The Johnny Bairstow stumping debate | Vaughany & Tuffers Cricket Club Podcast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2023
- Listen to the full episode here: • Lord’s fallout with Br...
Former Australia bowler Brad Hogg joins Mike, Ben and Phil to discuss the dramatic second Ashes test at Lords and in particular the stumping of Johnny Bairstow which has divided the cricket world
Let us know what you thought of the dismissal below!
#ashes #bairstow #podcast
For 30 days' free access to The Telegraph: www.telegraph.co.uk/cricketclub |
Email: cricketclub@telegraph.co.uk |
If you want more top cricket content why not become a Telegraph subscriber? Listeners to the podcast can go to telegraph.co.uk/cricketclub for their first 30 days completely free of charge!
Telegraph.co.uk and / telegraphtv are websites of The Telegraph, the UK's best-selling quality daily newspaper providing news and analysis on UK and world events, business, sport, lifestyle and culture. - กีฬา
Brad Hogg is incorrect. It was not 3 seconds. It was 0.8 seconds. The Umpires and Bairstow were all sleeping. It was a fair dismissal.
Too right. The wicket keeper did not even know he was going to walk out of his crease. Since he was doing it a bit, he just threw it at the stumps in a split second for a Punt.
They should be talking about how they will win a test.
@@user-mg8tw7yo4f Exactly Mate.
Higgs and embarrassment
Never could stand hog nothing has changed
Brad hogg has spoken against his own country
Just love this conversation !! Former England player defending Aussies and Aussie player supporting England
Agree, the world has clearly gone mad! The only person at fault is Bairstow, stay in your crease. It’s not up to the umpires to tell him to stay in the crease.
I will say the umpires should stay in position until over is called, which they didn’t, that said they didn’t call over, nor could they as Carey caught the ball and threw it in one action.
Correct. This video is good for international relations.
Yeah how wierd
The MCC members booing was in the spirit of the game, - They had too much Gin, Whiskey, Cognac, Vodka, etc etc etc, they were full of spirit.
😂😂😂
So full it overflowed.
There’s zero ambiguity here Benny boy. That conversation is crazy. Now it’s the umpires fault when blokes aimlessly wander out of the crease. Vaughan is the only rational mind on display here
As an aussie I never liked Vaughan as a cricketer because I knew he was a good captain and player. True competitor and very nice to watch bat
As a South African I used to despise Shane Warne but have since realized he's my favourite player of all time by a country mile.
he's talking rubbish here
@@ronoccc I'm just saying 2003 Vaughan was the only player to stand up to the Australian juggernaut that series and 2005 won the urn back. He understands competition
Vaughan the voice of reason - IT WAS OUT - simple as, England fans can keep blaming Cummings but blame your own players for being SO dozzy and believing their own hype!!
Vaughan---Murray Mints
I just noticed ben stokes didnt even get time to tap his bat back in the crease backing up at the other end when the bails came off. Too funny 🤣
I timed Bairstow ducking the ball (above his head) to the moment he began to move from his crease to less than 2 seconds, who thinks the ball is dead in under 2 seconds? Carey threw the ball at the stump in 0.85 seconds after catching it.
Bairstow did not respect the situation or the game enough to even turn around to check the state of play. Poor cricket from Bairstow and sharp keeping from Carey.
Exactly any batsmen with a brain waits 5 seconds in his crease until leaving it
👏
I'm the ball is 'dead', as soon as it hits the keepers hands? Spinners would be short a few wickets. 😅
Pretty much
The umpires error was not watching play until the ball was "dead". They both let themselves get distracted. They cant call "over" until the ball IS dead.
Exactly its why it went to the third umpire because they weren't watching and they knew they hadn't called over
This ^^^. Its amazing how many fans don't understand the absolute basics of the game.
