I don't think it's up to the batsman to declare the ball dead. Carey's throw was immediate, whatever Bairstow intended and I'm damn sure that, had Carey missed, Bairstow and Stokes would have run the overthrows.
The hysteria over this (and the antics in the Long Room) strikes me as hypocrisy.
I'm very surprised to find myself supporting Broad on a "moral" issue! The umpires had both walked off and they needed the 3rd to check it as neither were watching r ball. Just required the active umpire to call "over" and this would never have been a thing. Cummins missed a huge opportunity to do the right thing here, but this was probably a plan from the Aussies for the end of an over and no accident.eternal admiration for Adam Gilchrist who walked when given not out in a WC semi (they still won). I'd like to quote four time Olympic gold medalist sailor Paul Elvstrom here "you haven't won if you've lost the respect of your peers".
Pity this overshadowed that incredible Stokes knock.
It's interesting, Steven, that so little (if anything) was made of the standing umpires' reluctance to make a call. It was clear from their actions and movements that they had 'moved on' to the next over and, I believe, they were 'caught out' by Carey's entirely legitimate stumping attempt. Braver umpires, pre-DRS, might have been inclined to say 'no, pal, it was the last ball of the over, sorry.' But there are 32 TV cameras these days and international umpires are, contrary to popular belief, very well paid and keen to stay in work.
Let’s hope that this sane viewpoint lowers the temperature and you so correctly point out that this will always be justified for a particular circumstance. Application of the laws at the end of the day is in the hands of the match officials. Another excellent read. Thanks Neil
I have to disagree on the point that both sides have a point here. Leaving aside for a moment the breathtaking hypocrisy of some of the England team about playing fair, there simply isn't a point.
That's because the laws don't require a player to be trying to gain some kind of advantage to fall foul of them. A bowler who bowls a wide or a no-ball generally isn't trying to gain an advantage; nor is a fielding side whose helmet placed in the field is hit and therefore concedes penalty runs. Nor is a batter who is stumped because they overbalance facing a slow bowler.
The only situation I can think of where there is a moral right to be asserted even if the batter is run out or stumped is if their being out of their ground is actively caused (intentionally or otherwise) by the fielding side, as when there is a collision between batter and bowler.
England really would be better advised to shut up about this--especially if they don't intend to withdraw the next appeal one of their fielders makes for a run-out of a batter who's forgotten to run their bat in! And I think Dave Coventry's point about running overthrows is very well made.
As an aside Neil, I don't understand the point about run-outs requiring the batter to be attempting a run. The laws seem pretty clear to me that this is entirely irrelevant. Or have I missed the point you were making?
Just in reference to your understanding of club cricket in Australia; I’m not sure if you have watched “Can You cricket” on YouTube. As an Australian watching that, I’m quite jealous of the rather sedate attitude of the bowling teams in England. While there is obviously a spectrum here too, the average amount of chat you get down here is both larger in volume and more pointed in design. The more extreme of teams are downright nasty.
I don't think it's up to the batsman to declare the ball dead. Carey's throw was immediate, whatever Bairstow intended and I'm damn sure that, had Carey missed, Bairstow and Stokes would have run the overthrows.
The hysteria over this (and the antics in the Long Room) strikes me as hypocrisy.
...and in fact the laws are absolutely clear on that point: one side cannot unilaterally declare the ball dead.
The spirit of cricket diminishes in proportion to the importance of the match.
I like that very much, Neil. The head of the nail has been squarely hit!
I'm very surprised to find myself supporting Broad on a "moral" issue! The umpires had both walked off and they needed the 3rd to check it as neither were watching r ball. Just required the active umpire to call "over" and this would never have been a thing. Cummins missed a huge opportunity to do the right thing here, but this was probably a plan from the Aussies for the end of an over and no accident.eternal admiration for Adam Gilchrist who walked when given not out in a WC semi (they still won). I'd like to quote four time Olympic gold medalist sailor Paul Elvstrom here "you haven't won if you've lost the respect of your peers".
Pity this overshadowed that incredible Stokes knock.
It's interesting, Steven, that so little (if anything) was made of the standing umpires' reluctance to make a call. It was clear from their actions and movements that they had 'moved on' to the next over and, I believe, they were 'caught out' by Carey's entirely legitimate stumping attempt. Braver umpires, pre-DRS, might have been inclined to say 'no, pal, it was the last ball of the over, sorry.' But there are 32 TV cameras these days and international umpires are, contrary to popular belief, very well paid and keen to stay in work.
Let’s hope that this sane viewpoint lowers the temperature and you so correctly point out that this will always be justified for a particular circumstance. Application of the laws at the end of the day is in the hands of the match officials. Another excellent read. Thanks Neil
I have to disagree on the point that both sides have a point here. Leaving aside for a moment the breathtaking hypocrisy of some of the England team about playing fair, there simply isn't a point.
That's because the laws don't require a player to be trying to gain some kind of advantage to fall foul of them. A bowler who bowls a wide or a no-ball generally isn't trying to gain an advantage; nor is a fielding side whose helmet placed in the field is hit and therefore concedes penalty runs. Nor is a batter who is stumped because they overbalance facing a slow bowler.
The only situation I can think of where there is a moral right to be asserted even if the batter is run out or stumped is if their being out of their ground is actively caused (intentionally or otherwise) by the fielding side, as when there is a collision between batter and bowler.
England really would be better advised to shut up about this--especially if they don't intend to withdraw the next appeal one of their fielders makes for a run-out of a batter who's forgotten to run their bat in! And I think Dave Coventry's point about running overthrows is very well made.
As an aside Neil, I don't understand the point about run-outs requiring the batter to be attempting a run. The laws seem pretty clear to me that this is entirely irrelevant. Or have I missed the point you were making?
Just in reference to your understanding of club cricket in Australia; I’m not sure if you have watched “Can You cricket” on YouTube. As an Australian watching that, I’m quite jealous of the rather sedate attitude of the bowling teams in England. While there is obviously a spectrum here too, the average amount of chat you get down here is both larger in volume and more pointed in design. The more extreme of teams are downright nasty.
Thanks for a great article.