Bill Walker
Well-Known Member
Makes those honorable gentlemen members in the long room a bit hypocritical :)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cricket Thread
- Thread starter Gabriel
- Start date
cleavers
Moderator
Same.I’m more annoyed at Bairstow than any of the Australians.
Stephen230
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 7,532
- Team supported
- MCFC
I actually think that’s a fair reason tbh. There’s a difference between a mankad or stumping someone that’s taking guard outside the crease to someone that’s re-marked his spot and then moved outside of the crease after the ball has been bowled and caught by the wicket keeper - the difference being there’s no advantage at all being sought by the batsman.
It’s all subjective and I get people that think it was fine. All on the individual and how much they care about sportsmanship though.
Personally I’ve got no issue with it anyway and think it’s a mile away from a Mankad, which I am a bit conflicted on.
By definition no stumpings are ever when a batsman is trying to take a run, or gain an advantage if you like.
I don’t see any difference morally between what happened today and a batsman losing his balance and accidentally coming out of his crease to a spinner and been stumped. Which no one would have a problem with.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,993
Personally I’ve got no issue with it anyway and think it’s a mile away from a Mankad, which I am a bit conflicted on.
By definition no stumpings are ever when a batsman is trying to take a run, or gain an advantage if you like.
I don’t see any difference morally between what happened today and a batsman losing his balance and accidentally coming out of his crease to a spinner and been stumped. Which no one would have a problem with.
Personally I think it’s worse than a mankad. I’d disagree with the latter too as that’s still happening in the process of taking, or trying to take, a shot.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,065
Clearly the England players don’t either
The fact you can’t understand the difference between all of those is on you.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,065
“Abused” - oh come off it.Yeah, I'm torn as well must admit.
But like you I probably would've loved it if it happened to Smith :)
I didn't agree with the team getting abused in the long room though. Thought that was a bit off tbh. No rules were broken and players don't make those rules. I am torn though.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,065
Exactly.Personally I think it’s worse than a mankad. I’d disagree with the latter too as that’s still happening in the process of taking, or trying to take, a shot.
Bairstow wasn’t seeking any advantage, tapped his foot in and walked down the wicket to do his gardening and talk to his partner. The wicket umpire was already looking down and handing back Green’s hat. That’s completely different to a mankad or someone getting stumped moving down the wicket to the bounce of the ball.
Clearly the England players don’t either
Hypocrisy comes naturally to some.
My personal view on the two divisive incidents:
Starc - catch
Bairstow - not out
Neither of the decisions given by the 3rd umpire pass the pub test. Starc was in control of the catch. Bairstow had touched his foot down in the crease before then walking up the pitch. Both decisions were made on a “technicality”.
I said to a mate with the Starc one that it’s like a VAR decision in football. 3rd umpires Interpretation of control. Then we have some in media and elsewhere arguing why it was given and justifying it because technically he didn’t control it. One day later and we end up with a similar interpretation of another law and literal application. It’s absolute bobbins.
I do wonder if the Bairstow incident happens if the Starc one doesn’t. The umpire has done himself no favours. Having made the “technical” call on the Starc one he then had to make the technical call on the Bairstow one.
Starc - catch
Bairstow - not out
Neither of the decisions given by the 3rd umpire pass the pub test. Starc was in control of the catch. Bairstow had touched his foot down in the crease before then walking up the pitch. Both decisions were made on a “technicality”.
I said to a mate with the Starc one that it’s like a VAR decision in football. 3rd umpires Interpretation of control. Then we have some in media and elsewhere arguing why it was given and justifying it because technically he didn’t control it. One day later and we end up with a similar interpretation of another law and literal application. It’s absolute bobbins.
I do wonder if the Bairstow incident happens if the Starc one doesn’t. The umpire has done himself no favours. Having made the “technical” call on the Starc one he then had to make the technical call on the Bairstow one.
goalmole
Well-Known Member
Cricket ceased to be different a long time ago with all the ball tampering, match fixing and other associated scandals we've had over the years.It’s not football though is it? We all know footballers are cheating, diving pricks. Cricket is meant to be a bit different. Like rugby. Looks like it’s just the egg chasers left with any dignity left
Professional sport is what it is and no nation is whiter than white in this regard.
As long as people are playing the game within the laws and rules should be good enough for anyone.
Anything else seems to be sour grapes.