Why reward stupidity in a batsmen not knowing the rules of cricket when a ball is dead. No. He's out and now will hopefully understand like most U12s are taught, to stay in his crease till the end of the over.
No. Similar incidents with England taking the wicket, were the appeals withdrawn? When Stuart Broad edged the cover off the ball to slip and refused to walk, was there the same outcry and near riot by members? De Grandhomme, Elliot, Muralitharan all victims of the hypocrisy of English cricketers. English cricket team single handedly do more damage to the English chant ‘spirit of the game’ then every international team combined. Times like this I wish Australia could field Lee, Tait, Johnson and McGrath in their prime… let’s see how vocal and whining the poms are with 100mph piece of leather. It’ll even have the mint flavour from the impacts…
If you believe the Aussies didn't play in the spirit of the game it would have been far more powerful to simply not applaud them as they went through the long room. Let them walk through in silence. The verbal abuse was classless.
This is spot on. No-one does freezing silence like the English. Perhaps to be accompanied by some other classic English passive aggression like gently shaking your head.
I will tell you what classless is? Chappell rolling the last ball of a match at the batsmen, when NZ needed 6 runs to win!! Classless is when 3 Aussie players were implicated in ball tampering back in 2018 in SA. Classless is when players resort to a low blow by running out a batsman who clearly has no intention of taking a run. And you expect these cheaters to get silent treatment!!!
@@charlesknowles6301 I recall that and I believe that was far worse than even the sandpaper. I know underhand is within the rules and stumping in such a fashion is within the rules too but I could never bring myself to do either.
Bairstow was not even looking at the ball. He did not know if it was in the keepers gloves or on the way to the boundary. The ball was not dead. He walked out of his crease and 0.8 seconds after the catch the ball left the keepers gloves on the way to the stumps. The ball was live. If the ball is dead when it hits the keepers gloves there would never be a stumping so what Michael is saying is incorrect.
Just saw it and he's definitely out. It's a bit unusual but definitely out. He got caught slipping. Pretty sure most keepers try this every now and then
The rules state the ball is dead when the batter, the fielders and umpires all deem the play to be finished, it's dead. The umpires didn't call over and Carey thought it was still in play. It's not up to Bairstow to call it.
Yeah Bairstow didn’t even look behind to see what happened to the ball… it was lazy bit of batting and fair enough he got run out! By the way, the videos on the playlist on my channel might interest some people!
The umpires thought the ball was dead; they weren't watching the ball, the batsman, or the wicketkeeper. The batter obviously thought it was dead. Even the fielders apart from Carey thought it was dead. So it was obviously up to Carey to decide.
wrong on 2 points. Point 1) he stated this was his interpretation based on his experience. 2) if you listen to what he said the difference being if the batsman is out of his crease when playing the ball. Not when he is in his crease when the ball is in the keepers gloves, denotes his intent to walk from his crease and then walks away.
Yep. You could never get stumped if both batsmen were within their creases when the ball hit the gloves of the keeper. But if a batsman was out of his crease, trying to play a shot or trying to run he could be stumpred or run out.
@@icedidi appreciate his experience, but in my experience a batter has been in and lifted heal and was stumped. This batter was given out and rightly so. I’m simply pointing out that his supposedly clear cut definition is not that simple. Now don’t get all accountant on me and count how I’m wrong just agree that the Poms are Hippocrates with their own ball tampering, and numerous “spirit of cricket” infringements (Elliot run out) and let’s move on. Looking forward to Ashes III 😁
@@icedidi Carey threw the ball as soon as he caught it. Bairstow was in his crease when he threw it and walked out while the ball was in flight. Over had not been called, therefore the ball was live. Now then, explain to me how does this simple logic escape you? A world class umpire, one on the test elite panel ruled on it whereas you have only an ill informed opinion.
Labushagne was taking stance out of the crease before bowler was coming to bowl and was not going in after. Secondly, that throw from Bairstow to Labushagne was not at the end of over
@@ManojKumar-yn9qxoh piss off with the end of the over rubbish. I have never heard so mych sh*it in my life to justify why Aus was wrong but it was ok for Bairstow to do it in the middle of an over
@@ManojKumar-yn9qx None of the things you said counter OP's point. Bairstow was thinking just like Carey when he tried stumping Marnus earlier in a similar fashion. This is petty hypocrisy from England.
If anyone should have warned Bairstow, it was his own captain, Ben Stokes who was standing just 22 yards from him and must have seen him walk away prematurely from his crease time and time again. And coach McCallum…didn’t he know about Jonny’s bad habit? Everyone else knew. The Captain and the Coach had a job to do with Jonny; but they preferred to grandstand and blame the Aussies rather than stand up to their own responsibilities.
Dear John 8327, The now frosty greying West Indian man, especially with his knowledge, history, and experience, is a joy to harken. However, my correspondence to him: Dear Sir, Michael Holding: You are getting grey with your seemingly matching wisdom. Cricket has *laws,* in the manner of fans, players, and umpires, *controlling their crooked "pay-day" desires,* hands, abuse and discrimination from their lips. Something they can *lock you up for* The game of cricket played fairly have *rules* -- not laws: *Players cannot be locked up for a mistimed Mankad, stumping, run out, or a controversial catch.*
@@Simon-sf7ng It staggers me how many professional players do not have even a fundamental understanding of the laws. It isn't just cricket either. When questioned by a player once I had to remind him that my job was to apply the laws not teach the laws to him. That is his job or his coaches job.
@@bamydz not necessarily. Sometimes the foot may be still without momentum. And then with a voluntary changed stance or shift in body weight, it moves.
Sometimes professional players or former professional players are not familiar with the finer points of the law so that is why we have a rule book that needs to be referred to when a decision seems contentious. Some people get worked up but that is because they don't read the law. Some are still arguing and haven't even read the law.
I would be saying exactly the same thing if an Australian batsman was in a similar position. I simply do not believe that a batsman should be given out in those circumstances
@@Mogget5 Well, the good news is Bairstow (and a swathe of other cricketers) will never do that again..... Or... maybe IF he thinks he was right he will just continue regardless....:)
@@UmpireStrikesBack That was totally different and perfectly acceptable; Patel fell forward out of his crease because he was unbalanced after trying to hit the ball. He wasn't just walking out of his crease, after grounding his bat twice, while stationary, and perfectly upright and steady.
The ball was not dead - it 1 motion - the wicket keeper had the the ball out in not even a second - u can tell that the keeper knows he has a habit of doing this - another point - he is a test cricketer and should know the law - he is paid a lot of money to know the laws
@@Learner5555 Incorrect. Refer to comments by former Test umpire Simon Tauffel (ICC Umpire of the year 5 years straight) re; the Bairstow stumping. I'll take his read of the situation over any whining coming from the MCC, Pommie media or Pommie cricket yob's. Here's to a 5-0 drubbing of Mother England.
@@raviscott4853 i wasn't arguing that Micheal was correct. I was just interpreting what he meant by his statements given in the interview. Not sure of a 5-0, but, yup agreed totally needless whining from the English media, fans et al...
Bairstow deserved to be given out for his own stupidity. Especially being a keeper. And also considering he tried the exact same thing against Labuchagne. Can we stop the whinging- please
But Stokes wasnt in his crease at the non strikers end ( both batsmen right ) so ball not dead , and Alex Carey is allowed throw the ball at any stumps at that stage , then Bairstow wanders out and his wicket is broken after his left his crease , dopey . Case closed , unfortunate but not unfair , move on please . Start thinking about the next game , surely Englands coach who used this rule every chance he got in all forms of cricket , could explain it to them .
Merely totally unsporting, which is par for the course for the Aussies. How sporting is sledging? Do you hear it going on in tennis, snooker, baseball; deliberately trying to put your opponent off by verbal abuse? Typical Aussie. No class.
@@edeledeledel5490 I hear plenty of sledging and trash talk in all forms or Football around the world , basketball , hockey . Baseball no idea about sorry , but your talking about teams sports . If you cant deal with some banter and sledging go play a solo sport , 1 official so easy to police . Unsporting well not according to the umpires and the ICC or your coach who did it all through out his cricket playing days, or Bairstow who tried to do it earlier in the series but missed the stumps . Yes i am an Aussie but would never threaten English spectators at the MCG and try to trip an English player as he walks by , or throw Beer at Mike Atherton while he boundary side doing commentary . But yeah i have no class .
@@scottperrow9878 That's mostly what I said. Football has been deeply unpleasant, particularly from a racial point of view, and if you think it's acceptable there, why not in snooker and tennis? McEnroe came close to it in tennis, and even admitted later in life that he did it deliberately when he was not playing well. And when Glen McGrath asks Sarwan what Brian Lara's cock tastes like, that's a bit of merry banter is it? Very classy. Aussie crowds have in the past targeted English players that they think are weak, virtually threatening violence. But that's all very sporting. I'm afraid you are outnumbered because almost every cricketing nation thinks Aussies cheat. And "our" coach is from New Zealand, virtually the same as an Aussie, but much better at Rugby. Still haven't seen Bairstow v Labuschagne - not on TH-cam or any other site that works for me.
The West Indies ran Dean Jones out when he was caught on a no ball and didn't hear the call and was walking to the pavilion. Alan Border Australias captain didn't ask for him to be called back or do a song and dance about the spirit of the game!
I’m with Holding, once it’s in a keepers gloves a spinner can’t get you stumped. Spin bowlers are a stain on the game and stumping is an unsporting rule. By the way bravo for getting a guys opinion of a stumping he hasn’t seen, we need more experts like this.
What had"T20 and one day international experience"to do with the stumping of Bairstow? The wicketkeeper completed a simple stumping,no more no less. Nothing else.
@@sachinmesta4238 ONCE AGAIN: Are you not confusing this incident with Bairstow's MISSING THE STUMPS when he tried the EXACT same trick upon Labuschagne in the previous Test, my friend?
By that rationale, the keeper can't get a stumping off a spinners delivery if he took the ball when the batsman was in his crease, then stepped out of his crease, then tried to get back in his crease? That's incorrect Michael, the ball is still alive. Also, if the keeper chooses to have a ping at the stumps as Carey did, however misses the stumps & the ball rolls down to the deep field, the batsmen are going to take off for a run or two, as the ball is still alive. The English press look as foolish as Bairstow.
Mr Holding - FYI it’s not called Maaankaading anymore. The ICC have termed it in other words without being referenced in a colonial mindset to an ex Indian great. You boys who were once asked to eat grovel should know better. Please revisit the laws of cricket and read them properly before loosely saying something.
No, it's not when it hits the keepers gloves. Its when both batting and bowling teams act in such a way that it is deemed dead. So when the keeper passes it to a fielder to throw back to the bowler, that indicates they have deemed to ball to be dead. When the keeper immediately throws it back to the stumps, it's clear they haven't treated it as dead, but Bairstow didn't confirm that before walking out.
