Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
England Cricket 2023
Comments
-
Shame really. Right or wrong it just kills any entertainment.2
-
Carey is a brilliant thinker.
Moves down the leg side to catch Duckett
Throws down the stumps to get rid of Bairstow.3 -
If only we had such a skilled wicketkeeper....golfaddick said:Carey is a brilliant thinker.
Moves down the leg side to catch Duckett
Throws down the stumps to get rid of Bairstow.0 -
That bairstow wicket sums up england in the series0
-
You think ‘brilliant thinker’ I think ‘snide’golfaddick said:Carey is a brilliant thinker.
Moves down the leg side to catch Duckett
Throws down the stumps to get rid of Bairstow.8 -
Poor sportsmanship. Australians showing their colours. Can’t get blokes out fairly so resort to throwing down the stumps when the ball is effectively but not technically dead.8
-
Sums up that you have to be thinking ALL the time. Both as a batsman ans as a fielder. Be switched on 100% of the time.AdTheAddicK said:That bairstow wicket sums up england in the series1 -
It’s just ruined the rest of the day, hostile atmosphere and that will just mar their likely win.3
-
Bairstow s fault entirely.
Can't blame the keeper as he was throwing the ball instinctively.1 -
Out for me Baristow outdone there.
Carey was still in motion and never stopped with ball in hand to get it back.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Yesterday it was rules (laws) are rules but now we don't want to play by the rules.1
-
Daft thing is they'll have won anyway, could have looked magnanimous etc and still won.1
-
But what if bairstow shouted "in" back garden stylecarly burn said:Out for me Baristow outdone there.
Carey was still in motion and never stopped with ball in hand to get it back.4 -
Look out for a mankad. Wouldn’t put it past them.Callumcafc said:Poor sportsmanship. Australians showing their colours. Can’t get blokes out fairly so resort to throwing down the stumps when the ball is effectively but not technically dead.3 -
2 -
Could have withdrawn appeal. They should hang their heads in shame at such poor sportsmanship. A decision they'll come to regret, but not today. Has lords ever been as noisy?1
-
no one has actually explained on here or the tv when a ball goes ‘dead’.If it’s to do with the wicket keeper movement why did they only show side angle of the stumps on the analysis? With no sign of wicket keeper?0
-
There is no doubt that it was within the Laws of the game because the ball was not dead. The positioning of the keeper is irrelevant to theses questions but I would ask, given the fact that Carey actually threw the ball before Bairstow moved, are:
(1) If Carey had been standing up to the stumps and taken the ball, would Bairstow have walked out of his crease like that or waited until he had released the ball to another fielder or "over" had been called?
(2) Remember Bairstow is a keeper himself and had he been standing up to Carey, would he have taken the bails off if Carey had left the crease in the same way?0 -
Shame that last one didn't catch him between the legs, the Aussie prick2
-
Yes and yes but you are missing point 3Addick Addict said:There is no doubt that it was within the Laws of the game because the ball was not dead. The positioning of the keeper is irrelevant to theses questions but I would ask, given the fact that Carey actually threw the ball before Bairstow moved, are:
(1) If Carey had been standing up to the stumps and taken the ball, would Bairstow have walked out of his crease like that or waited until he had released the ball to another fielder or "over" had been called?
(2) Remember Bairstow is a keeper himself and had he been standing up to Carey, would he have taken the bails off if Carey had left the crease in the same way?
(3) it happened against us and not by us so we are the victims 😂1 - Sponsored links:
-
This is the definition:suzisausage said:no one has actually explained on here or the tv when a ball goes ‘dead’.If it’s to do with the wicket keeper movement why did they only show side angle of the stumps on the analysis? With no sign of wicket keeper?
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.
Ordinarily this would be when say the keeper throws the ball to another fielder but, as this was the final ball of the over, it would have been once the Umpire called "over".
As Atherton says, it was dozy cricket from Bairstow. You can't just walk out of your crease once a keeper has caught the ball.0 -
I’d like to see a replay of what the umpire was doing immediately after the ball went through to Carey. It looked as though Bairstow looked up at him and the umpire moved towards bowler taking the bowlers hat/glasses off. If that was the case should the umpire have intervened before it went to tv umpire?1
-
Thanks. I heard atherton a mo ago. Never knew the umpire spoke. (Calling ‘over’)Addick Addict said:
This is the definition:suzisausage said:no one has actually explained on here or the tv when a ball goes ‘dead’.If it’s to do with the wicket keeper movement why did they only show side angle of the stumps on the analysis? With no sign of wicket keeper?
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.
Ordinarily this would be when say the keeper throws the ball to another fielder but, as this was the final ball of the over, it would have been once the Umpire called "over".
As Atherton says, it was dozy cricket from Bairstow. You can't just walk out of your crease once a keeper has caught the ball.1 -
I don't know the answer to that one but as the replays showed of all the previous balls in that over, Bairstow was wandering out after every ball without looking at whether Carrey has released the ballAndyessgee90 said:I’d like to see a replay of what the umpire was doing immediately after the ball went through to Carey. It looked as though Bairstow looked up at him and the umpire moved towards bowler taking the bowlers hat/glasses off. If that was the case should the umpire have intervened before it went to tv umpire?0 -
Come on Stokes. Win it for us now.0
-
This is unreal from Stokes, I’m really not sure if he can but if he can win this for us again, what a player.1
-
The one thing that is certain is that all of this has made Broad even more determined not to give his wicket up.2
-
I have said it before Stokes isnt a great batsman, he is a very good batsman capable of great things.0
-
The umpires' decision was wrong. Bairstow was not attempting a run. The wicket was broken by the wicket keeper, without an intervention from any other fielder.
According to Law 39.1 therefore, he was out, stumped0