It's an error if they called over... I haven't heard that. I've heard a bit about them moving which is not the same thing. Bairstow wasn't moving because he thought it was over. The test here is if Carey misplayed the ball somehow and there were byes, would (or should) the umpires not score the runs because they "moved". Those jokers in the long room should look at their own club and get the rules tidied up... but fwiw I agree with Hogg. He's not running and he's in control of himself in his crease - but he's just got to look back at the keeper.
‘Until the ball was dead’……..the ball was never dead! Carey caught and threw the ball in one motion.
Carey just unnormalised Bairstows wandering, politely letting him know by lobbing the ball back at his stumps.
I think he got the hint.
The fact he wandered at all is what caused the occasion. Barstow should have had more presence of mind
‘Normalised’ for all time now 😂
@@collectivesartori th-cam.com/video/7fz3QdbU_V0/w-d-xo.html
Vaughan is spot on. These are professional cricketers. It's not the umpires job to advise the batsman on leaving the crease.
So hoggy thinks the exact opposite of the rules in all 3 incidents
@@buffcooch2600 Yeah. Imagine a wrist spinner bowling googly. Totally not in the spirit of the game because the batsman has been "normalised" for the ball to spin the other way! But remember its just Brad Hogg being Brad Hogg. He has always been an idiot.
Hoggy is spot on with his 3rd one though.
@@buffcooch2600 don't compare apples and oranges. Umpires were on a move here
@@Aman-nk5uqget your hand off it. The umpires were not on the move 0.85 seconds after the ball was thrown by Carey
Stokes, as the batter at the other end should have been watching, to alert his batting partner what was happening. Both Bairstow and Stokes were not paying attention and it cost them their batting partnership. Don't blame the umpires or the Australians. The first responsibility of a batter is to protect their wicket.
Stokes was the nearest player to the umpire. Had he called “over” Stokes would have heard him and, as captain, taken it up immediately with the umpire. As it happened Stokes returned to his crease and grounded his bat. He knew the ball wasn’t dead.
Exactly like any batsmen with a brain always does. Tap or ground your bat in the crease until ball is dead and or over is called. Common sense! Keep walking Jonny 😂
I saw that too! What is most disappointing is Stokes in the post match conference. He had the chance to clear the air, instead he fed the usual English whinging and poor sportsmanship. Moreover, he dismissed the Lords behaviour as 'mad'. No Ben, it was shameful, disgusting and not in the spirit of cricket which is what losers always fall back on when they perform badly!
Brad Hogg wants to eliminate the stumping because a batsman has a habit of going walkabout, rightio. Get off the juice son
Tuffers rarely got Ausi wickets so I’m sure he’d have appealed for anything even Waugh middling him to the stands
That’s a bit unfair.. He took 36 in 12 Tests at an average of 38, with a best of 7- 66
@@johnenglish929 that 7/66 was at the oval in a dead runner when the ball was spinning and jumping
Easy @@Ron-pm3qkAshes wickets are never cheap
@@Ron-pm3qk So spinners’ wickets don’t count if the ball is turning or bouncing? That’s a new one on me.
That's one jealous Aussie comment lmao!
The umpire can't call over when both batsmen are out of their crease!
Carey had the ball for 0.8 seconds in his gloves, it was an amazing piece of work. Bairstow tried doing the same to Warner in this test, the difference was - he missed the stumps... Move on cry babies... Well done Vaughany!
Thank goodness for Michael Vaughan - intelligent, objective, honest. I think Hogg and Wright are looking for someone other than Bairstow for ultimate accountability. Blames the Aussies, blame the Umpires. Just blame Bairstow for being the goof, like Starc, who simply should have more wit as a well-paid professional to get it right. Let's face it, those guys have one bloody job to do. I'm speaking as an aussie who was not comfortable with the Steve Smith catch one bit, swallowed the letter of the law when Starc clearly caught the thing, but when it comes to something so black and white like the Bairstow dismissal (which could not have been executed by a keeper any faster), the poms are seriously trying to suggest they would not have done the same. Stokes, Root, Bairstow, Broad have just NO credibility whatsoever but I appreciate getting the crowd wound up might help their cause and deflect from the reality the English team (with a couple of exceptions) need to lift their overall standard from session to session.
