Bairstow stumps Patel (stumping and interview). Imagine if Australia dismissed Bairstow like this!

Interviewer: "All keepers do it - batsmen probably don't like it do they?"
Bairstow: "It's just one of those things. It's within the rules of the game, and that's how it is."
Interesting take on things from Bairstow, given the incident in the Ashes at Lords 2023 where Carey stumped Bairstow controversially.
Both incidents were considered to be controversial and both were given OUT, as both dismissals were within the rules.
In this video (when Bairstow is the one carrying out the stumping), he is interviewed about it, and he is only caring about the rules - it's basically bad luck to the batter as far as Bairstow is concerned.
However, when he is on the receiving end of a controversial decision (as the batter), suddenly it is NOT about the rules anymore - instead his team prefers to accuse the opponent of not playing in the "Spirit of the Game" and Bairstow feels VERY hard done by.
Fascinating.

[@TwelfthMan]

"A wicket out of absolutely nothing" When an Englishman does it it's "Brilliant wicketkeeping" but when an Australian does it all of a sudden it's "unfair" and "against the spirit of cricket" because they didn't "earn" the wicket.

[@The_Last_Ninja]

As the commentator states “Patel has no one to blame but himself and a lot of credit to Bairstow”. Now why wasn’t that the case in the second Ashes Test? Hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order in England, especially from the MCC, who to be quite frank were the most feral out of the lot of them.

[@kymbo72]

Ah yes, but if the shoe is on the other foot then that's different.....then suddenly we need to start being concerned about the spirit of the game.

[@RaferJeffersonIII]

Totally different. The batsman wasn’t going down the pitch to garden. It wasn’t a dead ball. Bairstow had taken off down the wicket to prod the pitch, if you can’t see how this is different then you’re either just stupid, or so full of the smell of your own nations farts. Australia have a long history of not playing in the spirit of the game. Sportsmanship has and always will be at the heart of what it means to be English - at the cost sometimes of winning. Even in football, see how foreigners brought cheating and diving into the game. Most cultures value winning over all, including Australia. England is about the only place on earth where the concept of sportsmanship exists. Most other places it’s just seen as a stupidity - winning is everything.

[@englishman_in_arizona]

Nonsense. Have you ever played cricket?

[@alani3992]

He lifted his foot in regaining balance, it was in the act of the stroke. But Bairstow had finished his stroke, scratched his foot on the crease, & then walked to his partner. Pls don't search to equate the two.

[@kymbo72]

@@alani3992 JB just forgot to turn around and check whether the ball was still live before walking to his partner. He can scratch his foot in his crease all he likes, but if he doesn't check behind him then it's his problem. Aussies don't need to make concessions for that sort of boneheaded behaviour. To use a quote from JB himself: "It's within the rules of the game, and that's how it is".

[@wrenside]

As Mark Twain said about an argument, "nothing i hate worse than a good example."

[@kymbo72]

lol - it's not that bad, if someone provides a good example you just start crapping on about spirit of the game and call them cheats

[@listey]

Your analogy doesn't work though as this is quite clearly a very different example.

[@simonjess8471]

@@listey 100% correct. This is basically a standard stumping.

[@peregrinedalziel4999]

​@@simonjess8471 completely the same. Inattention by batsman. Opportunism by keeper.

[@fahimhuq2768]

@@simonjess8471no it’s not are you mental

[@jimcottee9187]

Jonny says - It's in the rules of the games .. so that's how it is. That's right Jonny.

[@petepierre6458]

Are you watching this Piers???

[@nickhand8054]

And how about all the remarks here from the English commentators about how "stupid" it was of Patel and how he's "only got himself to blame"? All he did was rock forward and lift his right foot off the ground by two or three centimetres for all of a second or so. But when Bairstow deliberately WALKS out of the crease with the ball still in play, they go on about the injustice of it all.

