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:
[ This image is no longer available. ]
|
|
By:
What the batsman does totally dictates whether the ball is dead or not, not what the keeper does
The batsman could stay in his crease all night, and based on him not moving an argument could be made that he might be about to. Bairstow ducked yet another bouncer, the ball went nowhere near any part of him that would have resulted in a catch, he implied by his motion he was declaring he was in his crease and assumed everyone else agreed. It’s only the assumption that was wrong, no other gain was made nor attempted, it’s pure tedious to argue because the keeper might want to wait to see if he will try a run when clearly he showed his intention was not to. |
|
By:
Broady is quality a character of the game.
|
|
By:
Dusty, there's an interesting piece by Glen McGrath on the BBC Sport website which addresses your exact point - he argues that Bairstow acted like he owned the game and, essentially, got what he deserved. Basically, he says England having been playing with a much too casual attitude, and not respecting the game.
Also interesting comments from Simon Taufel reported on Cricinfo. |
|
By:
I don’t disagree, Bairstow was sloppy based on the continued weight of proceedings for what people assume will happen.
But McGrath didn’t paint himself in glory when he contested ‘every catch ever made needs looking at’ as a result of Starc grounding that catch. Does he want ex players to come out of retirement and replay every game ever played? |
|
By:
Think that would have been said tongue-in-cheek tbf dusty , not to be taken literally by any means.
|
|
By:
It dictates it only from a biased POV. If there's a touch of ambiguity about when a ball is dead, then BOTH sides should be respecting a reasonable lapse.
|
|
By:
As strontium said, the keeper didn’t throw the ball back because he thought he might run or had left the crease, Bairstow was in the crease when he threw it back
He threw it because he saw Bairstow previously walk out the crease while not running Therefore it was pure opportunism, and the chance was available for Cummings to disparate the way the game now looks stupid, but he didn’t because he was desperate. |
|
By:
Dissipate
|
|
By:
Rather than analysing this incident, watch back a whole days test match play and count up how many incidents occur where the keeper "could" do the exact same thing, I don't know obviously but I'd guess there would be several times where it could happen.
Then ask yourself why it doesn't. |
|
By:
This assumes that the opponent wants to play by pu$$y rules. e.g. when I make an ERROR grave enough for you to punish me, don't capitalise on it due to non-existent "gentlemanly" laws.
|
|
By:
As i said, there was no reason to assume the ball was still in play, there was no opportunity to score, only one for the keeper to chance his arm and make subjective questions of what is live or dead make the whole game look daft.
But let’s not forget what this ‘desperation to win’ actually looks like It’s been said about the sandpaper and Steve smith, also a desperate act to win….but what isn’t often remembered is the fact he lied about it about 4 times. On one occasion saying it was sand or something in his picket and a bit of tape It wasn’t, it was sandpaper, a contrived act. |
|
By:
Aussies calling stokes a crybaby is a bit rich after Smith's snivelling pathetic attempt to gain a bit of sympathy.
 |
|
By:
Baz ball has improved England massively.
It still needs to be refined, but overall I'd argue it has to stay. India might be one major refinement, but hey. |
|
By:
Aussies calling stokes a crybaby is a bit rich after the grounded catch
the night before, that surely was the trigger for the cheating aussie stumping. |
|
By:
Harking back to the past about a clear breach of the rules doesn't make this incident any more "damning". Everyone hopefully knows where the lines are now. If you move from your crease quicker than Usain Bolt(either through ERROR, arrogance, or the comfort of BS "gentlemanly" law) you leave your wicket exposed for any side willing to punish you for it.
BAMOS! |
|
By:
Glenn mcgrath thinks warner should be allowed to
captain teams, so might not have the strongest of moral compasses. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion. |
|
By:
Yep sniper all Australian games will
feature the chance of a stumping after every ball. Elsewhere hopefully the game moves on more quickly. |
|
By:
Harking back?
You been referring to Broady not walking, that was from a comment years ago. Not even comparable to putting sandpaper in your pocket with intent Then when asked by the umpire if he just put something down his pants says no Then yes but it was just tape Then it wasn’t tape it was just sand in his pocket Then it wasn’t it was sandpaper That is about a character reference to determine exactly what is in the minds of those wanting to win at all cost |
|
By:
Harking back to the incident of sand paper
that was supposed to wipe out sledging and treat game with due respect moving forward. Now we see intent of aussie cheating at all costs. And mcgrath wheeled out when he wants the cheats pardoned |
|
By:
McGrath was one of the greatest players of all time, and played in arguably the greatest team. Even if you don't agree with him his insights are interesting, especially when it comes to things like players' attitudes.
|
|
By:
He's a great commentator.