Starc's catch - as I used to understand cricketing rule, would be a "not out" as ball touched the ground. But that water was muddied when some people started claiming its fine even if ball touches ground if the catch was "under control" - which is absolutely subjective. With that standard, Starc's one is far more of a catch that Green's (off Gill) ever was. Now I don't even know what the actual rule is.
Absolutely right. It made me laugh whenBroad puts himself forward as some moral exemplar !Also the Starc catch was given not out because he was not in control of his own momentum when the ball was grounded, as the Law clearly states he must be.
Would Bairstow and Stokes have run if Carey had fumbled? Ball was still in play!
To answer your question, if runs had been on during that play, they’d have taken them, no doubt.
Irrelevant
@@jameswest6085 Not irrelevant at all. THE BALL WAS IN PLAY
Great bloody point!
Hypothetical.
Love Michael Vaughan with common sense!
he's talking rubbish
@@ronoccc mate this ben wright fella is saying that the umpires on field should have overturned a decision because a feeling in their head, kept to themselves, should have deemed the ball dead regardless of the laws of the game. He's the one talking rubbish.
@@ronoccc What is your actual reasoning on it ?
@@Rob-fx2dw Michael Vaughan is being a histrionic prat IMHO.
@@cricketerfrench7501 Why?
The ball was still live. He caught it and immediately threw it at the stumps. No umpire can call over in that situation.
I still can’t believe I’m hearing Michael Vaughan defend Australia! The worlds gone friggin mad!!! 😬
@lukemckean6155
just like Brad Hogg is defending England
He is the voice of reason
He isn't defending Australia. He is defending common sense and the rules of cricket. Saying that a person accused of murder shouldn't be thrown in jail because they were accused is not defending a person accused of murder, it's upholding important principles that our society is based on.
He is upholding the Laws of Cricket. It was out. No call backs. Bairstow should know better his is a keeper. He is the one dmnb enough to go walk about without looking then he deserved to be out - and that what it is. If he had looked he would have seen it coming. Its contained in 39.2 and I have seen it done and where the wicket is missed they have taken the run.
The umpire doesn't decide whether the ball is dead or not. It's in the law: the ball is dead when the batting and the fielding teams both consider the ball to no longer be in play.
and even if they did they would say 'over' but these fools r tryna say that the on field umpires should overturn the decision based on a feeling which they kept to themselves smh.
I think the Umpires were so un-switched on, they forgot to call 'over' as they walked in mate. Whole thing is a clusterf*ck of bollocks but has certainly lit up the remaining series 😊👍🏏🏴.
@@charliecoutts3003 the umpires had *just* started to walk, but it's got nothing to do with them. The ball is dead when both teams acknowledge it is out of play. That is the law of cricket. The ball cannot be dead if a keeper immediately throws the ball at the stumps.
No one's talking bout the ups & downs in this 2nd Test match, Ben Stokes' great knock, Smith's century, Duckett's knocks in both innings, etc.. Sad. Just one legal run-out and all media is focussing only on that. It's only about views and not on Cricket.
England may well have won if not for that classic aussie gamesmanship.
If they had a moral it would be lonely
@@henryburton6529 where was gamesmanship when Bairstow did that exact same thing to Head at Edgbaston and to Marnus at Lord's and he never gave them any warnings before doing that but the Aussie batsmen were really care enough to look back
@@Roy3.16 I'll just copy Stokes: Was that at the end of the over?
@@henryburton6529 nope because the 2 on field umpires never called it "Over" so the ball was alive
@@henryburton6529Can we get over with this nonsense of defending Bairstow. The guy had a brain freeze and Carey rightly took advantage of that to dismiss him. Happens in every sport. Just get over it.
All because the pitch was crap, and everyone was bored the all the short stuff. Players and umpires included. Carey was the only one on the ball.