Clearly Michael is talking about when teams don't pull douchey tricks. For Australia, the side guilty of epic cheating, to be so lacking at Lords, Lords ffs, is typical and ridiculous. Sadly it'll follow them and Carey, the moment they inevitably mess up it'll rightly be hurled at them... It's poor. Cricket IS different to many sports, just so unnecessary and adds an edge. Carey needs plenty of short stuff relentlessly ESPECIALLY when series is list and it's dead rubbers
Actually late Kerry packer was the person who really made westindies a formidable force why hate for australia they are aggressive but real sports people I love australian team
@@simonhearn2028not bitter, just pointing out the audacity for the English to moan about the spirit of the game with all of their past incidents. Absolutely absurd, classic whinging poms.
Where was spirit of cricket when Starc took the catch - batsmen knew the catch was taken? But lack of Bairstows judgement of a dead ball brings SOC (he’s a keeper). For starc it should be umpire decision and for Bairstow its spirit of cricket?
@@danielfield7270 tell which catch is held longer than what starc had held onto that catch? Keepers always throw the ball immediately up in the air once caught. Its the same thing, its just how you want to look at it. If you want to complicate it you can
@@danielfield7270 It doesn't matter if he was attempting a run or not. Do you think every batsman who's been stumped was attempting to run? Educate yourself, Learn the Laws
Again...according to Holding EVERY single time the keeper stumps a batsman off a spinner is NOT OUT..."when the ball hits the keepers gloves, the ball is dead.." - Michael Holding....so no more stumpings from this point on then.
That’s not what he said. He said it’s dead if both batsmen are in their crease and the ball hits the keepers glove. Which is also not true. But an important clarification. Clearly you can’t get stumped if both batsmen are in their crease.
For those who considered that the ball had “finally settled” in Carey’s gloves when he held it for just 0.9 of a second, how long did Starc hold the Duckett “catch”, before grounding it?
@@neilcherrett9955 Neil, search for the Bairstow stumping of Patel. I’ve tried to leave a link, but TH-cam deletes it. In that, my belief is that the ball goes dead, before he effects the stumping. In point of fact, Carey’s effort required much more skill.
@@petergosney6433 you do understand that to toss something you need to have control of it, correct? it's not about time, you need to have control of the ball during catch & no one intentionally grasses the ball
@@YC-bi4kj this is a “where do you draw the line” situation. If he had taken it above his head, then taken another three steps and fallen on it, the decision may well have been different. If you pay $1 or $100m to a girl for sex, at what point does she cease to be a prostitute? Search for the Bairstow stumping of Patel. Bairstow got acclaim for this, but under the rules, with the batsman not attempting to take a run, and fully in control of his body, once the ball had clearly “settled in the keepers gloves” it should have been dead. Come back and tell me what you think.
It's a lot of what aboutery! Like holding a former great fast bowler said. It doesn't sit right. If the keeper had tries to be unsportsmanlike and if it goes for overthrows. Why shouldn't the opposing team get runs? It's the laws of the games as you keep telling us 🤪 Better still it doesn't happen though. That's Aussie keeper and England keeper
Johnny never attempted to gain. from the situation, the aussies broke an unwritten rule..he marked his crease, effectively meaning the ball is dead...umpires should has adjudicated taking that into account
I don't understand why it doesn't already say in the rules that the ball is automatically deemed dead when the keeper is standing back from the wicket and has taken it after the batsman has not offered a shot and is planted in his crease. That would seem to be a much clearer rule. If a batsman is out of his crease when the ball is taken by a keeper standing back, then that's a different matter. Bairstow didn't look back so he must have heard the ball smacking into Carey's gloves. He casually walked out of his crease after signalling with his foot that he understood that the ball was dead and that the over was completed, but as the rules are at the moment, it wasn't up to him to decide.
@@clarke1319 It would work, because the ball would not be 'apparently dead,' by the rules, it would actually be dead once it was in the keeper's gloves.
@@bettyholmes1155 From Michael Holding's comments, it seems that, in the spirit of fair play, international cricketeers have generally come to accept that once the ball has been pouched by a keeper standing back (after no shot has been played and the ball was a not a no-ball), then, if the striking batsman was safely planted in his crease at the moment the ball was caught, it has come to be treated as dead at this moment, even if the rules have not yet specified this. The Australians have watched Bairstow's behaviour and have clearly decided to ignore convention to get him back in the pavillion before he could get going. Bairstow was given out within the rules. That said, Bairstow himself has also been trying to throw down the stumps in almost similar circumstances, but the striking batsmen haven't moved and he has missed his target. Stokes has stated that he would not have appealed in the same circumstances as Bairstow's disimissal, and would have withdrawn any appeal from his team-mates. It's a shame that Cummins didn't take this approach, but we now live in an age where (to some people), winning has become everything.
It is simple just wait until the wicket keeper has taken the ball and moved to change ends. You can not take the game into your own hands, at that point in time it is not up to the batsman to presume its ok to wander out of his crease.
From where I was watching, Bairstow was out of his crease and did not ground his bat. He simply kept walking - Carey, in one fluid motion underarmed the ball straight at the stumps. Bairstow should have grounded his bat, and then walked up the pitch. So, no, we should not have rescinded the appeal.
Bairstow was in his crease when Carey caught the ball. He was in his crease when Carey threw the ball. He was not trying to get a run. He should (IMO) not have been given out.
@@kimn9802I agree with Mogget5. But if you swing and fall then you have lost control of your balance while making a play, so you are stumped out. Totally different scenario.
So, if Micheal believes that the ball is dead if both batsmen are in their crease when the ball touches the keeper's gloves, Bairstow would still be out and the ball was not dead. If you watch the video from behind the keeper, when the keeper catches the ball, Stokes was out of his crease and he only touches the crease with his bat once the keeper had already stumped Bairstow.
If the keeper had not collected the ball cleanly and it went a few meters away, would the batters have stolen a run? Yes. How can Bairstow walk without even looking behind. Keeper threw the ball as soon as he collected. No delay. Bairstow was OUT. Unbelievable that this is even being talked about at this level. It's not about the Laws. It's all about ARROGANCE of the snobbish English.
It was a single motion , he caught the ball and immediately threw it . Johnny lost his concentration because he walked while the ball was travelling in the air. Out.
The ball wasn't dead as the keeper threw the ball back quickly. Had he held onto the ball for a bit longer then it would have deemed to be dead. In terms of the spirit of cricket, to me this implies that you do not cheat to win/gain an advantage. The Aussies did not cheat
Bairstow has held the ball waaaay longer than that to get Patel stumped. But that was apparently ok, and "brilliant work" according to the English commentators. Hypocrites much?
So Michael's understanding is balls is deemed 'dead' , when it hits keepers gloves , then shouldn't the batsman look back to confirm that ? Jonny doesn't even look back , just casual walks off as soon as ball passes him ? . Looks to me that people are just making own interpretations to make one team happy. I mean, what are they trying to teach young kids on this ? It's ok to be inconsiderate ,and leave crease like that and you can play the 'spirit of the game ' card afterwards if something happens ? And do England really think any other team wouldn't do that to them ?
Crucially, Carey had thrown the ball while Bairstow was still in his crease before wandering off - making it clear that play was well and truly alive. Even England admitted as much. Captain Ben Stokes said: “I am not disputing the fact it is out because it is out.” Coach Brendon McCullum said: “By the letter of the law, he is out.” As far as the rules go, it was clear: Bairstow was out. Simon Taufel, the former ICC elite umpire said,, "My experience is when people don't like a dismissal under the Laws of Cricket, they cite the Spirit of Cricket to support their view." "Was Jonny Bairstow's dismissal at Lord's a breach of the Spirit of Cricket? Have you seen any umpire tell a fielding side that the keeper standing back is not allowed to attempt a stumping?" "Which part of the codified Preamble (the Spirit of Cricket) was breached by the fielding side? What did the fielding side do in effecting a legitimate dismissal that unfairly impacted the ability of the batter in their attempt not to be dismissed? (Did they run into him or distract him or prevent him making good his ground?)" “Should a batter be immune from dismissal as per the Laws by simply being negligent ( and leaving his ground too early) ?,”
Fascinating perspective given by Michael Holding. The level of detail and analysis he does here is amazing, unlike many experts who give biased and unreasonable opinions. Massive respect to Holding sir.
The difference between the Bairstow incident and a stumping chance is that the "play" is still in progress when a batsman has attempted to leave his crease to hit a spinner. Bairstow had already "played and completed" his shot (in this case, he avoided playing it at all), and he was IN HIS CREASE when this was done. That being the case, the ball should have been dead as soon as it was caught by Carey. This is a situation where common sense should override all other considerations.
As a keeper Bairstow has in the past taken a ball in his gloves, watched a batsman who has his foot behind the line for a few moments then raises it, flick off the bails, claim the stumping and be congratulated for being so smart. He was braindead at Lord's and everyone else in the world except for truly one eyed England supporters can recognise this.
All Johnny boy had to do was turn around and have a look to ensure the ball had come to rest or passed off to a slip fielder and he could do as he pleased. Watch some cricket it's second nature to most batsmen.
Imagine letting a spinner push one past you, you don’t look back and then wandering out of your crease. You’d be stumped in two seconds and no one would bat an eyelid. What happened to Bairstow is no different.
@@sachinmesta4238 Are you not confusing this incident with Bairstow's MISSING THE STUMPS when he tried the EXACT same trick upon Labuschagne in the previous Test, my friend?
Rubbish! He didn't "wander out of his crease". He grounded his bat twice to emphasise he was in his crease after the ball passed him, and he was not overbalancing or unsteady in any way, or likely to fall over out of his crease, totally in control.
@@edeledeledel5490 A) Bairstow did not ground his bat, he just went on a stroll. As soon as the ball hit Carreys gloves, he throws it at the stumps in one smooth action, there is no delay, The umpires officiating, did not say "over" as the ball was still alive. So bairstow is out
@@sachinmesta4238 You're right. I must be thinking of another clip; however, he definitely grounds his foot inside the crease and he is not out of balance, unlike Samit Patel.
Sorry Michael you are so wrong on this one HE IS OUT STUMPED Carey took the ball and same motion through the ball hit the stumps dopey Barstow had a brain fart lol
Bairstow wasn't even looking at the ball, surely as a wicket keeper he would be aware of the potential for such things especially as he keeps doing it himself. I'm not sure if Johhnys the full quid.