I've said that many times, he's one of the best around in any sport. I think he lacks a moral compass on aussie cheating wanting warner ban lifted. So maybe not the guy to follow on this occasion |
|
By:
Broad/Foakes(also years ago) is relevant to this incident given the hypocrisy in question over "gentlemanly" hogwash. When absolution is obviously unattainable, why bother worrying about anything other than playing by the rules. That's all the Aussies did here. That's why they were seen mocking those stuffed shirts during their stroll through the long room as they were coming under attack with all sorts of "cheat" accusations. Instead of "regretting" their decision to out Bairstow's ERROR, this was confirmation they nailed it.
|
|
By:
Yeah, the sandpaper redemption is stumped.
Delicious irony. Same old aussies |
|
By:
You don’t want to go down that route regarding whether the batter thinks he hit it or not
Otherwise you’d have to call every referral that a batsman makes and gets wrong. Broady might have thought he hit it, but until he is definitively shown to have the best option is to wait. |
|
By:
Come on dusty, he already says he "knew" he'd hit it. And why wouldn't he? aliens from OS could see+HEAR he hit the bitch. Listen to bumble..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHhZb-cBKwc |
|
By:
It doesn’t detract from the fact you are arguing about the importance of whether he did know or not, when countless batters want clarification of if they did hit a catch, or didn’t hit an LBW and get it wrong
Not many put sandpaper in their pocket for the single act of cheating then lie repeatedly about it after each question after getting caught |
|
By:
How many Aussies have been given out on DRS
caught behind having not walked? Must be loads, but it's not even the same thing. Almost impossible to nick ball and not know it. |
|
By:
Bit rich singling out a bowler for not walking, when ponting regularly declared he wouldn’t walk and he was a designated batter.
|
|
By:
Not many are as desperate to win. Either way, nobody is giving a pass to cheating. Any person/side caught doing something illegal in any sport must rightfully suffer the consequences of that. The aussies were punished for those sins. Many actually believe too severely(Including many English)
Do they not deserve to move on? It's like someone committing a non deadly crime and after serving jail time they are always reminded of the bad they did in the past, with their present&future being condemned because of it. It just doesn't make sense. |
|
By:
It’s you who attempts to bring Broady into it as an example of non sportsmanship….when the Aussies did that too, but with greater impact
They will face the p1shed up yorkie in the morning |
|
By:
Yes plenty of current team around sand paper.
Shane Warne, banned himself for cheating, thought the sandpaper was covered up to save some of the others involved. Move on, yep, but not by cheating. |
|
By:
The issue with Broad, for me, is that on Tuesday he was gloating on the BBC about not having walked/got away with hitting it to slip off the face of the bat, then on Sunday he is condemning the Aussies for being unsporting. The players did not act outside the laws in either case, but Broad's reaction on Sunday was gross hypocrisy.
|
|
By:
every single member of that team and the management knew about the sandpaper.however,cowardice prevented them from admitting and owning up.
|
|
By:
I'm sure the Yorkshire crowd will take
cheating into account when formulating chants. All good light hearted fun. |
|
By:
dusty, the point is I'M not calling for standards to be kept outwith playing by the rules. Play hard and play by the rules. That's all that's needed for any sport. Introducing certain "etiquette" and unwritten poppycock laws only leads to an almost certain level of hypocrisy once BOTH sides fail to adhere to these "moral" standards.
|
|
By:
Yes, except as shown all the defensive arguments made against England were also committed by the Aussies but they went well beyond even those, which suggests a mentality of cheating.
Referring to one of your earlier questions about forgiveness; no, while a player still plays it never gets truly forgiven because never can you believe the intent to cheat has diminished just because they got caught. Atherton had a cloud over him for the rest of his career. Ok, now he commentates it’s largely forgotten what he did with the sweet in his pocket rubbing it’s residue onto the ball through his spit, but the opposition never forgot it I’ll bet you that. |
|
By:
Just as when opponents who played SA after cronje, or who played Pakistan after spot fixes. It’s always there it stands out.
|
|
By:
Btw
Having just seen it again (the Bairstow stumping) it is utter bs to say that both umpires didn’t consider that ball dead. If they didn’t, then why did both take their eyes off the ball and start the procedure of closing the over? Square leg looked away and reached for his (light meter?)-whatever he was fiddling with. Bowling umpire looked away and started to take stuff out his pocket. If the ball was still live then why arn’t they watching the game? |
|
By:
Blimey
Brad Hogg just said my very point….take a bow Brad Hogg |