Nah we're not the only ones just we remember ours. Mankading is a thing in Cricket for a reason and always controversial when it happens not matter the side.
Like a lot of stuff from England, it's based around unwritten rules and a gentlemen's agreement to play in good spirit. Basically cricket sees itself as a "gentleman's" sport. Players should play with respect and fairly. Most batters at the non-strikers end leave their crease early on both sides and while you can get them out through a mankad, it's consider unsporting. Similar to Bairstow's wicket, almost every batter at some point in their career will have left their crease like that and a could have been gotten out, but most players wouldn't do it as they aren't trying to go for a run or getting an advantage, they are doing it because they believe the over has finished. Therefore it's not considered sporting to take a wicket in this way or as the phrase goes, "that's not cricket".
Yeah except in Baseball its a real thing unlike Cricket where its simply not done. Now my personal opinion is if the non striking batter is backing up and they have left their crease before the bowler has released the ball it should be no run. Wickets are also mire crucial in Cricket to baseball. The mankad also gives the batter no defense they can't react to it like in baseball and get back in if a mankad is attempted. Its why the traditional approach is to warn the player, just about all mankad's occur with no warning. Withing the sport its considered unsporting behaviour because of the value of wickets and you should be trying get striking batsman out not using wits to get the non-striker out on the argument of saving runs which have considerably less value.
The Starc one was odd not seen it come up before should be noted Duckett walked so they were happy to take the catch. I guess he could of retired hurt or something but the umpires called him back.
Until he stops, he's not in control of his own movement. If he'd have put the back of his hand down, it's a catch.
Carey was playing a live ball and for me the key is that he did so without pause. He didn't do anything to mislead Bairstow into thinking that Carey considered the ball to be dead. Quite why Bairstow didn't ground his bat as most batsmen do out of habit before leaving their ground I don't know.
you do get that its exactly this nuanced argument that undermines any argument about the "spirit of the game", the ball travels a couple of meters at a rough right angle to its original flight...its completely in his control for this to happen...you say yourself everyone thought it was a good catch until the umpire sees the replay and calls him back....how is that different to your comment that 23 of 24 players thought the ball was dead (half a dozen aussies appeal so not sure thats true)...i just dont get how anyone can say one is perfectly fine technical implementation of the rules and the other is bad sportsmanship
But he is still falling as is the ball and the ball momentum whilst changed still hits the ground with his hand above it, this isn't rugby grounding the ball is what your trying to not do
. There are plenty of catches that have looked that have been reversed on umpire review, it looks good on first review as most players have present of mind to keep the ball off the ground whilst making a diving catch. Either way it not England's power to keep Duckett out without doing something unprecedented in the game so they can't be accused of bad sportsmanship.He marked the crease with his foot he doesn't have to do anything with his bat but that's be side the point even if he did ground his bat if he immediately left the crease he'd be out. He was definitely being a dozy pillock. Then again you watch Broads theatrics and you realise how often people don't really check if the ball is dead to the letter of the law. Much like the Mankad I wonder how often this would actually happen in a game if teams regularly looked to take advantage.
have to agree to disagree, I would say that if you're going to take the "spirit of the game" stance then should accept they had been lucky with a very technical call re the catch (i would actually say the opposite in that lots of balls have gone to hand and ground at the same time and still been call good) and this is just the other side of the coin, "we got away with that...but didnt get away with his"But he is still falling as is the ball and the ball momentum whilst changed still hits the ground with his hand above it, this isn't rugby grounding the ball is what your trying to not do
The other is about taking advantage of a situation where the batter isn't trying to do anything to gain one. People have been recalled in the past. And I simply don't care enough about it Bairstow was a fool but Australia should of withdrawn but its done now no point in caring England were unlikely to win even if he was recalled. The only thing that's annoying me is false equivalences like the Starc catch or Bairstow trying to do it earlier in the match when Carey was actually batting outside his crease.
He marked the crease with his foot he doesn't have to do anything with his bat but that's be side the point even if he did ground his bat if he immediately left the crease he'd be out. He was definitely being a dozy pillock. Then again you watch Broads theatrics and you realise how often people don't really check if the ball is dead to the letter of the law. Much like the Mankad I wonder how often this would actually happen in a game if teams regularly looked to take advantage.
Alot of stumpings are due to player playing a shot and having ventured out in doing so or lost their balance. In this case Bairstow hasn't done either he's not played the ball ducked. Marked the crease and simply walked out. He's being dozy but he's not actually doing anything that would be considered a normal wicket taking opportunity. Australia are just taking advantage of the laws.
It's just odd to happen at Lords.
the same game
the same game