Michael is almost right but not quite. The ball, according to the relevant law, is dead when the umpire at the bowler's end believes that all players on the field consider the ball to be dead. This is bizarre wording but it is not normally an issue because there is normally a consensus when a play is complete, such that quite obviously both batters are safe and no runs can ensue from the current position. If players get into dispute about when a play is complete, the alternative to this law is for the umpire to call "Ball Dead" at the end of every single play, which absolutely nobody wants. The problem comes when every player on the field considers the ball dead except one. When this happens, the umpire must reverse his "belief" that all players considered the ball dead, because clearly one player did not, so the umpires "belief" must have been wrong, and therefore he, and everyone else, who thought the ball dead, must have been premature, because one player deemed the ball to be still alive. So, according to the letter of the law, Bairstow was OUT, but only because of the exploitation by Carey of a vulnerability to unfair play in the wording of the law. The reason this is 'unfair' play is that clearly, it was never intended by the wording of this law that one single person can control when a play is complete. If an outfielder collects the ball inside the boundary and the batters make their ground and stop running at that point, then the fielder instead of throwing the ball in jogs to the crease with it, during which time everyone considers the ball dead and the batters meet in the middle to confer, then the fielder lifts a bail with the ball, according to the letter of the law that is OUT. One person believed the ball to be still alive, or more accurately, one person took advantage of a situation where his opposition believed play was completed, which is not really playing cricket as such, it is taking advantage of a vulnerability in the wording of the law. Imagine the fielder doesn't take off the bails and that the conferring batsmen go back to each other's end and claim a run while the fielding side believed the ball dead. The law says it's a run. But this is absurd because playing a game, any game, requires both sides to believe the game is being played. Play does not begin when one person decides the ball is alive. A bowler cannot bowl at a wicket when a batsman is gardening. An umpire does not call "play" before every ball. An unspoken consensus is reached such that both sides consider play is viable. A tennis player does not serve to an empty court while his opponent is dealing with a wasp. A game is being played when both sides consider the game is being played, not when only one side considers it, so while exploiting the bizarre wording of the dead ball law in cricket is not de jura "cheating" it is not de facto playing cricket either. If players maintain that it is ok to 'play' in this manner - both Cummins and Carey said they had no regrets and would do it again - and if they continue to exploit a vulnerability in the wording of the law, then the law will have to change, because it was never intended for cricket (or any other game) to be deemed in play when only one side says so. Not only is this not in the spirit of the game of cricket, it is not in the spirit of every other game that requires two sides to play it.
Michael Holding is a legend of the game and I respect his achievements. But his comments around the dead ball law just goes to show how ignorant players actually are of the laws of cricket. The ball is dead when it finally settles in the keepers hands and both sides have no further play to make. Australia obviously saw an option to continue the play, 1st ball or last ball makes no difference. Bairstow was legitimately stumped, happens at every level from club cricket to test matches. Full disclosure I’m an umpire with over 25 years of experience.
By Holding's analogy, a stumping where the batsman raises his back foot after playing a shot should be outlawed since his foot might have been grounded when the ball hits the keeper's glove? I disagree with you sir, respectfully!
If you follow Mr Holding’s logic, then stumpings are impossible. In a stumping, the wicketkeeper catches the live ball and then immediately (before the ball can be considered to be “dead” by the umpire) whips off the bails and if the batsman at that moment is out of his crease, then that batsman is ruled out “stumped”. So the ball has been taken by the wicketkeeper in the ‘keeper’s gloves. The ball is NOT yet dead. Whether the batsman has left his crease before that, after that or simultaneously, marked his ground or done an Irish jig is immaterial. What matters is if the batsman is out of his crease at the moment the wicket is broken by the (live) ball that has been touched or thrown directly by the wicketkeeper or broken by the wicketkeeper’s glove which is carrying the ball at that very moment that the wicket was broken (bails dislodged). In the case of the Bairstow stumping, the ball was live, the umpire could not have and did not call “Over”, as the ball clearly was considered by the fielding side still to be live and, as Bairstow was out of his ground at the moment that the wicket was broken by Carey in a direct and un-delayed throw of the ball back at the stumps, Bairstow correctly under the Laws of Cricket was ruled out “Stumped”.
Kicking the stumps down if appeal was not upheld and the barrage of bouncers at tail enders is that part of the gentlemans game. The truth is spirit of the game comes into play when it suits your team.
Apart from standing close the wickets, how is throwing the ball at the stumps 5 metres away different to doing a stumping after catching the ball. To say England lost the game because of this is just ridiculous, had Bairtstow not got out ad Smith caught Stokes than England would have lost anyway...
Yes, I agree with Mikey 100% there and said that earlier before I watched this. If the batters have no intent to run then the fielders/keeper should not have intent to run them out. I also made what I thought was a valid point that on a cricket pitch you cannot have a player throwing the ball in the direction of an oblivious opponent. If the keeper is standing back that could mean it is propelled at some speed which could cause injury, certainly bad feeling and is at very least disrespectful and therefore definitely not in the spirit of the game or its best interests if you are going to teach young people it is ok to do that. It can also be said that, if a batter is not allowed to take a run (if there is no intent to hit the ball) when the ball strikes him and runs away and the ball then immediately becomes dead, that could equally be applied in the batter's favour for the same reason i.e. no intent to take or score a run when the ball reaches the keeper should end the play unless the ball goes through for possible byes. I also agree that 99% of the time that is an accepted part of the ebb and flow. If the batter is set up outside of the crease to try to negate the length of the bowler putting the ball more in their arc or left their ground to play a shot then that's fair enough. The keeper standing up and waiting for the batter to overbalance or lift their foot for a stumping is an entirely different matter and also an accepted part of the game which doesn't involve any possible danger to the batter. Further to the point I made earlier, what would have happened in the scenario that JB had padded up outside off stump and the ball had just flicked his pad (or body/clothing) on the way through to the keeper? According to the Law the ball then automatically becomes dead because no shot was played so you are not allowed to run anyway even if you try. In that case it presumably wouldn't have been run out because no run was possible so this is almost a hair splitting technicality. If no shot is played and it goes through to the keeper and the batter hasn't left the crease in playing the shot that should surely amount to the same thing i.e. the end of the play for that delivery? I did try to research what actually counts as a 'play' (when the ball is still in play) in cricket but there doesn't appear to be any specific definition in the Laws. Incidentally, the only reason that the Mankad dismissal is even considered possible is because the non striker is deemed to be attempting to gain an unfair advantage in an attempt to score a run. That is obviously another matter but I still feel that if the non striker is within their ground and certainly when they are stationary when the bowler reaches the delivery stride that too should never be given out. So the idea of "The dozy twonk wasn't looking!" shouldn't exist in the game of cricket it's far too underarmed imho. I suppose both of those types of dismissal could be nipped in the bud simply by handing discretion to the umpires under the blanket term of 'fair and reasonable play' and I have to be honest that if I were the enabled umpire there JB might still be batting nine months later.
The ball becomes dead in cricket when123: 1. It is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler. 2. A boundary is scored. 3. A batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal. 4. It is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
This incident shows the superior attitude of English players and the Aussies. Had the Wicket keeper been an Asian the English and Aussie media would crucified the player. Bairstow was foolish even after playing so much cricket.
In England, it is not cricket, " IT'S THE CRYING GAME " whenever they lose, again and again and again. One idiot said, now England will win, because that will inspire them to play??????? perhaps if they learn the rules it might help.
Forget what the rules say, I promise you if it was an Australian and not Bairstow , YOU would hear a totally different tune from Australian media. No batsman would be happy being given out that way. AUSTRALIANS WHEN IT COMES TO CRICKET THROWS SPORTSMANSHIP OUT OF THE WINDOW.
The problem here is telling when the ball ceases to be in play, when a delivery ends, for the next one to begin. Both players acted instinctively. One player assumes the ball is still in play, and the other assumes it is not. And to add to the woes this veteran and legendary cricketer, has his own opinion, but just as an outsider and a fan of the game and as an impartial observer, I still think it should not be up to the batsmen or for the fielding side to decide when the ball ceases to be in play. Suppose instead of catching the ball, the keeper had missed the ball and it went far off or even to the boundary enough for the batsmen to realise it, would they , or would they not take the by runs on offer. I know, as a batsman I would be hard pressed not to. If I was in bairstows position and did what bairstow did and was given out, I would only have said that I should have been more careful. In the earlier matches I used to watch, the the umpire would have his hand up, and having seen the batsmen ready would lower his hand to signal play, some umpires even audibly shouting out "play". Raising it back up again even momentarily can mean the ball is no longer in play. But nowadays almost all decisions are relegated and deferred to the 3rd umpire, decisions from lbws to nicks to almost every appeal is up for review as a matter of course, oftentimes by some simulation which IMHO is always suspect. Also in earlier matches at the beginning of the over the ball would always go though the umpire to the bowler. I always thought it was a silly ritual, but not if I think about it now in modern professional competitive cricket. It does give the umpire the chance to examine the ball, not only for natural wear, and also for possible tampering. These things have clearly taken place. The umpire should always be neutral. I think the decision was right.
With all due respect to Michael Holding, by your definition, Stokes had backed up and was not in his crease when Carey threw the ball. Stokes I believe never went back to his crease as he was out when the ball hit, out when the appeal happened and walked down the pitch .So therefore, play was not dead and the rest is history.
Pretty certain from my view Stokes was in his crease. Stokes at the very least went back to mark his position. I agree it was OUT but it would have been better to warn Bairstow initially….. a conclusive definition on when the ball is dead is urgently needed
@@daveruderbar1009 all due respect, I checked the video and its exactly how I said. And the last ball of every over, you wait for the over call. Its something you teach kids. If Carey paused in anyway, fair play, the ball is dead imv. He didn't. And I would also guarantee you see keepers pinging at stumps like that every weekend all over the world. Why are they doing this if it isn't out and within the spirit of cricket?
I am sorry to say you are completely wrong, the ball was not dead. If the ball becomes dead when it is in the wicketkeeper's gloves there would be no stumpings or runouts at the striker's end. The ball is dead when everyone considers it dead, if the umpire considers the ball to be in play then it is. Bestow wandered out of his ground on several occasions during that over and did it rather a lot of time in his innings. He attempted to stump batsmen in this way himself, there is no controversy. Bestow made a mistake and he paid for it with his wicket.
with all due respect to Michael Holding the ball and the over was not dead because the on field umpires never called the line "Over" so the ball was alive and Carey did the exact right thing
@@clarke1319 umpire only call over after the last ball is bowled and if the ball is settled in wicket keeper or other members of the fielding side hands and in this incident the on field umpires never called over so Bairstow's run out was legitimate within the rules and laws of cricket
The ball isn't dead when it is caught by the wicketkeeper, or you couldn't have stumpings. Law 20.1.1 .1 the ball is dead when it is finally settled in the hands of the wicketkeeper or the bowler. The keeper gathered and threw the ball in one continuous motion. Bairstow kept wandering out of his ground before the ball was dead and paid the price.
