The Ashes: Australia in England 16th Jun - 31 July

[sussexpob]

most will say it's over once the keeper has it and nobody attempting to run.

Seeing as though a stumping by pure definition is a dismissal initiated solely by the wicket keeper, and only applies to batsman not attempting a run, such an interpretation would invalidate the existence of the dismissal and lead to the possibility of batsman trying to hit a bowler 8 yards out of his crease being not out.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Mitch2 still gets the ball down quickly for such a mature man.

What happened to spidercam?

And it feels like a while since I saw stumpcam.

[sussexpob]

Similarities to Bell and India.

Different, because one could argue Bell should not have been given out. The rule says if the fielding side and batter ceased to believe the ball is in play, the umpire should rule dead ball if its clear. Of course, what does the "fielding side" mean in that is anyone's guess and leads to a lot of different interpretations, but for me a single fielder near the ball acting like its gone for 4 would be clear enough, as he's the only person in the field everyone is watching. Kumar did say he thought it had gone for 4, hence the lack of effort getting it back.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Bairstow puts the bat in the crease, glances towards the keeper with the bat back in the crease, then leaves to talk to his fellow bat. I'm surprised Cummins didn't withdraw the appeal. Surely lots of sport is facilitated on the nod.

Sorry, he sticks his foot behind the crease acting out that he claimed his ground. You see it from the side on camera.

[sussexpob]

Bairstow puts the bat in the crease, glances towards the keeper with the bat back in the crease, then leaves to talk to his fellow bat. I'm surprised Cummins didn't withdraw the appeal. Surely lots of sport is facilitated on the nod.

Sorry, he sticks his foot behind the crease acting out that he claimed his ground. You see it from the side on camera.

But it's not like Carey pauses. He instantly gathers and throws it. If Carey has missed and the ball went past the bowler, I'd give you odds of 99.9 percent Jonny don't ignore the overthrow runs on offer.

I wonder how much goodwill from the Aussies eroded in the first test. Crawley hit one and didn't walk, the English press spent 5 days mocking their tactics, Robbo decided to go full idiot, and then the captain comes out and says he thought England claimed some moral victory because they were more entertaining.

I think it's likely at that point Australia though balls to this lot. In fact, I actually said don't kick the wasp nest of Aussie crciket at the time, because they are better than anyone at playing around the margins. And low and behold, you get an incident like this

[Slipstream]

Potts and Ahmed have been released from the squad. We now have a 15 man squad for the 3rd Test. Think Lawrence will replace Pope, how can you have a player who can't throw. I would rather Foakes came in for Pope and improve the wicketkeeping. There is little difference in the batting in the cc 44.63 and 43.60, both with 2 100s. Foakes wouldn't have left his crease before the over is completed or dropped catches.

I would imagine the bowlers will be Broad, Tongue, Wood, Stokes and Ali.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I had a little comment because I saw the Bell comparison that Ginger made, which I don't think is all that similar. But otherwise, I wouldn't have commented. Feelings have got too heated.

I think cricket is often run by convention as much as rules, which is why we get these differences of etiquette. It's a sport of manners. I'd be surprised if both sides aren't feeling a bit ashamed by now.

But after all that, I think Cummins should have withdrawn his appeal. Because JB played his part in showing he had made his ground. Not though because now the series will be played out in an atmosphere of moronic indignation, which it inevitably will. I don't expect wisdom, just good sportsmanship. I guess if it happens again, Cummins will choose differently.

[bigfluffylemon]

I'm disappointed, but I wasn't really expecting it to be as close as it was - hats off to Stokes for making a good game of it. The writing has been on the wall since day 3. At one point in the morning session winviz had England as high as 18% to win, which I thought was bonkers - from 140/4 chasing 370 in the last innings - that's a 1-2% job max. They're saying nearly 1 in 5 times England win from that position? History says no...

Bairstow's dismissal - well, the right decision was made, the ball wasn't dead, but like with the Starc catch yesterday claiming it after it was clearly grounded, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Sure, Starc is not the first and won't be the last to claim an iffy catch, and the right decision won out, but the immediate celebration after he must have known it was grounded and at least deserved double checking didn't ring well to me. And running Bairstow out in that way was certainly not the particularly sporting way to do it, although legal. Australia would have won anyway.

But really, that's all a distraction. England did not deserve to win that match, and the margin was probably closer than most expected. Australia just outperformed England with planning, tactics, and most importantly, execution. From unnecessary dismissals, dropped catches, ropey selection, England were the architects of their own downfall. One particularly galling stat is that England conceded 74 extras in this game. 74! Even if you take off leg byes (which aren't really preventable, unless you consider they're a result of bad line bowling), there were still 52 wides, no balls and byes, which is greater than the Australian margin of victory. That's unforgivable sloppiness.