[@johnnysoccer1983]

Even the umpire didn't believe it was in play. He was walking off the same time as Bairstow. The whole thing is completely different. In one instance a batter hadn't completed their shot/leave and lifts his foot in completing it back to a normal stance. In the other, last ball of the over, stands still for 2 seconds after ducking, marks guard and THEN walks out of their crease while the umpire was moving on indicating they knew it was over despite the words not being spoken yet. Not the same thing.

[@duncanmackenzie4076]

​@@johnnysoccer1983Carey threw the balmstraight away, it only took 1.4 seconds to hit the stumps from hitting its gloves. How long does Patel stand there for snowflake?

[@DrStitchHD]

Maybe stick to soccer Johnny or learn about the laws regarding a dead ball😂

[@petersmith8134]

As a Kiwi I love to see Australia get beaten. But after this saga I hope Australia wins the next 3 so England will finally shut up. Bairstow made a complete mess of it and was rightly out.

[@Ayross237]

I'm an australian fan, but i always love to see NZ win (when not against AUS of course). I thought it was the other way around as well, but maybe not.

[@petersmith8134]

@@Ayross237 Not with cricket Mate. There is the underarm. There is Warne and Waugh selling info to the Indians, there is Papergate. Come on!!! Australian cricket it as crooked as it gets. If you can't win a sporting match being a sports like person you should not be playing sport.

[@Ayross237]

@@petersmith8134 I only knew about the underarm incident. Seemed to be that the Aus NZ rivalry was a friendly one nowadays.

[@petersmith8134]

@@Ayross237 To me there seems to be a level of arrogance regarding Australian cricket which I don't like.

[@someonejustsomeone1469]

Kiwis have the right to be disgusted after the absolute shitshow in the '19 WC.

[@Dion9646]

This is worse than the Ashes incident. Carey immediately released the ball, even before Bairstow went on his walkabout. Here Bairstow deliberately holds the ball and waits for Patel to lift his foot to make his stumping. What is comical is the English commentator. Back then it was "Brilliant Wicket Keeping" but with the boot on the other foot it becomes "Simply not cricket, old chap" and not in the spirit of the game. Jonny, what goes round comes around, karma is a bitch !

[@johnnysoccer1983]

First of all.... you made the point that should be the main talking point about the Bairstow incident. It was thrown before he even motioned to leave his crease, at the end of an over, and the umpire had started to move on as well. In this instance, Patel is playing a "leave" shot, holds the shot, hasn't completed the shot, and in finishing the leave he lifts his foot. Not even close to the same. Bairstow ducked the ball, regained his balance standing upright, stood still for about 2 seconds, scratched at his guard and THEN moved out of his crease at about the same time as the umpire had started to move on. I get that most of you can't comprehend all of that, but I'm an Aussie, but that Bairstow run out was one of the most disgraceful things I've ever seen in modern test cricket. I won't be supporting Australia for some time after that.

[@demon1954]

@@johnnysoccer1983 You talk some sense here. But the ball is not dead at the end of an over until the umpire has called "over"" or "time" or the bowler of the next over starts to run in. And in the middle of an over, the ball is not dead until all players on BOTH sides have ceased playing. Bairstow was entitled to make his own decision that the ball was dead. And Carey was entitled to play on. Bairstow made the wrong decision. Carey and the umpires made the right decisions. Movement of the umpire(s) is irrelevant. Bairstow's decision was wrong and irrelevant. Good awareness and accuracy by the keeper. So it follows that if Bairstow as keeper considers the ball still to be live, then it is still live, so the batter should consider this before lifting his foot. An excellent stumping.

[@demon1954]

Al fielders can hold the ball until they decide the ball is dead or the umpire calls “over”. Until then the ball is live. The batting side alone can’t decide the ball is dead.