Either we follow the non existing "spirit of the game," whose applicability will be decided by the mainstream Western press according to their team's interests, or just follow the rules/laws. It is much easier to do the latter with far lesser grey areas and controversies.
According to Holding explanation of when the ball is dead is when the wicketkeeper caught the ball and both batsman are in their crease. So if england needed 1 run to win and bairstow missed the ball and carey caught it does that mean the ball is automatically dead and the batsman cant run?
Destroy cricket roots? Did we really need a report to realise cricket has been this way? The media/press is really trying to create shocked sensation around behaviours that we all know is present in society.
Law 23 (Dead ball) 1. Ball is dead (a) The ball becomes dead when (i) it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler. (ii) a boundary is scored. See Law 19.3 (Scoring a boundary). (iii) a batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal. (iv) whether played or not it becomes trapped between the bat and person of a batsman or between items of his clothing or equipment. (v) whether played or not it lodges in the clothing or equipment of a batsman or the clothing of an umpire. (vi) it lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder. (vii) there is an award of penalty runs under either of Law 2.6 (Player returning without permission) or Law 41.2 (Fielding the ball). The ball shall not count as one of the over. (viii) there is contravention of Law 41.3 (Protective helmets belonging to the fielding side). (ix) Lost ball is called. See Law 20 (Lost ball). (x) the match is concluded in any of the ways stated in Law 16.9 (Conclusion of match). (b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
I guess Holdings' interpretation has a flaw. No player can assume anything. In the spirit of the game, players must be aware of the situation and respond. Bairstow was not aware and he faltered. Umpire did not call "over" after last ball was bowled. The stumping was referred to TV umpire who gave final decision. Period.
Michael Holding was a great player but he is completely wrong on this. If a ball were to be dead just when it hits a wicketkeeper's gloves, no batsmen would ever attempt byes even after that when quick runs are needed. You can't score after a ball's dead. Obviously, the ball hitting the keeper's gloves doesn't make the ball dead. If at all the batsman wants to venture out, he usually grounds his bat, makes eye contact with the umpire and then goes to tap the pitch to even it or talk to his non striker or whatever. Else, he's at the mercy of the fielders. In that sense, it's like baseball. You can't leave base. Just stay at the crease unless attempting a run or between change of overs. Why do batsmen, especially English batsmen, find it so tough to understand that?
Michael - you are wrong about when the ball is deemed dead. You need to read the laws. The ball doesn't become dead when it hits the wicketkeepers gloves and both batsmen are in their crease. If that was the case a stumping could not take place up close to the wicket if a player moves forward after the ball passes them and is taken by the keeper. Many, Many stumpings have occurred because the batter moves forward after the keeper fields the delivery and then whips off the bails. To understand the laws you have to read them.
1. Cricket has laws, not rules 2. A lot of hue and cry over a basic dismissal which has been effected since cricket was founded. Keepers at all levels are taught to have a go at the stumps after collecting the ball in an attempt to catch the batter short. The batters are taught to (hopefully) stay inside the crease until they get confirmation that the ball is dead in order to safeguard themselves from such an attempt to dismiss them. This is something JB himself tried to effect against Labuschagne earlier in the game and against Warner and Smith in previous tours, something McCullum has tried to do several times over his career and many other keepers keep doing regularly in every form of cricket. 3. The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and the two batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play - is the dead ball law. Bairstow or any batter for that matter cannot unilaterally decide that the ball is dead on their own regardless of what conventions or practice they do to indicate they believe the ball is dead. 4. Talk of Bairstow not looking to take any advantage and trying to run is not relevant to the conversation at all since that is not a requirement for a batter to get stumped which is why it is strange to see the English players, pundits and players up in arms. Try to think of it as an offside player not influencing the play during a goal review in a football game. The goal will stand since the offside offense will only occur upon the player from an offside position coming back to influence the play. If he doesn't influence the play, he is not relevant to the play and therefore no offense has been committed. Similarly, whether JB was trying to take an advantage or not is not relevant to the potential of him being dismissed via stumping. 5. A batter can get stumped while attempting an attacking shot or a defensive shot. Do batters who get stumped while playing a defensive shot cry about them not trying to take advantage of the situation since they were only attempting to play a defensive shot and hence not going to run? The situation is quite similar. JB left the ball, did not confirm the ball was dead and left his crease leaving himself vulnerable to be dismissed via a stumping and was out stumped. He has only himself to blame and no one else. 6. This practice of shifting the blame of the batter's lack of game awareness, lack of concentration, naivety and proper understanding of the laws onto the bowling side whether it is regards to running out the non-striker by the bowler before the apex of his delivery or in cases like the Bairstow stumping, and saying they cheated, they played unfairly and did not play the game in the right spirit is quite frankly MORONIC AND DISGRACEFUL. Why should the bowling side be blamed for playing the game as per the laws when the mistake was committed by the batter? 7. People like to bring about spirit of cricket when they do not like a decision going against them when the meaning, extent and application of it is different from person to person. The umpires are the CUSTODIANS of the game, they are the sole judges of fair and unfair play under the MCC laws. The umpires' decision is final. Players are required to respect the umpires and the opposition. That is called playing the game in the right spirit. The bowling side makes an appeal to the umpires and they will decide whether to uphold the appeal or not. Whatever decision the umpire makes, the bowling side and batters are required to accept it, respect the decision and move on. THAT IS WHAT IS CALLED AS PLAYING THE GAME IN THE RIGHT SPIRIT. Not what these English and Australian hypocrites be harping about.
If you understand it that way then there are a lot of stumpings that are not stumpings. You just said once the ball hits (not settled in) the gloves the ball is dead. Be more precise and say once the ball has settled in the gloves. As was shown at no point did the ball settle, it was immediately transferred to the other glove and tossed at the stumps. If at any point Bairstow had looked he would have stayed in his crease. He is a kicket keeper and he does the same thing regularly and has stated it is in the rules of the game, He was complsacent lazy and disrespectful and he learnt a lesson. Something else that no one else has said much about is the fact that Bairstow ducked the ball and did not at any time look to see where the ball went. Whether it was caught or not and just wandered out of the crease. He did not look to see if the ball was dead at any time. And he did not seem to look at the umpires or he partner either. That is incredibly disrespectful.
Holding stated clearly that if both batsmen were in their crease when the ball was in the wicketkeeper's gloves,then the ball is dead.Was it so? Have to look at the replay.
You need to read the very clear rules as to when a ball is dead. Always taught my junior cricket teams to leave the bat behind the crease until over as called. Schoolboy stuff.
Should Australia have rescinded their appeal?
Should England get over it and focus on improving their game
No
Why reward stupidity in a batsmen not knowing the rules of cricket when a ball is dead. No. He's out and now will hopefully understand like most U12s are taught, to stay in his crease till the end of the over.
@talktv
absolutely not
No. Similar incidents with England taking the wicket, were the appeals withdrawn? When Stuart Broad edged the cover off the ball to slip and refused to walk, was there the same outcry and near riot by members?
De Grandhomme, Elliot, Muralitharan all victims of the hypocrisy of English cricketers. English cricket team single handedly do more damage to the English chant ‘spirit of the game’ then every international team combined.
Times like this I wish Australia could field Lee, Tait, Johnson and McGrath in their prime… let’s see how vocal and whining the poms are with 100mph piece of leather. It’ll even have the mint flavour from the impacts…
If you believe the Aussies didn't play in the spirit of the game it would have been far more powerful to simply not applaud them as they went through the long room. Let them walk through in silence. The verbal abuse was classless.
This is spot on. No-one does freezing silence like the English. Perhaps to be accompanied by some other classic English passive aggression like gently shaking your head.
Or just turned their backs on them.
@@PaoloBanke passive aggressive bullying then?
I will tell you what classless is? Chappell rolling the last ball of a match at the batsmen, when NZ needed 6 runs to win!! Classless is when 3 Aussie players were implicated in ball tampering back in 2018 in SA. Classless is when players resort to a low blow by running out a batsman who clearly has no intention of taking a run. And you expect these cheaters to get silent treatment!!!
@@charlesknowles6301 I recall that and I believe that was far worse than even the sandpaper. I know underhand is within the rules and stumping in such a fashion is within the rules too but I could never bring myself to do either.
Bairstow was not even looking at the ball. He did not know if it was in the keepers gloves or on the way to the boundary. The ball was not dead. He walked out of his crease and 0.8 seconds after the catch the ball left the keepers gloves on the way to the stumps. The ball was live. If the ball is dead when it hits the keepers gloves there would never be a stumping so what Michael is saying is incorrect.
Just saw it and he's definitely out. It's a bit unusual but definitely out. He got caught slipping. Pretty sure most keepers try this every now and then
Sissies hitting below the belt
Totally agree.
Very good point
@@ken_kaniff246John himself did the same thing to Labucheyne in Australia’s 2nd innings but missed the stumps
The rules state the ball is dead when the batter, the fielders and umpires all deem the play to be finished, it's dead. The umpires didn't call over and Carey thought it was still in play. It's not up to Bairstow to call it.
Calling over can only be done after the ball is judged to be dead. See Law 17 which covers the over.
The umpires themselves thought play was dead. Look at their concentration on that part of the action. So does deem mean "call" or in the "head"?
Yeah Bairstow didn’t even look behind to see what happened to the ball… it was lazy bit of batting and fair enough he got run out! By the way, the videos on the playlist on my channel might interest some people!
@@Younis1446 A batter can only be run out if they are attempting a run, which Bairstow was clearly not trying to do. He was therefore stumped.
The umpires thought the ball was dead; they weren't watching the ball, the batsman, or the wicketkeeper. The batter obviously thought it was dead. Even the fielders apart from Carey thought it was dead. So it was obviously up to Carey to decide.
If hitting the keepers gloves made the ball dead you could never get stumped. That is not true.
wrong on 2 points. Point 1) he stated this was his interpretation based on his experience. 2) if you listen to what he said the difference being if the batsman is out of his crease when playing the ball. Not when he is in his crease when the ball is in the keepers gloves, denotes his intent to walk from his crease and then walks away.
@@icedidiwhat about all the stumpings where the batsmen lifts a foot? Like Foakes against Ireland.
Yep. You could never get stumped if both batsmen were within their creases when the ball hit the gloves of the keeper. But if a batsman was out of his crease, trying to play a shot or trying to run he could be stumpred or run out.
@@icedidi appreciate his experience, but in my experience a batter has been in and lifted heal and was stumped. This batter was given out and rightly so. I’m simply pointing out that his supposedly clear cut definition is not that simple.
Now don’t get all accountant on me and count how I’m wrong just agree that the Poms are Hippocrates with their own ball tampering, and numerous “spirit of cricket” infringements (Elliot run out) and let’s move on.