I normally avoid the cesspool of the BBC comments section, but one commentator summed it up quite well. England are saying we're here to entertain, change the way the game is played, be true to ourselves, etc. Australia are saying we're here to win, not make friends. And that's showing in the scoreline. No one will remember in 5 years that there were some minor dismissal controversies. They will remember that England lost a test match because Australia outplayed them.

[bigfluffylemon]

Bairstow puts the bat in the crease, glances towards the keeper with the bat back in the crease, then leaves to talk to his fellow bat. I'm surprised Cummins didn't withdraw the appeal. Surely lots of sport is facilitated on the nod.

Sorry, he sticks his foot behind the crease acting out that he claimed his ground. You see it from the side on camera.

But it's not like Carey pauses. He instantly gathers and throws it. If Carey has missed and the ball went past the bowler, I'd give you odds of 99.9 percent Jonny don't ignore the overthrow runs on offer.

Well, exactly. Watch it frame by frame and Bairstow wasn't even fully out of his crease before Carey let go. He doesn't take it, hold on and wait for Bairstow to wander off then take the bails off. At no point does it look like the Australians consider the ball dead. I can only assume that Carey had spotted that Bairstow was in the habit of wandering off quite quickly after playing no stroke, and decided to take an opportunity to exploit it. I'm not a particular fan, but ultimately it was Bairstow's own fault for wandering out of his crease without confirming the ball was dead. He didn't even look behind him.

[bigfluffylemon]

Also, disgusting behaviour from the fans in the long room. MCC members too!

[Gingerfinch]

most will say it's over once the keeper has it and nobody attempting to run.

Seeing as though a stumping by pure definition is a dismissal initiated solely by the wicket keeper, and only applies to batsman not attempting a run, such an interpretation would invalidate the existence of the dismissal and lead to the possibility of batsman trying to hit a bowler 8 yards out of his crease being not out.

Was not a stumping though.

[sussexpob]

Was not a stumping though.

It has been given as a stumping officially (which it should, because hes not attempting a run). Green gets a wicket for the ball...

[bigfluffylemon]

The amount of airtime this is getting makes me think that England are doing it deliberately to a) confect anger and rile up the crowds at the next game and b) divert attention (successfully) away from all the myriad reasons they were behind in that game and were going to lose either way. McCullum's comments about not having a post series beer, for example, are just making England look like a bunch of petulant bad losers, which is supposed to be the opposite of their current ethos. They must know how it's making them come across, so I can only assume it's deliberate.

It's not as if McCullum doesn't have previous
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/sri ... -scorecard

Worst thing ever seen on a cricket field? Give me a break.

[Gingerfinch]

Was not a stumping though.

It has been given as a stumping officially (which it should, because hes not attempting a run). Green gets a wicket for the ball...

Ok fair enough. I suppose I'm looking from it from a village green stand point. The batsman wasn't trying to gain an advantage (unlike mankad) and didn't fall out of his crease, so I would have called him back. BUT this is professional sport.

[sussexpob]

Sure, Starc is not the first and won't be the last to claim an iffy catch, and the right decision won out, but the immediate celebration after he must have known it was grounded and at least deserved double checking didn't ring well to me

I think its harsh to accuse Starc of dishonesty, because I think a lot of cricket experts and fans alike seem to be in agreement that it was/should be a catch, and I am sympathetic to that argument. I would like for that to go to Starc, I think he had control and clearly caught the ball in the true meaning of what a catch should be considered, he grounds it only because he wants to safely break his fall rather than break his shoulder going into the turf body first... however, what I like isn't the rules of cricket, and I think the rules in this case mean the umpire got the call right and couldn't give it out.

The rules aren't really that clear, and do legislate that a lot of catches should be given not out when they are clear. Say for instance a wicket keeper running back to a top edge skied into the atmosphere.... if he catches it clean, takes two steps, throws it into the air to celebrate... well, the rules according to my interpretation deem that a drop, because he would in theory have to come to a complete stop/decelerate to no longer be running, to have regained "complete control of his movements". The speed and direction of his running is maintained do not satisfy that, but who wants to see batsman reviewing those catches and asking the umpire if the wicket-keeper regained control? No one. I really do wonder if we will see an appeal in this series based on that, and if so, the umpire will have to overturn the wicket. Not good for the game.

Personally, I think the NFL have it right (even if its taken decades to get the rule right). It basically differentiates between standing and moving catches, by requiring something call a "football move" to be initiated. The idea is that when a player goes to take a catch, if he gains possession of the ball in the phase of trying to catch it and maintains it throughout, when he next completes a footballing move( which can be anything, a step, turn, jump, hitting the ground, etc) the phase of the catch ends, and if he takes one step then drops the ball, it doesn't matter, because the catch is established once the player is in a position to make a move.

In a cricketing sense, that would mean a player in the slips taking a flying aerial catch and hitting the ground, drops the ball if it grounds at any stage because he's not making any move. But for catches like Starc, once he has possession of the ball and takes another 1-2 steps, its a catch and the ball becomes dead/dismissal achieved before the grounding.