[@Kaiserbill99]

Not sure why people continue to compare every past incident to the Bairstow dismissal. Bairstow against Australia watched the ball go to the keeper's gloves, marked his ground with his foot, and then left his crease to chat to batting partner or pat down the pitch or whatever. In this incident the keeper was at the stumps and the batsman in no way indicated the ball was dead. The fact that it was end of over in the recent incident just adds to the fact that Australia were not acting within the spirit of the game. The key to all these incidents is whether it could be reasonably accepted that the batsman considered the ball dead. In the Bairstow incident it could be but not in any of the others I have seen by way of comparison. Really not that difficult. Bairstow should have been recalled by Cummins. End of.

[@demon1954]

@@Kaiserbill99 It was not the end of the over. The batter is not able to call the ball dead on his own. Where the ball was is irrelevant. Read the Laws of Cricket.

[@zaibatsurodriguez1622]

All within the spirit of the game eh, Johnny?

[@kymbo72]

When it suits

[@englishman_in_arizona]

Obviously not the same. Idiots.

[@Username89039]

You're not seriously comparing it to the cowardly Cummins unsportsmanlike behaviour?! Absurd.

[@henrysmith883]

@@Username89039 why is it absurd? Not absurd at all. He wasn’t out of his crease and the way Bairstow stumped him was disgraceful and not in the spirit of cricket. In fact it was appalling and we’re all bawling our eyes out here and calling the English the most disgusting cheats in cricket history.

[@JoePlip]

@@Username89039how is this any different?

[@patmiley08]

The ball rested in his gloves. Dead ball? Was this at the end of the over? Was this in the spirit of the game? Was the dismissal the pivotal moment of the game? Did Boycott demand he apologise to the world? Did the prime minister call him a cheat? Answers on the back of a postcard, please.

[@kymbo72]

McCullum didn't have a beer with Bairstow after this, so at least that is consistent 😂

[@johnnysoccer1983]

No, because the batter hadn't completed their "shot". That makes it an entirely different discussion.

[@jaikumarjadhav6575]

Given England are only 2 draws/1 loss out of 3 tests away from losing the Ashes at home, of course Eng will make the stumping the biggest talking point for the next few days Or even weeks.

[@tirthendukarmakar3600]

Even 1 draw will mean Australia will retain the Ashes

[@kevinpillay6103]

If they lose the ashes it will be talked about for years. Funny thing is England did this to Grant Elliott from NZ in a one day game and even their coach McCallum did it to Collingwood of England and upheld their appeal. You see if it works for you then it's great and if it goes against you then spirit of the game.

[@adriang6259]

Okay so he said it himself. "In the rules of the game" What about the spirit? I'm waiting. What about the spirit? Doesn't it go against the spirit? Only when it's against England, that's the rule.

[@rocknral]

Hilarious. Could just dub the the commentary over his own dismissal. Just change the names. Actually, can someone do that please. Would be gold.

[@kymbo72]

Something like that has already been done. The one I saw was on a channel called "Swollen Pickles". Was very amusing...enjoy!

[@huggy-Bear]

@@kymbo72 please post link if you can

[@kymbo72]

@@huggy-Bear kzbin.info/www/bejne/naGqaqBmeLVgj6M

[@ABC_Travels]

Tits for Tats .... Bairstow ... what goes around comes back around !!! Great work by Alex Carey 😂😅😂

[@nizziness]

Internet never forgets

[@johnoshea2662]

Surprised Bairstow managed to catch the ball

[@peterramsden3134]

surprised you managed to type a comment

[@johnoshea2662]

@@peterramsden3134 if Bairstow had not played England would be 3-0 up and have won the ashes - too bad

[@petepierre6458]

Amen to that!

[@peterramsden3134]

@@johnoshea2662 dont​ talk​ such​ crap, was​ not​ down​ to​ one​ playet

[@Robrulz666icloud]

Johnny Johnny Johnny 🤣🤣 GREAT SPIRITED STUMPING MATE 👍

[@andreigromek]

Someone PLEASE tweet/x this to Piersweak Morgan

[@alhugo4722]

Spirit of Cricket.