Looking forward to Ashes III 😁
@@icedidi Carey threw the ball as soon as he caught it. Bairstow was in his crease when he threw it and walked out while the ball was in flight.
Over had not been called, therefore the ball was live.
Now then, explain to me how does this simple logic escape you?
A world class umpire, one on the test elite panel ruled on it whereas you have only an ill informed opinion.
Bairstow tried to do exactly the same to Labuschagne in the second innings - except his throw missed the stumps.
Labushagne was taking stance out of the crease before bowler was coming to bowl and was not going in after. Secondly, that throw from Bairstow to Labushagne was not at the end of over
@@ManojKumar-yn9qx Nothing wrong with a stumping at the end of an over.
@@ManojKumar-yn9qxoh piss off with the end of the over rubbish. I have never heard so mych sh*it in my life to justify why Aus was wrong but it was ok for Bairstow to do it in the middle of an over
@@ManojKumar-yn9qx None of the things you said counter OP's point. Bairstow was thinking just like Carey when he tried stumping Marnus earlier in a similar fashion. This is petty hypocrisy from England.
@@ManojKumar-yn9qx So what has any of what you said got anything to do with anything. Both balls were live. End of.
If anyone should have warned Bairstow, it was his own captain, Ben Stokes who was standing just 22 yards from him and must have seen him walk away prematurely from his crease time and time again.
And coach McCallum…didn’t he know about Jonny’s bad habit? Everyone else knew. The Captain and the Coach had a job to do with Jonny; but they preferred to grandstand and blame the Aussies rather than stand up to their own responsibilities.
Sack them both
I could literally listen to Michael all day long, a true gentleman…
Dear John 8327, The now frosty greying West Indian man, especially with his knowledge, history, and experience, is a joy to harken. However, my correspondence to him:
Dear Sir, Michael Holding: You are getting grey with your seemingly matching wisdom. Cricket has *laws,* in the manner of fans, players, and umpires, *controlling their crooked "pay-day" desires,* hands, abuse and discrimination from their lips. Something they can *lock you up for*
The game of cricket played fairly have *rules* -- not laws: *Players cannot be locked up for a mistimed Mankad, stumping, run out, or a controversial catch.*
Apart from playing the race card with making a big deal about BLM
True..he's very knowledgeable, and articulate...thorighly enjoy his commentary full of insights and technical nuggets..
@@darrenjhodgey4734 Yeap. Gave no evidence that he was ever abused. Martin Luter king would not be impressed with him.
He is very knowledgeable about cricket! Btw, the videos on the playlist on my channel interesting… anyway all the best to you!
Bairstow was out - the Laws aren't there to protect a batsman from having a brain fade.
Mikey is wrong about the dead ball and needs to read Law 20.
@@Simon-sf7ng It staggers me how many professional players do not have even a fundamental understanding of the laws. It isn't just cricket either. When questioned by a player once I had to remind him that my job was to apply the laws not teach the laws to him. That is his job or his coaches job.
@@Simon-sf7ngIn those cases, the batsmen are usually playing a shot and miss the ball; and their foot is still in motion.
@@bamydz not necessarily. Sometimes the foot may be still without momentum. And then with a voluntary changed stance or shift in body weight, it moves.
Sometimes professional players or former professional players are not familiar with the finer points of the law so that is why we have a rule book that needs to be referred to when a decision seems contentious. Some people get worked up but that is because they don't read the law. Some are still arguing and haven't even read the law.
@@injanhoi1 That would be MCC members...
Bairstow attempted the same thing in the Australian Innings to Marnus Labuschagne. If he had got Labuschange would you then be saying the same thing
I would be saying exactly the same thing if an Australian batsman was in a similar position. I simply do not believe that a batsman should be given out in those circumstances
@@Mogget5 Well, the good news is Bairstow (and a swathe of other cricketers) will never do that again..... Or... maybe IF he thinks he was right he will just continue regardless....:)
Bairstow stumped Samit Patel in 2014.
@@UmpireStrikesBack That was a dog act
@@UmpireStrikesBack That was totally different and perfectly acceptable; Patel fell forward out of his crease because he was unbalanced after trying to hit the ball. He wasn't just walking out of his crease, after grounding his bat twice, while stationary, and perfectly upright and steady.
The ball was not dead - it 1 motion - the wicket keeper had the the ball out in not even a second - u can tell that the keeper knows he has a habit of doing this - another point - he is a test cricketer and should know the law - he is paid a lot of money to know the laws
I have to disagree with you Micheal, the abuse shouldn’t be coming from any room or stand.
In other words Michael is saying that the keeper can't stump the batsman as the ball is dead once the ball enters the keepers glove...
He didn't mean that, he also said if both the batsman are inside the crease then the ball is dead.
@@Learner5555 "Both the batsmen" is the key phrase here and if the rules really say that then as you said what Holding says is correct.
Does Micheal write and interpret the rules or does the MCC
@@Learner5555 Incorrect. Refer to comments by former Test umpire Simon Tauffel (ICC Umpire of the year 5 years straight) re; the Bairstow stumping. I'll take his read of the situation over any whining coming from the MCC, Pommie media or Pommie cricket yob's. Here's to a 5-0 drubbing of Mother England.
@@raviscott4853 i wasn't arguing that Micheal was correct. I was just interpreting what he meant by his statements given in the interview. Not sure of a 5-0, but, yup agreed totally needless whining from the English media, fans et al...
Bairstow knew or should have known the rules and obeyed them instead of wandering along the wicket at his leisure
Bairstow deserved to be given out for his own stupidity. Especially being a keeper. And also considering he tried the exact same thing against Labuchagne. Can we stop the whinging- please
But Stokes wasnt in his crease at the non strikers end ( both batsmen right ) so ball not dead , and Alex Carey is allowed throw the ball at any stumps at that stage , then Bairstow wanders out and his wicket is broken after his left his crease , dopey . Case closed , unfortunate but not unfair , move on please . Start thinking about the next game , surely Englands coach who used this rule every chance he got in all forms of cricket , could explain it to them .
If you watch, stokes desperately got back in his crease because he knew the ball wasn't dead
Merely totally unsporting, which is par for the course for the Aussies. How sporting is sledging? Do you hear it going on in tennis, snooker, baseball; deliberately trying to put your opponent off by verbal abuse? Typical Aussie. No class.
@@edeledeledel5490 I hear sledging in snooker
@@edeledeledel5490 I hear plenty of sledging
and trash talk in all forms or Football around the world , basketball , hockey . Baseball no idea about sorry , but your talking about teams sports . If you cant deal with some banter and sledging go play a solo sport , 1 official so easy to police . Unsporting well not according to the umpires and the ICC or your coach who did it all through out his cricket playing days, or Bairstow who tried to do it earlier in the series but missed the stumps . Yes i am an Aussie but would never threaten English spectators at the MCG and try to trip an English player as he walks by , or throw Beer at Mike Atherton while he boundary side doing commentary . But yeah i have no class .
@@scottperrow9878 That's mostly what I said. Football has been deeply unpleasant, particularly from a racial point of view, and if you think it's acceptable there, why not in snooker and tennis? McEnroe came close to it in tennis, and even admitted later in life that he did it deliberately when he was not playing well.
And when Glen McGrath asks Sarwan what Brian Lara's cock tastes like, that's a bit of merry banter is it? Very classy. Aussie crowds have in the past targeted English players that they think are weak, virtually threatening violence. But that's all very sporting. I'm afraid you are outnumbered because almost every cricketing nation thinks Aussies cheat.
And "our" coach is from New Zealand, virtually the same as an Aussie, but much better at Rugby.
Still haven't seen Bairstow v Labuschagne - not on TH-cam or any other site that works for me.
The West Indies ran Dean Jones out when he was caught on a no ball and didn't hear the call and was walking to the pavilion. Alan Border Australias captain didn't ask for him to be called back or do a song and dance about the spirit of the game!
I’m with Holding, once it’s in a keepers gloves a spinner can’t get you stumped. Spin bowlers are a stain on the game and stumping is an unsporting rule. By the way bravo for getting a guys opinion of a stumping he hasn’t seen, we need more experts like this.
Then get the rules changed.
@@petersmith8134 agreed, outlaw stumping, it’s solves this issue.
@@saintmozI appreciate your sarcasm. 😂
I'm assuming by your comment that you don't have a very good record against spin bowlers. 😄
@@saintmoz Lol. Just get rid of the creases. No more run outs or no balls.
What had"T20 and one day international experience"to do with the stumping of Bairstow? The wicketkeeper completed a simple stumping,no more no less. Nothing else.
In the earlier test Bairstow tried to get Marnus Labuschangne the same way, but Labuschagne was in his crease
@@sachinmesta4238 ONCE AGAIN: Are you not confusing this incident with Bairstow's MISSING THE STUMPS when he tried the EXACT same trick upon Labuschagne in the previous Test, my friend?
Bairstow is a wicket keeper. He should know better. Didn't look back or know where the ball was.
If that was true, then many stampings shouldn't be given!
By that rationale, the keeper can't get a stumping off a spinners delivery if he took the ball when the batsman was in his crease, then stepped out of his crease, then tried to get back in his crease? That's incorrect Michael, the ball is still alive. Also, if the keeper chooses to have a ping at the stumps as Carey did, however misses the stumps & the ball rolls down to the deep field, the batsmen are going to take off for a run or two, as the ball is still alive. The English press look as foolish as Bairstow.
Mr Holding - FYI it’s not called Maaankaading anymore. The ICC have termed it in other words without being referenced in a colonial mindset to an ex Indian great. You boys who were once asked to eat grovel should know better. Please revisit the laws of cricket and read them properly before loosely saying something.
Ravi Chander Ashwin explained it beautifully better than Mr. Holding.
I think Mr. Holding explained it pretty well and simple, but Ashwin explained it well too.
No, it's not when it hits the keepers gloves. Its when both batting and bowling teams act in such a way that it is deemed dead. So when the keeper passes it to a fielder to throw back to the bowler, that indicates they have deemed to ball to be dead. When the keeper immediately throws it back to the stumps, it's clear they haven't treated it as dead, but Bairstow didn't confirm that before walking out.
Clearly Michael is talking about when teams don't pull douchey tricks. For Australia, the side guilty of epic cheating, to be so lacking at Lords, Lords ffs, is typical and ridiculous.
Sadly it'll follow them and Carey, the moment they inevitably mess up it'll rightly be hurled at them...
It's poor. Cricket IS different to many sports, just so unnecessary and adds an edge. Carey needs plenty of short stuff relentlessly ESPECIALLY when series is list and it's dead rubbers
Love Mikey but probably not wise to seek the opinion of someone who hasn't seen the dismissal nor read the letter of the law that applies to it.