Completely agree with Vaughany with everything he said. Unsurprisingly. 😮😂😂
Just kinda sick of hearing about it now, it's happened, it's over, move on. New Test match starts tomorrow, can't be dwelling on this. For what it's worth; I'm English but I'm more on the Aussie side of the debate, we'd have stood with the appeal if the shoe was on the other foot and we absolutely know it.
Thankyou. It appears the England team, especially the captain and coach have had their say and whipped up a frenzy.
The spirit of cricket is not in disagreement with the laws. The spirit is : congratulations to an opponent for a100, or a great bowling performance. Or A guard is honour for a retiring great. Or giving public praise to an opponent. Consolation to an opponent for failure, having a beer with your adversary, win loose or draw.... That's the "spirit of the game".
Its got nothing to do with playing within the rules, and finding your opponent's weaknesses and trying the 1% ers..
Vaughany is spot on here
Duckett's hand touched the ground in Green's dismissal.
Mr Vaughn is the only sensible person win this discussion.
Got a spare mint Marcus??
Which shows the immaturity and in-experience of Cummins as a captain and a leader. Look at Dhoni/Bell incident when Dhoni called back Bell in spirit of the game because he was mature and experienced as a leader. He took that decision as a captain should. Cummins has neither and allowed the entire team to walk over him.
Why should a captain deliberately ignore the laws of the game? OK, Bairstow deliberately ignores the laws of the game, because he is a pompous arsehat. But why should any sensible cricketer ignore the laws?
Perhaps if Stokes was a mature leader he would have told Bairstow to stop leaving his crease when the ball was live?
Good point. He just went with the emotions of all the players
There is nothing immature about following the rules of cricket. this scenario is identical to the stumping of a spinner, except its a fast bowler.
Brad Hogg talking about the umpires giving advice/warnings. Is he talking about international professional players or school age weekend cricket players. Bairstow played with arrogance and non situational awareness… he won the appropriate prize, a walk back to the pavilion.
The Ball is live, and its a batsman responsibilities to make sure the ball is dead. I learnt that when I first play cricket no excuses.
Any batsman when stumped is not taking any "advantage", he's just out of the crease. And that should mean he's out anyway. England should stop crying and worry about not losing 1 test/drawing 2 tests out of the 3 remaining and losing the Ashes at home for 1st time since 2001.
Vaughan is spot on.
Here's a new idea for the Spirit of Cricket test - what would Kumar Sangakkara say? As a wicket-keeper, who has delivered the annual Spirit of Cricket lecture at Lord's , can anyone seriously suggest that he would have appealed for the stumping (or even attempted it)?
It's not a wake up call for the umpires for upholding the rules! It's a wake up call for Bairstow being an utter bell-end!
Not only that but this was sharp and well executed they saw a weakness in the batters game and exploited it
right at 10:00 vaughany is so right. the ball is still live
Poor Vaughn trying to explain simple rules of “dead” ball to some bloke who has no idea about cricket. If it’s over, they call “over”. It’s very simple mate
Neither Carey or Bairstow would have been sure if it was the 5th ball of the over or the last. They don't count each over down from 6 to 1. They're too busy concentrating on their job of keeping and batting.
Brad missed both takes
put your cricket hat back on and stop being a politician.youre in here for your experience not your administrative prowess
I noticed people that think it is against the spirit of the game have trouble grasping the law of when the ball is dead. So the best strategy is to ask them these questions. What if there was one run to win and one ball remaining? What if Carey missed the stumps and there was a chance to run? What if the ball thrown missed the stumps and went all the way to the boundary for 4? What if the ball hit a fielder, deflected and hit the stumps at the other end where Stokes was out of his crease? What if the ball thrown missed the stumps, hit Stokes's bat and went for 4? I don't think they will be saying the ball is dead for those situations.
We are now supposed to reward repeated stupidity?? McCullum takes the blame for not straightening Bairstow out. Critical match, critical innings, repeated mistakes by Bairstow. It was McCullum's job to train Bairstow to play smart, not stupid.