[@tomdube7985]

When Bairstow did it.. It was smart but when Australian keeper did it wasnt.. Wow, that's an absolute double standards

[@davidburke2132]

When an England keeper did it because the batter left his crease as a direct result of his play of the delivery it WAS fine. When a stumping was done after a batter stayed in his crease throughout the play of the ball and only left to go and have a conversation with his batting partner quite a lot of people had an issue with that. It’s really quite important to understand what’s going on in the two cases and why they are materially different 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@simonjess8471]

@@davidburke2132 100% correct

[@davidburke2132]

@@deependrapratapsingh5077 don’t disagree. I’m an England fan and wouldn’t have withdrawn that appeal if I was Cummins. But that’s not the same thing as saying there is no logical “spirit of the game” argument (there is but I just think the batter taking responsibility for his mistake is the bigger thing) and certainly not the same thing as saying it’s ok to ignore logic and create a parallel with another event which is not even remotely the same with respect to the core element of the dismissal as a means to justify the Bairstow dismissal.

[@johnnysoccer1983]

@@davidburke2132 Taking responsibility for a mistake is one thing. But this instance, even the umpire had started moving on indicating even the umpire believed it to be end of over, and the fact it was on the last ball of the over makes it even worse. Had this happened mid over, they probably would have said not out and moved on calling the ball dead. Purely because the incident took place on the last ball and "over" wasn't verbally called yet is the only reason I believe this was given out. As an Aussie fan, although after this incident I'm now a former Aussie fan, I was entirely disgusted and ashamed of that behaviour. Had Bairstow at ANY point, from the start of the run up to the point the ball was thrown, been out of his crease, fair game. But to do so when he was never out of his crease and didn't even make a motion to leave his crease until after the ball was released, that's beyond the pale.

[@alexlanning712]

@@simonjess8471 simon stuff off you've had your two cents worth

[@ufargarnidgit1927]

One of the rare times when Bairstow managed to glove the ball cleanly. He probably mistook it for a donut.

[@petepierre6458]

You're correct, Samit Patel was unlucky Bairstow gloved it!

[@srjchats6325]

The same way Carey did to Bairstow..Only difference is its a fast bowler. Samit Patel is more justified as Jonny took some time to dislodge the bails but carey was instantaneous in his approach. Don't know why people sometimes think differently..And the world cup winning 5 penalty runs of England..What about the spirit of cricket then? Kane is a great personality so he accepted the decision.

[@Mrmostwanted91]

Nah, Carey didn't pause like Bairstow. This was actually unfair 😂.

[@CamcorderSteve]

In slow motion it does look bad, but at normal speed it's probably looked more instant.

[@srjchats6325]

@@Mrmostwanted91 yes it was. I mean the way was the same. but people see them differently. ONE PRAISED WHILE THE OTHER HATED

[@srjchats6325]

@@CamcorderSteve The same thing happened in Carey's case as you see the throw was done instantly when he received the ball.

[@CamcorderSteve]

@@Mrmostwanted91 The video was misleading as it was shown in slow motion.

[@123merch]

"A fantastic stumping" in this case!

[@kymbo72]

yep so clever wasn't it

[@demon1954]

Simply out, completely legitimately, just as Bairstow was. Both players should be disciplined by their employers for failing to know the Laws.

[@747474ize]

The ball was in Bairstow’s hands for long enough to be considered dead. Nonetheless, he waited for Patel to lift his foot (a instinctive and spontaneous human reaction) and whipped the bails off. This action was not just immoral but inhuman, and therefore breaches the Spirit of Cricket to a far greater degree, but according to him well within the rules of the game and he had every right to do so. However when he is on the receiving end of a dismissal that contains significantly more misdemeanour on his part as a batsman, and good responsiveness from the wicketkeeper, it immediately gets ruled out as utterly horrendous, unethical and unprofessional.