England are a bunch of hypocrites if they really cared about the spirit of the game then NZ would be current CWC champs.
bloody well said champ. 👍
Australia should whitewash ashes and win the world cup Indian i am love australian team
Actually late Kerry packer was the person who really made westindies a formidable force why hate for australia they are aggressive but real sports people I love australian team
what is this mess ......a ball hit the bat by accident. in the world cup ...some bitter peeps still lol
@@simonhearn2028not bitter, just pointing out the audacity for the English to moan about the spirit of the game with all of their past incidents. Absolutely absurd, classic whinging poms.
Where was spirit of cricket when Starc took the catch - batsmen knew the catch was taken? But lack of Bairstows judgement of a dead ball brings SOC (he’s a keeper). For starc it should be umpire decision and for Bairstow its spirit of cricket?
Two completely different scenarios, Starc pushed the ball into the turf ,Bairstow, although stupid was clearly not attempting a run.
@@danielfield7270 tell which catch is held longer than what starc had held onto that catch? Keepers always throw the ball immediately up in the air once caught. Its the same thing, its just how you want to look at it. If you want to complicate it you can
@@danielfield7270 It doesn't matter if he was attempting a run or not. Do you think every batsman who's been stumped was attempting to run? Educate yourself, Learn the Laws
Again...according to Holding EVERY single time the keeper stumps a batsman off a spinner is NOT OUT..."when the ball hits the keepers gloves, the ball is dead.." - Michael Holding....so no more stumpings from this point on then.
That’s not what he said. He said it’s dead if both batsmen are in their crease and the ball hits the keepers glove. Which is also not true. But an important clarification. Clearly you can’t get stumped if both batsmen are in their crease.
He is talking about the last ball of over not every ball.
For those who considered that the ball had “finally settled” in Carey’s gloves when he held it for just 0.9 of a second, how long did Starc hold the Duckett “catch”, before grounding it?
its not about how long he held the ball, it states that the fielder must have control of his body, he didnt...
@@neilcherrett9955 and if he had tossed it away after controlling it? Plenty of precedent for that.
@@neilcherrett9955 Neil, search for the Bairstow stumping of Patel. I’ve tried to leave a link, but TH-cam deletes it. In that, my belief is that the ball goes dead, before he effects the stumping. In point of fact, Carey’s effort required much more skill.
@@petergosney6433 you do understand that to toss something you need to have control of it, correct? it's not about time, you need to have control of the ball during catch & no one intentionally grasses the ball
@@YC-bi4kj this is a “where do you draw the line” situation. If he had taken it above his head, then taken another three steps and fallen on it, the decision may well have been different. If you pay $1 or $100m to a girl for sex, at what point does she cease to be a prostitute? Search for the Bairstow stumping of Patel. Bairstow got acclaim for this, but under the rules, with the batsman not attempting to take a run, and fully in control of his body, once the ball had clearly “settled in the keepers gloves” it should have been dead. Come back and tell me what you think.
If the ball had missed the wicket and gone to the boundary, England would not have refused 4 runs.
100%.
That couldn't happen though, it was an underarm lob.
@@paulw6183They would’ve taken one run overthrow if there was opportunity
@@TheJunglecrab Ian Bell
It's a lot of what aboutery!
Like holding a former great fast bowler said. It doesn't sit right.
If the keeper had tries to be unsportsmanlike and if it goes for overthrows. Why shouldn't the opposing team get runs? It's the laws of the games as you keep telling us 🤪
Better still it doesn't happen though. That's Aussie keeper and England keeper
Johnny never attempted to gain.
from the situation, the aussies broke an unwritten rule..he marked his crease, effectively meaning the ball is dead...umpires should has adjudicated taking that into account
I don't understand why it doesn't already say in the rules that the ball is automatically deemed dead when the keeper is standing back from the wicket and has taken it after the batsman has not offered a shot and is planted in his crease. That would seem to be a much clearer rule. If a batsman is out of his crease when the ball is taken by a keeper standing back, then that's a different matter. Bairstow didn't look back so he must have heard the ball smacking into Carey's gloves. He casually walked out of his crease after signalling with his foot that he understood that the ball was dead and that the over was completed, but as the rules are at the moment, it wasn't up to him to decide.
And if the non striking batsman calls his partner to run but the ball is apparently dead? How will that work.
@@clarke1319 It would work, because the ball would not be 'apparently dead,' by the rules, it would actually be dead once it was in the keeper's gloves.
Spot on very cheap wicket only the Australian team would think of it it was planned you could see by the reaction of short leg fielder
@@bettyholmes1155 From Michael Holding's comments, it seems that, in the spirit of fair play, international cricketeers have generally come to accept that once the ball has been pouched by a keeper standing back (after no shot has been played and the ball was a not a no-ball), then, if the striking batsman was safely planted in his crease at the moment the ball was caught, it has come to be treated as dead at this moment, even if the rules have not yet specified this.
The Australians have watched Bairstow's behaviour and have clearly decided to ignore convention to get him back in the pavillion before he could get going. Bairstow was given out within the rules.
That said, Bairstow himself has also been trying to throw down the stumps in almost similar circumstances, but the striking batsmen haven't moved and he has missed his target. Stokes has stated that he would not have appealed in the same circumstances as Bairstow's disimissal, and would have withdrawn any appeal from his team-mates. It's a shame that Cummins didn't take this approach, but we now live in an age where (to some people), winning has become everything.
It is simple just wait until the wicket keeper has taken the ball and moved to change ends. You can not take the game into your own hands, at that point in time it is not up to the batsman to presume its ok to wander out of his crease.
From where I was watching, Bairstow was out of his crease and did not ground his bat. He simply kept walking - Carey, in one fluid motion underarmed the ball straight at the stumps. Bairstow should have grounded his bat, and then walked up the pitch. So, no, we should not have rescinded the appeal.
Bairstow was in his crease when Carey caught the ball. He was in his crease when Carey threw the ball. He was not trying to get a run. He should (IMO) not have been given out.
@@Mogget5 So if you swing at the ball, miss, then fall over out of your crease you can't be run out or stumped? Interesting...
@@kimn9802I agree with Mogget5. But if you swing and fall then you have lost control of your balance while making a play, so you are stumped out.
Totally different scenario.
@@bamydz Totally not. You're out of your crease but not attempting a run. Totally the same.
Grounding his bat is irrelevant.
So, if Micheal believes that the ball is dead if both batsmen are in their crease when the ball touches the keeper's gloves, Bairstow would still be out and the ball was not dead. If you watch the video from behind the keeper, when the keeper catches the ball, Stokes was out of his crease and he only touches the crease with his bat once the keeper had already stumped Bairstow.
If the keeper had not collected the ball cleanly and it went a few meters away, would the batters have stolen a run? Yes. How can Bairstow walk without even looking behind. Keeper threw the ball as soon as he collected. No delay. Bairstow was OUT. Unbelievable that this is even being talked about at this level. It's not about the Laws. It's all about ARROGANCE of the snobbish English.
Michael's understanding is incorrect
It was a single motion , he caught the ball and immediately threw it .
Johnny lost his concentration because he walked while the ball was travelling in the air. Out.
MCC members sitting in the Long Room most of them proved unworthy of being there.
The ball wasn't dead as the keeper threw the ball back quickly. Had he held onto the ball for a bit longer then it would have deemed to be dead.
In terms of the spirit of cricket, to me this implies that you do not cheat to win/gain an advantage. The Aussies did not cheat
Bairstow has held the ball waaaay longer than that to get Patel stumped. But that was apparently ok, and "brilliant work" according to the English commentators. Hypocrites much?
So Michael's understanding is balls is deemed 'dead' , when it hits keepers gloves , then shouldn't the batsman look back to confirm that ? Jonny doesn't even look back , just casual walks off as soon as ball passes him ? . Looks to me that people are just making own interpretations to make one team happy. I mean, what are they trying to teach young kids on this ? It's ok to be inconsiderate ,and leave crease like that and you can play the 'spirit of the game ' card afterwards if something happens ? And do England really think any other team wouldn't do that to them ?
this is exactly right, doesn't take a second just look back confirm what is happening all this hoo-haw is ridiculous
He just made up new rules about when a ball is dead. The regulations are clear - go read them!
Crucially, Carey had thrown the ball while Bairstow was still in his crease before wandering off - making it clear that play was well and truly alive.
Even England admitted as much.
Captain Ben Stokes said: “I am not disputing the fact it is out because it is out.”
Coach Brendon McCullum said: “By the letter of the law, he is out.”
As far as the rules go, it was clear: Bairstow was out.
Simon Taufel, the former ICC elite umpire said,,
"My experience is when people don't like a dismissal under the Laws of Cricket, they cite the Spirit of Cricket to support their view."
"Was Jonny Bairstow's dismissal at Lord's a breach of the Spirit of Cricket? Have you seen any umpire tell a fielding side that the keeper standing back is not allowed to attempt a stumping?"
"Which part of the codified Preamble (the Spirit of Cricket) was breached by the fielding side? What did the fielding side do in effecting a legitimate dismissal that unfairly impacted the ability of the batter in their attempt not to be dismissed? (Did they run into him or distract him or prevent him making good his ground?)"
“Should a batter be immune from dismissal as per the Laws by simply being negligent ( and leaving his ground too early) ?,”
Fascinating perspective given by Michael Holding. The level of detail and analysis he does here is amazing, unlike many experts who give biased and unreasonable opinions. Massive respect to Holding sir.
Yet he is wrong.
Yes I agree wonderful analysis.... Except for the fact that he is blatantly wrong.
By any means necessary
Aus were never a fair playing side
Healy was a major culprit
Wrong! Ball is not dead!!!!
So Michael, like many people doesnt know the laws of when a ball is dead. That has lead many to a wrong conclusion.
Bairstow should come forward with the apology and admit ion of a brain fade , all over
@gutmincer2
exactly
Absolutely!
Are the Pons still whingeing about this? They're crap at cricket but world class at moaning.
Maybe he should've asked Holding about how his beloved Windies failed to qualify for the World Cup ?
The difference between the Bairstow incident and a stumping chance is that the "play" is still in progress when a batsman has attempted to leave his crease to hit a spinner. Bairstow had already "played and completed" his shot (in this case, he avoided playing it at all), and he was IN HIS CREASE when this was done. That being the case, the ball should have been dead as soon as it was caught by Carey. This is a situation where common sense should override all other considerations.
As a keeper Bairstow has in the past taken a ball in his gloves, watched a batsman who has his foot behind the line for a few moments then raises it, flick off the bails, claim the stumping and be congratulated for being so smart. He was braindead at Lord's and everyone else in the world except for truly one eyed England supporters can recognise this.