Baz himself ran out murali when he decides to celebrate sanga's century
It’s not 3 seconds . It was less than a second as it was measured
Phenomenal respect for Vaughn. It’s why he’s a bloody good batsman and English captain and the other three are chipmunks don’t try to obfuscate and create ambiguity when the issue is black n white !
Episodes like this are gold for the sponsors. Lots of exposure for their logos.
The collective pundits make three points that are relevant here. First, the ball is considered dead, only once it “comes to rest” in the keeper’s gloves. Second, Bairstow did not look around, to observe that fact. Third, by analysing video frame rates, the ball spent under 0.9 seconds in Carey’s gloves. So, here is a glaring fact that everybody seems to have missed. If the umpires were moving off, as if the over was finished, they were distinctly at fault. If the ball had not come to rest, they should not have moved.
Always knew that Vaughn is a decent bloke. I thought '' How could he not be if he was a good mate with Warney''.
Some of these English commentators are absolutely losing their minds over this. The ball was live, the batter is out. End of.
That ball from Carey could not have hit the stumps any earlier. England cannot incite "spirit of the game" by denying a legitimate, timely, obvious method of dismissal of a player not engaged in the situation as he should have.
It was clearly out because jhony also said that in interview that he would have stumped out head or marnus in the same passion, but they were attentive ,they were aware so . As a batsmen one should see the ball till the ball call dead. Thats the basic lesson in cricket
Why did the on field umpires go to the third umpire when it was several metres out of the crease at impact? Because they weren't watching. Why weren't they watching? Because they thought it was the end of the over.
Yupp. Senseless of them to go for 3rd umpire when they needed to have a chat with themselves and Cummins
doesn't matter, the ball was in play. is it that difficult for people to understand? lol
Had Carey thrown the ball, and hypothetically missed the stumps, and the ball was not backed up, would Johnny have taken the run? ….YES.
The umpires knew over wasn't called but wanted to check the actual play ,totally agree with vaughany. The spirit of cricket naysayers need to get real
Exactly ! That's why they have a 3rd Umpire.
Cannot believe Michael Vaughan’s comment that it had nothing to do with the umpires on the field as they are the ones to call dead ball and over and given how far out his ground then Gaffney would give it out as if a batter is that far out of his ground for a run out or stumping then the umpire on the field gives it. The standing umpires don’t have to ask 3rd umpire for an opinion on anything except if the batter or on field captain asks for a review. Gaffney didn’t see it as he was walking in for next over at his end and bowler end was handing cap and glasses to bowler. Bairstow was stupid but would’ve seen both umpires behaving as if over ended and I also agree the umpires should have warned Bairstow similar to being close to no balling or running on pitch. I agree with Brad Hogg that it would have been much more fair had Carey tried it first time rather than waiting dozens of balls to do it as this was 4th ball in the over that Bairstow ducked and scraped behind crease then went gardening half way up pitch. A keeper doesn’t wait 10 opportunities to stump someone normally and will try it at 1st opportunity and that is what is suggestive of being unsportsmanlike and out of usual way of cricket and so within laws but not in the spirit or usual practices of cricket of keeper behaviour in a stumping. Stokes also said he would have withdrawn appeal and Buttler didn’t appeal in the obstructing the field incident and again Vaughan’s stating all the England players would have taken the wicket is bogus and the captains who didn’t withdraw appeals such as Collingwood forever have that as black mark on their reputation while a Vettori or Dhoni are forever praised.
Very reasonable take. I would be very keen to see some law changes to support these observations and logical inferences.
I think long term it will improve the spectacle.
Carey chucked in 0.87 sec. Thats a live ball
Brad Hogg is so right. I'm surprised by Vaughan. The umpires stepping away and not watching proceedings has to mean 'over'. Doesn't it?
No, it's over when the umpire calls "over", which they obviously hadn't, so Bairstow was out. The point about poor umpiring is different: since over had not been called, the ball was by definition still in play, so they should have been watching it and not need the third umpire. Bairstow thinking the ball was dead when it wasn't is dozy, but so are the umpires for not watching proceedings until it was dead. I don't think they can be blamed for triggering Bairstow's wandering though, only for inattention.