[@davidburke2132]

Imagine if people actually had critical thinking and logic skills and understood that England’s argument over the Bairstow dismissal was entirely about the fact that he didn’t leave his crease during the play of the delivery but to go and talk to his batting partner 🤔 For a batter the process of playing the ball doesn’t end until he/she has returned to their normal standing position at the crease. In this case Patel pressed forward, shifting his weight onto his front foot, in the process of leaving this ball. He had to shift his weight back to a normal standing position without lifting his foot and leaving his crease if he wanted to be safe from being stumped 🤷🏼‍♂️ That Bairstow held the ball for a few seconds is irrelevant. Patel’s play of the delivery wasn’t complete, this is what keepers are taught to do and be aware of, and it’s what a stumping is about - taking the wicket of a batter who left the crease by virtue of the way they played a delivery.

[@alhugo4722]

The fact that you’re writing two paragraphs to desperately defend this stumping reflects poorly on you Poms and confirms your abject hypocrisy.

[@davidburke2132]

@@alhugo4722 the fact that you’re making that comment at all demonstrates you’ve failed to read and properly comprehend what I’ve written.

[@alhugo4722]

@@davidburke2132 Was Bairstow out when he was stumped by Carey? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[@davidburke2132]

@@alhugo4722 was he given out by people who know the laws? I think you can answer your own question. The spirit is separate to the laws and even Pat Cummins accepts and agrees there’s such a thing as the spirit of cricket that can and should come in in scenarios where the laws would facilitate and create an undesirable outcome. People just disagree sometimes on what is or is not an undesirable outcome, and that’s fine… again, it’s not what my original comment was about.

[@alhugo4722]

@@davidburke2132 You can’t give a straight answer to a simple question. That says everything. Better luck winning the Ashes next time.

[@obrod7080]

Its quite silly how different this situation is to the one in the Ashes. Bairstow was out of his crease bc be was walking at the end of the over, why is that not considered by the Aussies? That seems quite a different situation to me

[@kymbo72]

The similarity is that they are both controversial stumpings. In this one, Bairstow is a stickler for the rules. However in the other he forgets about the rules and wants to use Spirit of the game instead. Can't have it both ways. He likes to change his views depending whether it suits him or not. That makes him a hypocrite.

[@obrod7080]

@@kymbo72 I agree he's a hypocrite but that doesn't justify not retracting the appeal

[@kymbo72]

@@obrod7080 not obliged to retract it

[@paulba6697]

@@obrod7080 Actually, it does justify not withdrawing the appeal. England’s argument following the Lord’s test was that there is an unwritten law against opportunistic stumpings. This incident indicates there is no such law. (Soo too does the Ben foakes stumping from 2019). Key point: don’t engage in these tactics and then whinge when you’re on the wrong end of them.

[@petepierre6458]

It wasn't the end of the over. It had not been called yet. Why is it so that people like you ignore the simple facts?? If over was called, then the stumping wouldn't have been given out! Umpires call end of over, not batsmen! Learn the laws of cricket before making ill informed posts please!

[@stevemurrell6167]

"A lot of credit to Jonny Bairstow".....how hypocritical are Poms? "It's within the rules of the game and that's how it is"....but it happens to him and the Poms and he himself lose their shit.

[@PaulP580]

Lol Flog Jonny and his mates aren’t complaining there 🤣

[@avinash5367q]

what goes around comes around

[@rorykeegan1895]

Circumstances are very different, but the law is the law. Bairstow was an idiot not to wait for the ball to be called dead in the Ashes, Patel should know to keep his foot planted. No real controversy in either dismissal. Tipsy Lord's members excepted ....

[@user-up3do8yo3z]

Worse than Bairstow’s stumping. Very devious

[@user-hm4yw8hd1b]

How long does a batter need to hold their stance before they are afforded the protection of the English "spirit of cricket"?

[@kymbo72]

That depends who wins the match 😂

[@suryaveer77]

Not the same as what happened at lords - Dhoni would do this all the time

[@kymbo72]

i agree it's different - Bairstow held the ball a lot longer than Carey

[@maitiaru]

The batsman was completely inside, he could have kept his right foot inside the crease for as long he would have thought the ball was not dead. This video should especially be sent to the British media that howling about 2023 stumping of Bairstow.