All Johnny boy had to do was turn around and have a look to ensure the ball had come to rest or passed off to a slip fielder and he could do as he pleased. Watch some cricket it's second nature to most batsmen.
Australian are correct, England is using excuse for there lose
If I was down 2 nil. I would be looking for a deflection ! Quick, look over there ! Nothing to see here !
Imagine letting a spinner push one past you, you don’t look back and then wandering out of your crease. You’d be stumped in two seconds and no one would bat an eyelid. What happened to Bairstow is no different.
In the earlier test Bairstow tried to get Marnus Labuschangne the same way, but Labuschagne was in his crease
@@sachinmesta4238 Are you not confusing this incident with Bairstow's MISSING THE STUMPS when he tried the EXACT same trick upon Labuschagne in the previous Test, my friend?
Rubbish! He didn't "wander out of his crease". He grounded his bat twice to emphasise he was in his crease after the ball passed him, and he was not overbalancing or unsteady in any way, or likely to fall over out of his crease, totally in control.
@@edeledeledel5490 A) Bairstow did not ground his bat, he just went on a stroll.
As soon as the ball hit Carreys gloves, he throws it at the stumps in one smooth action, there is no delay, The umpires officiating, did not say "over" as the ball was still alive. So bairstow is out
@@sachinmesta4238 You're right. I must be thinking of another clip; however, he definitely grounds his foot inside the crease and he is not out of balance, unlike Samit Patel.
Sorry Michael you are so wrong on this one HE IS OUT STUMPED Carey took the ball and same motion through the ball hit the stumps dopey Barstow had a brain fart lol
Bairstow wasn't even looking at the ball, surely as a wicket keeper he would be aware of the potential for such things especially as he keeps doing it himself. I'm not sure if Johhnys the full quid.
Being that he's a Ginger.. probably not
Michael and Jonny have something in common...neither one bothered looking at where the ball was, or bothered determining if the ball was alive!!
Or understand the rules apparently.
Michael is almost right but not quite. The ball, according to the relevant law, is dead when the umpire at the bowler's end believes that all players on the field consider the ball to be dead. This is bizarre wording but it is not normally an issue because there is normally a consensus when a play is complete, such that quite obviously both batters are safe and no runs can ensue from the current position. If players get into dispute about when a play is complete, the alternative to this law is for the umpire to call "Ball Dead" at the end of every single play, which absolutely nobody wants. The problem comes when every player on the field considers the ball dead except one. When this happens, the umpire must reverse his "belief" that all players considered the ball dead, because clearly one player did not, so the umpires "belief" must have been wrong, and therefore he, and everyone else, who thought the ball dead, must have been premature, because one player deemed the ball to be still alive. So, according to the letter of the law, Bairstow was OUT, but only because of the exploitation by Carey of a vulnerability to unfair play in the wording of the law. The reason this is 'unfair' play is that clearly, it was never intended by the wording of this law that one single person can control when a play is complete. If an outfielder collects the ball inside the boundary and the batters make their ground and stop running at that point, then the fielder instead of throwing the ball in jogs to the crease with it, during which time everyone considers the ball dead and the batters meet in the middle to confer, then the fielder lifts a bail with the ball, according to the letter of the law that is OUT. One person believed the ball to be still alive, or more accurately, one person took advantage of a situation where his opposition believed play was completed, which is not really playing cricket as such, it is taking advantage of a vulnerability in the wording of the law. Imagine the fielder doesn't take off the bails and that the conferring batsmen go back to each other's end and claim a run while the fielding side believed the ball dead. The law says it's a run. But this is absurd because playing a game, any game, requires both sides to believe the game is being played. Play does not begin when one person decides the ball is alive. A bowler cannot bowl at a wicket when a batsman is gardening. An umpire does not call "play" before every ball. An unspoken consensus is reached such that both sides consider play is viable. A tennis player does not serve to an empty court while his opponent is dealing with a wasp. A game is being played when both sides consider the game is being played, not when only one side considers it, so while exploiting the bizarre wording of the dead ball law in cricket is not de jura "cheating" it is not de facto playing cricket either. If players maintain that it is ok to 'play' in this manner - both Cummins and Carey said they had no regrets and would do it again - and if they continue to exploit a vulnerability in the wording of the law, then the law will have to change, because it was never intended for cricket (or any other game) to be deemed in play when only one side says so. Not only is this not in the spirit of the game of cricket, it is not in the spirit of every other game that requires two sides to play it.
Michael Holding is a legend of the game and I respect his achievements. But his comments around the dead ball law just goes to show how ignorant players actually are of the laws of cricket. The ball is dead when it finally settles in the keepers hands and both sides have no further play to make. Australia obviously saw an option to continue the play, 1st ball or last ball makes no difference. Bairstow was legitimately stumped, happens at every level from club cricket to test matches. Full disclosure I’m an umpire with over 25 years of experience.
Forget the topic, I am more excited to hear Holding's voice after a long time!
By Holding's analogy, a stumping where the batsman raises his back foot after playing a shot should be outlawed since his foot might have been grounded when the ball hits the keeper's glove? I disagree with you sir, respectfully!
If you follow Mr Holding’s logic, then stumpings are impossible. In a stumping, the wicketkeeper catches the live ball and then immediately (before the ball can be considered to be “dead” by the umpire) whips off the bails and if the batsman at that moment is out of his crease, then that batsman is ruled out “stumped”. So the ball has been taken by the wicketkeeper in the ‘keeper’s gloves. The ball is NOT yet dead. Whether the batsman has left his crease before that, after that or simultaneously, marked his ground or done an Irish jig is immaterial. What matters is if the batsman is out of his crease at the moment the wicket is broken by the (live) ball that has been touched or thrown directly by the wicketkeeper or broken by the wicketkeeper’s glove which is carrying the ball at that very moment that the wicket was broken (bails dislodged). In the case of the Bairstow stumping, the ball was live, the umpire could not have and did not call “Over”, as the ball clearly was considered by the fielding side still to be live and, as Bairstow was out of his ground at the moment that the wicket was broken by Carey in a direct and un-delayed throw of the ball back at the stumps, Bairstow correctly under the Laws of Cricket was ruled out “Stumped”.
This is how Michael holding played it when he was playing an unwritten understanding between teams when cricket was more of a gentlemen’s game
Truth. Mutual human understanding and not just technicalities
Kicking the stumps down if appeal was not upheld and the barrage of bouncers at tail enders is that part of the gentlemans game. The truth is spirit of the game comes into play when it suits your team.
Money killed the "gentlemen’s game". Now it's just cricket
Apart from standing close the wickets, how is throwing the ball at the stumps 5 metres away different to doing a stumping after catching the ball. To say England lost the game because of this is just ridiculous, had Bairtstow not got out ad Smith caught Stokes than England would have lost anyway...
if its within the rules its within the rules, its a mistake batsman should not make in future
Yes, I agree with Mikey 100% there and said that earlier before I watched this. If the batters have no intent to run then the fielders/keeper should not have intent to run them out.
I also made what I thought was a valid point that on a cricket pitch you cannot have a player throwing the ball in the direction of an oblivious opponent. If the keeper is standing back that could mean it is propelled at some speed which could cause injury, certainly bad feeling and is at very least disrespectful and therefore definitely not in the spirit of the game or its best interests if you are going to teach young people it is ok to do that.
It can also be said that, if a batter is not allowed to take a run (if there is no intent to hit the ball) when the ball strikes him and runs away and the ball then immediately becomes dead, that could equally be applied in the batter's favour for the same reason i.e. no intent to take or score a run when the ball reaches the keeper should end the play unless the ball goes through for possible byes. I also agree that 99% of the time that is an accepted part of the ebb and flow.
If the batter is set up outside of the crease to try to negate the length of the bowler putting the ball more in their arc or left their ground to play a shot then that's fair enough. The keeper standing up and waiting for the batter to overbalance or lift their foot for a stumping is an entirely different matter and also an accepted part of the game which doesn't involve any possible danger to the batter.
Further to the point I made earlier, what would have happened in the scenario that JB had padded up outside off stump and the ball had just flicked his pad (or body/clothing) on the way through to the keeper? According to the Law the ball then automatically becomes dead because no shot was played so you are not allowed to run anyway even if you try. In that case it presumably wouldn't have been run out because no run was possible so this is almost a hair splitting technicality. If no shot is played and it goes through to the keeper and the batter hasn't left the crease in playing the shot that should surely amount to the same thing i.e. the end of the play for that delivery? I did try to research what actually counts as a 'play' (when the ball is still in play) in cricket but there doesn't appear to be any specific definition in the Laws. Incidentally, the only reason that the Mankad dismissal is even considered possible is because the non striker is deemed to be attempting to gain an unfair advantage in an attempt to score a run. That is obviously another matter but I still feel that if the non striker is within their ground and certainly when they are stationary when the bowler reaches the delivery stride that too should never be given out. So the idea of "The dozy twonk wasn't looking!" shouldn't exist in the game of cricket it's far too underarmed imho.
I suppose both of those types of dismissal could be nipped in the bud simply by handing discretion to the umpires under the blanket term of 'fair and reasonable play' and I have to be honest that if I were the enabled umpire there JB might still be batting nine months later.
Australia owns England. Australia will win the remaining Ashes matches.
That's why Windies didn't qualify for Wcup23
The ball becomes dead in cricket when123:
1. It is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
2. A boundary is scored.
3. A batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.
4. It is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
This incident shows the superior attitude of English players and the Aussies. Had the Wicket keeper been an Asian the English and Aussie media would crucified the player. Bairstow was foolish even after playing so much cricket.
In England, it is not cricket, " IT'S THE CRYING GAME " whenever they lose, again and again and again. One idiot said, now England will win, because that will inspire them to play??????? perhaps if they learn the rules it might help.
JB proved that Englishmen know how to go walkabout.
Forget what the rules say, I promise you if it was an Australian and not Bairstow , YOU would hear a totally different tune from Australian media. No batsman would be happy being given out that way. AUSTRALIANS WHEN IT COMES TO CRICKET THROWS SPORTSMANSHIP OUT OF THE WINDOW.