Brad Hogg missis half of the rule out with the Starc catch incident - the catcher must have total control of the ball AND HIS BODY. Starc was not in control of his body until he came to rest on the ground at which point he had grounded the ball.
what a lucid analysis by brad hogg....easily the best i have seen
Yeah, Hoggy's analysis "interpretated" it real good
I think Vaughan is pissed here - and still talking the most sense.
"I'm now an administrator". Code for "I'm no longer a good bloke and my judgement is impared by what others think of me". Shame, Brad Hogg was well loved as a player.
If Aussies can get over Starc holding the ball for 3 seconds before grazing the grass and being called not out, surely the poms can handle the Carey holding the ball for 0.5 seconds before stumping Bairstow.
idiotic comparison really. starc wasn't in control of the ball at all. he needed to fall with the ball scraping along the ground to land properly. never never out.
3 secs?? Lmao. No way he had the ball for 3 secs before touching the ground
When Starc caught the ball, was his palm up, or down? So why did he turn it over, when the objective of catching is to keep the ball off the ground. I continue to be astonished by the number of people who claim that should have been out. Why should it? He literally put the ball on the ground.
Yes. He didn’t look behind. He didn’t know if the ball was dead or alive. So he was ripe for the stumping . He was careless. His own fault.
They're missing the point. Vaughan is right. The call was the correct call, because the ball was still in play, and the officials and Bairstow were lazy and missed it.
great analysis - everyone on the point
Played cricket from the age of 6 Umpire always calls over when he thinks the play to be dead, there are mics out there that would pick up a fleas fart Still haven't heard them call over yet like Vaughany said it was a millisecond I was always told stay in your crease dont need to be real smart to do that Mr Bairstow dont be so arragant
Can someone explain to Vaughan exactly what they're saying. Totally missing the point
why is he keep on saying that the Umpires thinks it an over ? did they call it an over ? no. then its not an over and Carey didn't normalise bairstow leaving the crease early, he kept eye on him and smartly planned to take his wicket and he executed it perfectly , its all bairstows carelessness.
Would Foakes have stepped out of his crease after the ball reached the keeper with England on 193-5 chasing 371?😆🤥
It seems inconsistent to me to say the umpires were not watching AND the umpires clearly knew he was out [i.e. that the batter was out of his cease when the ball hit the wicket. How can they know that if they were not watching. So I suggest the umpire didn't go to the third umpire to decide if the over had been called - that makes no sense. The third umpire was called to decide the usual thing the position of the batsman when the ball hit the wicket.
The umpires had a lapse in concentration just like Bairstow. They should admit that. Doesn’t mean it’s over.
Why is it up to the players to decide whether or not to call a player back , once given out ?? It should be the responsibility of the on-field umpires to decide if the ball was dead , and make a decision based on that !
It was thrown within a second (0.8 I believe) of Carey catching the ball. To argue that it wasn’t ‘live’ is ridiculous - the play was continuous. Bairstow has to take 100% of the responsibility.
Means overthrows are a thing of the past too then, eh, if the ball is dead that fast?
Did he say "wicket leave"? lol.
Ask yourself, if Bairstow saw it coming and got back to his crease and the ball bounced into clear space off the stumps would he have taken a run? Or stood there saying the ball was dead and running wouldn't be in the spirit of cricket?
Those crying need to direct their anger at the lack of basic level of awareness of Bairstow, an under 12's cricketer wouldn't make that mistake.
Hoggy is just flat out wrong. Bairstow is out, and Duckett wasn’t out. The laws of the game are actually pretty clear on both dismissals. The points he raises are quite irrelevant to what the laws of cricket say. The whole point of the bowling side is to get the opposition out whilst the ball is in play in accordance with the laws of cricket.
That wasn't even close to dead ball. Carey threw the ball immediately.
Hogg is 100% wrong, and Vaughn is a 100% right. Carey caught and released the ball in .800 of a second. It was a live ball, just because Bairstow was daydreaming it isn't the Aussies fault.
