far out the crease. Within the laws it’s out, but you hardly see them actually take the bails off, the bowler just threatens it in a gesture to say ‘get back’ The fact they actually went through with it is a sign of desperation, just like both sides (but notoriously was an Aussie concept) of the go to ‘chin music’ bouncers. It’s all too common, seeing bowlers aiming for the head continually is unseemly, remember Hughes was killed in Australia by an Australian. If they want to fight then just fight after ffs. |
|
By:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66082593
|
|
By:
Team England will be given the DVD of the extraordinary SWFC (WAWAW) comeback from 4-0 down in the first semi final play off.
SWFC made history, now England needs to turn F/O nasty |
|
By:
And I thought bodyline was a Britsh invention!
|
|
By:
More deliveries hit the body this last game than in the whole of the ‘body line’ tour.
It was just an invented name. |
|
By:
Further to what I wrote about Wally Grout refusing to run out an English batsman who had collided with a fielder, I looked it up on wiki, the batsman was in fact Fred Titmus not Ken Barrington. Also further to Stuart Broad saying " You'll forever be remembered for that" when he came to bat. "Get your Wally Grout in", became Australian slang for "Get your Shout in" as in round in a pub. Which became "Get your Shout in" here.
Makes you wonder what Carey will become in future. He's a bit of a Lairy Carey" perhaps. |
|
By:
What is the chant from the England fans I keep hearing?
Is it: ‘Same old ****s’ ‘Always cheating’ ? |
|
By:
****s
|
|
By:
Arse
Holes |
|
By:
Just a few observations -
- I don't see how something that is expressly provided for in the laws of the game can be considered "unsporting". - Bairstow himself (unsuccessfully) tried the same trick earlier in the Test (against Labuschagne, I think). - If the keeper had been standing up to the wicket, Bairstow would never have wandered about unless he was sure the ball was dead. This stumping is only controversial because the keeper was standing back, but that's just woolly thinking - conceptually, it's no different. - Why should the batsman be allowed to relax as soon as the ball has passed (but is not dead)? He benefits from that, so Asutralia have every right to keep Bairstow concentrating and focused for longer, i.e. pinned in his ground, to wear down his resources. - This sort of event keeps happening with English players, and it always leads to special pleading. E.g. Charlie Dean being Mankaded against India, Ian Bell wandering out of his ground because he thought the ball had gone for four and getting run out (also against India). Meanwhile, not so long ago, England ran out a New Zealand batsman who had collided with the bowler mid-pitch. England seem to think they have some special entitlement to be treated above and outside the laws of the game. |
|
By:
hilly, AGAIN, the over being DEAD doesn't revolve around Bairstow. He nor any other singular batsman carries the power to indicate a bowl being over. IF such a power existed, it would naturally be in possession of the ATTACKING side. Like I said, had Carey completely halted or even broken his forward momentum from the immediate backward swing then his guilt would be OBVIOUS. And I for one would be calling him a cunnt. But as we know, that's not what happened. What happened was we had the defensive player making an obvious ERROR. An ERROR that he and only he is responsible for. An ERROR that gave his opponent an obvious advantage. An advantage that any opposing player is perfectly within their right to fully capitalize on.
Being in the middle and facing a barrage of vicious balls(+the residue that comes with them) for any lengthy period of time is what makes a good knock. Having the physical skill alongside the mental endurance required to protect your wicket AT ALL TIMES is not easy, and so watching it being achieved is what makes it fascinating. Aside from respecting game rules, you don't owe your opponent jackshit. As a batsman, you owe it to yourself to be as protective over your wicket as can possibly be. Bairstow FAILED miserably in this instance and he paid the price. All this pish about being "ungentlemanly" is ****g laughable in any competitive arena. What's next, holding your opponents hand when he's feeling a bit anxious? Rubbing the sweat off his kisser? Scratching his itchy balls for him? |
|
By:
Good post Strontium , you've probably given an indication as to how the " whingeing " term is still mentioned frequently.
 Proves what the audience wants to see though doesn't it , a guy scores 155 to resurrect a team's chances and it's 2nd news , this gentleman garbage is a nonsense in the modern game , forget nostalgia when players used to shake hands ( and sincerely so ) this is the modern game when the audience wants to see no quarter asked or given and dog eat dog commitment , winning is the most important thing and teams should always play within the rules to achieve the ultimate goal , which is winning , change the rules by all means if that's what's needed but playing within the rules is being professional. This gentlemanly crap and " It's not Cricket " nonsense belongs in the last century and long may it be buried , as for all this putting off kids playing the game and setting a bad example what a load of tripe , they love it. By the way Ben Stokes scored 155 , just in case anyone missed it. Good luck today all As an Ice Hockey fanatic i'll not believe the game of Cricket has gone too far until i see the first punches thrown. |
|
By:
Just a thought. Had the ball gone through Carey's gloves and Bairstow, not watching, had missed it but Stokes saw it and started running would Bairstow have started running as well?
|
|
By:
if it went through his gloves it was in play.
top and bottom of it is,he got lucky.he knew bairstow went walkies,last ball,chanced his arm when bairstow still in crease,bairstow walks,ball hits stumps,out.carey probably shat himself when he realised but couldnt undo it and went along with the outcome.to be fair,most would as he was out,no argument.just a bit micey imo. |
|
By:
"Chanced his arm" the same way (ironically) Bairstow "chanced his" on day tree..
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Broad: "You cheat! That's all you'll be remembered for"..
 |
|
By:
Reckon the only reason Broad runs is that he doesn't like walking.
|
|
By:
Never mind we can still win the Football World Cup in 3026
|
|
By:
The act of throwing down the stumps isn’t the error, how else do you stop somebody leaving the crease, by asking them nicely?
You have to stump them to make the call for then (as should be the case) the captain rescind the call. Both sides have been guilty of opportunism, but I believe stokes when he says he would have rescinded it. There was no overbalancing, not attempt to run, the ball was for all intents and purposes dead, saying there would be any gain except for the bowling side is ridiculous . |