The problem here is telling when the ball ceases to be in play, when a delivery ends, for the next one to begin. Both players acted instinctively. One player assumes the ball is still in play, and the other assumes it is not. And to add to the woes this veteran and legendary cricketer, has his own opinion, but just as an outsider and a fan of the game and as an impartial observer, I still think it should not be up to the batsmen or for the fielding side to decide when the ball ceases to be in play. Suppose instead of catching the ball, the keeper had missed the ball and it went far off or even to the boundary enough for the batsmen to realise it, would they , or would they not take the by runs on offer. I know, as a batsman I would be hard pressed not to. If I was in bairstows position and did what bairstow did and was given out, I would only have said that I should have been more careful. In the earlier matches I used to watch, the the umpire would have his hand up, and having seen the batsmen ready would lower his hand to signal play, some umpires even audibly shouting out "play". Raising it back up again even momentarily can mean the ball is no longer in play. But nowadays almost all decisions are relegated and deferred to the 3rd umpire, decisions from lbws to nicks to almost every appeal is up for review as a matter of course, oftentimes by some simulation which IMHO is always suspect. Also in earlier matches at the beginning of the over the ball would always go though the umpire to the bowler. I always thought it was a silly ritual, but not if I think about it now in modern professional competitive cricket. It does give the umpire the chance to examine the ball, not only for natural wear, and also for possible tampering. These things have clearly taken place. The umpire should always be neutral. I think the decision was right.
With all due respect to Michael Holding, by your definition, Stokes had backed up and was not in his crease when Carey threw the ball. Stokes I believe never went back to his crease as he was out when the ball hit, out when the appeal happened and walked down the pitch .So therefore, play was not dead and the rest is history.
Pretty certain from my view Stokes was in his crease. Stokes at the very least went back to mark his position. I agree it was OUT but it would have been better to warn Bairstow initially….. a conclusive definition on when the ball is dead is urgently needed
@@daveruderbar1009 all due respect, I checked the video and its exactly how I said. And the last ball of every over, you wait for the over call. Its something you teach kids. If Carey paused in anyway, fair play, the ball is dead imv. He didn't. And I would also guarantee you see keepers pinging at stumps like that every weekend all over the world. Why are they doing this if it isn't out and within the spirit of cricket?
Perfect analysis by the Legend.
I am sorry to say you are completely wrong, the ball was not dead. If the ball becomes dead when it is in the wicketkeeper's gloves there would be no stumpings or runouts at the striker's end. The ball is dead when everyone considers it dead, if the umpire considers the ball to be in play then it is. Bestow wandered out of his ground on several occasions during that over and did it rather a lot of time in his innings. He attempted to stump batsmen in this way himself, there is no controversy. Bestow made a mistake and he paid for it with his wicket.
A great bowler who does not know the laws of cricket apparently.
Interviewer has never played cricket. Like most poms.
with all due respect to Michael Holding the ball and the over was not dead because the on field umpires never called the line "Over" so the ball was alive and Carey did the exact right thing
Well, Australians can expect a taste of their own medicine
@@ManojKumar-yn9qx what medicine? whitewashing England again by 5-0😆😂
@@ManojKumar-yn9qx even Ravi Ashwin supported Alex Carey in that incident so cry more poor Cheatland (England) fans😂🤣
Yeah but he also said the umpire doesn't call over after every ball.
@@clarke1319 umpire only call over after the last ball is bowled and if the ball is settled in wicket keeper or other members of the fielding side hands and in this incident the on field umpires never called over so Bairstow's run out was legitimate within the rules and laws of cricket
The ball isn't dead when it is caught by the wicketkeeper, or you couldn't have stumpings. Law 20.1.1 .1 the ball is dead when it is finally settled in the hands of the wicketkeeper or the bowler.
The keeper gathered and threw the ball in one continuous motion. Bairstow kept wandering out of his ground before the ball was dead and paid the price.
Either we follow the non existing "spirit of the game," whose applicability will be decided by the mainstream Western press according to their team's interests, or just follow the rules/laws. It is much easier to do the latter with far lesser grey areas and controversies.
According to Holding explanation of when the ball is dead is when the wicketkeeper caught the ball and both batsman are in their crease. So if england needed 1 run to win and bairstow missed the ball and carey caught it does that mean the ball is automatically dead and the batsman cant run?
Destroy cricket roots? Did we really need a report to realise cricket has been this way? The media/press is really trying to create shocked sensation around behaviours that we all know is present in society.
is it in the laws that the ball is dead when it is in the wicketkeeper's gloves ???
please link me to this as i can not find it ...
Michael H is totally correct. So many batsmen in the middle of the over mark the crease & leave to talk to the other batsman.
And if they do it while the ball is still live they can be stumped.
Some batsmen go on a walkabout after every ball.
Law 23 (Dead ball)
1. Ball is dead
(a) The ball becomes dead when
(i) it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.
(ii) a boundary is scored. See Law 19.3 (Scoring a boundary).
(iii) a batsman is dismissed. The ball will be deemed to be dead from the instant of the incident causing the dismissal.
(iv) whether played or not it becomes trapped between the bat and person of a batsman or between items of his clothing or equipment.
(v) whether played or not it lodges in the clothing or equipment of a batsman or the clothing of an umpire.
(vi) it lodges in a protective helmet worn by a fielder.
(vii) there is an award of penalty runs under either of Law 2.6 (Player returning without permission) or Law 41.2 (Fielding the ball). The ball shall not count as one of the over.
(viii) there is contravention of Law 41.3 (Protective helmets belonging to the fielding side).
(ix) Lost ball is called. See Law 20 (Lost ball).
(x) the match is concluded in any of the ways stated in Law 16.9 (Conclusion of match).
(b) The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.
I guess Holdings' interpretation has a flaw. No player can assume anything. In the spirit of the game, players must be aware of the situation and respond. Bairstow was not aware and he faltered. Umpire did not call "over" after last ball was bowled. The stumping was referred to TV umpire who gave final decision. Period.
The England did the same thing in 1916 , why didn't they raised the issue of "Spirit of Cricket" then?
Michael Holding was a great player but he is completely wrong on this. If a ball were to be dead just when it hits a wicketkeeper's gloves, no batsmen would ever attempt byes even after that when quick runs are needed. You can't score after a ball's dead. Obviously, the ball hitting the keeper's gloves doesn't make the ball dead. If at all the batsman wants to venture out, he usually grounds his bat, makes eye contact with the umpire and then goes to tap the pitch to even it or talk to his non striker or whatever. Else, he's at the mercy of the fielders. In that sense, it's like baseball. You can't leave base. Just stay at the crease unless attempting a run or between change of overs. Why do batsmen, especially English batsmen, find it so tough to understand that?
Michael - you are wrong about when the ball is deemed dead. You need to read the laws. The ball doesn't become dead when it hits the wicketkeepers gloves and both batsmen are in their crease. If that was the case a stumping could not take place up close to the wicket if a player moves forward after the ball passes them and is taken by the keeper. Many, Many stumpings have occurred because the batter moves forward after the keeper fields the delivery and then whips off the bails. To understand the laws you have to read them.
I understood it was the end of the over...why ask Michael his opinion if he didn t actually get a chance to see the incidence first !!!
Well said Mikey (respect)
MH makes a good point one of the legends of the game great reporting need more of this world 🌎 class sports journalism
1. Cricket has laws, not rules
2. A lot of hue and cry over a basic dismissal which has been effected since cricket was founded. Keepers at all levels are taught to have a go at the stumps after collecting the ball in an attempt to catch the batter short. The batters are taught to (hopefully) stay inside the crease until they get confirmation that the ball is dead in order to safeguard themselves from such an attempt to dismiss them. This is something JB himself tried to effect against Labuschagne earlier in the game and against Warner and Smith in previous tours, something McCullum has tried to do several times over his career and many other keepers keep doing regularly in every form of cricket.
3. The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler's end umpire that the fielding side and the two batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play - is the dead ball law. Bairstow or any batter for that matter cannot unilaterally decide that the ball is dead on their own regardless of what conventions or practice they do to indicate they believe the ball is dead.
4. Talk of Bairstow not looking to take any advantage and trying to run is not relevant to the conversation at all since that is not a requirement for a batter to get stumped which is why it is strange to see the English players, pundits and players up in arms. Try to think of it as an offside player not influencing the play during a goal review in a football game. The goal will stand since the offside offense will only occur upon the player from an offside position coming back to influence the play. If he doesn't influence the play, he is not relevant to the play and therefore no offense has been committed. Similarly, whether JB was trying to take an advantage or not is not relevant to the potential of him being dismissed via stumping.
5. A batter can get stumped while attempting an attacking shot or a defensive shot. Do batters who get stumped while playing a defensive shot cry about them not trying to take advantage of the situation since they were only attempting to play a defensive shot and hence not going to run? The situation is quite similar. JB left the ball, did not confirm the ball was dead and left his crease leaving himself vulnerable to be dismissed via a stumping and was out stumped. He has only himself to blame and no one else.
6. This practice of shifting the blame of the batter's lack of game awareness, lack of concentration, naivety and proper understanding of the laws onto the bowling side whether it is regards to running out the non-striker by the bowler before the apex of his delivery or in cases like the Bairstow stumping, and saying they cheated, they played unfairly and did not play the game in the right spirit is quite frankly MORONIC AND DISGRACEFUL. Why should the bowling side be blamed for playing the game as per the laws when the mistake was committed by the batter?
7. People like to bring about spirit of cricket when they do not like a decision going against them when the meaning, extent and application of it is different from person to person. The umpires are the CUSTODIANS of the game, they are the sole judges of fair and unfair play under the MCC laws. The umpires' decision is final. Players are required to respect the umpires and the opposition. That is called playing the game in the right spirit. The bowling side makes an appeal to the umpires and they will decide whether to uphold the appeal or not. Whatever decision the umpire makes, the bowling side and batters are required to accept it, respect the decision and move on. THAT IS WHAT IS CALLED AS PLAYING THE GAME IN THE RIGHT SPIRIT. Not what these English and Australian hypocrites be harping about.
You are surely right about society Sir.
Michael Holding on Jonny Bairstow Run Out Controversy
If you understand it that way then there are a lot of stumpings that are not stumpings. You just said once the ball hits (not settled in) the gloves the ball is dead. Be more precise and say once the ball has settled in the gloves.
As was shown at no point did the ball settle, it was immediately transferred to the other glove and tossed at the stumps. If at any point Bairstow had looked he would have stayed in his crease. He is a kicket keeper and he does the same thing regularly and has stated it is in the rules of the game, He was complsacent lazy and disrespectful and he learnt a lesson.
Something else that no one else has said much about is the fact that Bairstow ducked the ball and did not at any time look to see where the ball went. Whether it was caught or not and just wandered out of the crease. He did not look to see if the ball was dead at any time. And he did not seem to look at the umpires or he partner either. That is incredibly disrespectful.
Holding stated clearly that if both batsmen were in their crease when the ball was in the wicketkeeper's gloves,then the ball is dead.Was it so? Have to look at the replay.
Wasn't so. The non facing batter was halfway down the pitch and turned around to return to his own crease.
You need to read the very clear rules as to when a ball is dead. Always taught my junior cricket teams to leave the bat behind the crease until over as called. Schoolboy stuff.
@@skarn81 Accepted.
The Australians play cricket differently. The culture is different. It’s not illegal what they did.