On a side note, Bairstow has a new sponsor in Johnnie Walker 🤣🤣🤣
Exactly. The fault lies with the umpires, they knew and should've said NOT OUT, the over was over, they weren't even watching ffs..
l'm an Aussie and l am impressed with Vaughan's clear and firm interpretation ,no wonder he was a successful captain. 2 other ex england captains agree with Vaugan! if the umpies don't do their job then the captain has to do his job and Cummins did his job,,,end of! What was the umpie doing when Broard was clearly caught at first slip inAus
So they found the only Australian with a different view. Wouldn't have helped England anyway, and Vaughn is 100% correct. England need to focus on winning the game rather than beating the Aussies because it'll never work like that.
Didn’t know that Brad Hogg became an English citizen after his retirement 🥴
I have always thought Vaughny was bit of a bellend , now I respect him !
Aussie here. If Cummins was a Batsman, rather than a bowler, does he retract the appeal? Maybe, maybe not. Secondly, Bairstow's own recorded on camera history shows him doing worse by waiting for players to lift their foot up while behind the line. Carey had no time to think, he just did. Actually, Carey had previous balls to think because he'd already seen Bairstow doing it.
Spirit of Cricket is not about playing to rules...
Call me old fashioned, but I don't buy the idea that YJB can leave his crease whenever he feels like it.
Love your work Vaughny 👌
Vaughn the only voice of reason here
4:06 reply to Vaugh ... they can't call "Over" in that 3 sec but then they shouldn't look to unhooking the caps from the belt. Many a times umpire do not explicitly say Over and probably ud not have said at this instance too who knows. But Umpire's self Action is testimony to the fact that they believed it was over.
But how can it be over when the ball is alive? The ball was in motion.
@@scdingundaroo Do the umpires actually know the laws of the game fully? lol (not even sure the lol is appropriate, it´s been a long time since I played the game & I´m not sure of all the rules, but there seems to be inconsistencies & lapses of concentration from them too).
Has Vaughan been on the sauce here. He seems incredibly annoyed. Bairstow was out but the two Umpires had a howler. They were walking into their new positions.
Truth like always he wants attention. Brad Hogg is talking sensibly here
THINKING that it’s the end of the over and actually CALLING ‘over’ are two very different things. Before the ball was dead, before they’d called over, the bails were on the ground.
Umpires are the ones to be blamed here, not Australia.
As an Aussie, I have to broadly agree. Umpires should have called not out, but don't blame Australia for claiming it.
I'm glad they've cleared that up.
The point is the umpire had not called over. They looked at each other as to what do we do? Answer: Go to the third umpire as they had the vision of the whole incident. Both umpires had assumed that Carey had not thrown the ball.
Even worse because he did it a hundred times in my view. They could have warned him but either way, sloppy Bairstow. Out.
Ben wright has no idea why is there a third umpire in the game .the reason for having a third umpire is when on field umpires are unable to make accurate decisions due to the complexity or difficulty of the incident, in such cases the third umpire reviews all the scenarios and make a decision. It is worth noting Ben stroke was outside the grease when incident happened, so it clearly ball was alive/
Always loved Michael Vaughan's insight and common sense. Fantastic captain, fantastic person
It was out. Johnny Bairstow was a bit too nonchalant in not even looking where the ball was. He did however look at the umpire at point, and possibly the bowler's end too. The point umpire was head down and had even started walking. He also appeared to have no idea where the ball was. So you'd be forgiven for thinking he had called "over" on the basis of that alone. But you'd be wrong. No excuse it was out, Bairstow wont do that again, and i bet the umpires will pay more attention at the end of the over too. Carey will try again as is his right.
yep, the umpires a bit to blame as well for not waiting or watching to see if the the play was still 'live' after it hit the keeper's gloves..
Phil? When did an umpire ever ask the question of a skipper about undoing an appeal
Vaughn the only one in the panel that understands the game properly.