[@jacktaylor9290]

Apples to apples comparison.

[@thurairasabalakumar3293]

😂😂😂 Sprit of the cricket

[@kymbo72]

England's Spirit of Cricket is not having a beer with the opposition

[@simonjess8471]

@@kymbo72 I believe it was a Kiwi who said that.

[@kymbo72]

@@simonjess8471 so? In case you didn't realise, that Kiwi is the coach of England lol.

[@simonjess8471]

@@kymbo72 Well aware. Thank you.

[@kymbo72]

@@simonjess8471 so what's your point then?

[@keefrasputin634]

Yeah…add that to Brendon McCullam doing the same thing and you have a perfect example of Hypocrisy.

[@tamilprince2008]

England will loose the series

[@supersaintchristophe337]

Everybody misses the real point which is THE LAW which states clearly the ball is dead when it is SETTLED in the wicket keepers gloves. The law further states that the only arbiter of whether the ball has SETTLED is the umpire at the bowlers end. Clearly in both cases the umpires deemed the ball had not settled and both dismissals were good. Talk of spirit of the game is BS

[@BozoTheBear]

Where is Stuart Broad to lecture us that Patel was "seeking an advantage"? :-)

[@kliang1240]

Karma Jonny

[@hedonismunderstands2469]

geez, that's not in the spirit of crikkut...

[@maxshiraz3447]

"no one to blame but himself"

[@CosmicLion777]

Naughty Johny.

[@AshishTamhane]

Circle of life.

[@mrichards55]

Sportsmanship here from Bairstow. But Bogan standards against him in the Ashes 👎

[@samadhasan5888]

Living in England (but supporting Pakistan) I see/hear the whinging poms 24 hours a day. The elitism still exists here and they look down on Australians. When it doesn't go their way their go to is spirit of cricket. Broad is the biggest hypocrite out there after smashing it to first slip

[@alhugo4722]

I hear you. Poms are an amazing phenomenon. They’re one of the few people on the earth who are able to look down on other nations whilst simultaneously kneeling at their feet.

[@CamcorderSteve]

Let's see this at normal speed.

[@kymbo72]

just increase the playback speed until you convince yourself that Bairstow didn't pause

[@RaferJeffersonIII]

@@kymbo72 you seem to have taken quite the kicking here

[@stepkycopky9354]

No that’s just not cricket….spirit of cricket is not there….

[@stevesalkas9128]

Who's really cheating

[@itsgabony]

Was this the final ball of the over.

[@petepierre6458]

So what if it is? It is the umpire who calls over, not the batsman! And until he does, the ball is not dead! What part of that logic escapes you?

[@itsgabony]

@@petepierre6458 An over is also 6 balls. Surely gentlemen should be able to come to some unwritten agreement that spares the umpires vocal cords.

[@petepierre6458]

@@itsgabony You haven't played much competitive cricket have you? You see, that's why I don't walk. The umpires are there to do a job so I let them. If & when the umpire starts to play some of my shots & gets runs for me, then perhaps I may do some of his work. Do you seriously believe by saying "over" is a strain on vocal chords? LOL

[@petepierre6458]

@@itsgabony See when you say an over has 6 balls, you're correct however the laws of the game, repeat that, THE LAWS clearly state the over is completed when the umpire calls it. Not when Bairstow or any other batsman deems it to be. if you get stumped on the 6th ball, by your logic, you could argue the over is completed as 6 balls have been bowled! Not so, the ball is not dead, the over hasn't been called. If umpires on the elite panel see no issue, how is it you raise concerns? Go get your umpire's ticket & you may just learn a few more interesting things about cricket. Cheers.

[@jehanariyaratnam2874]

Yeah true, stumpings are only allowed on balls 1-5

[@jsj047]

And why is he crying now😂

[@eamonreidy9534]

Hilarious seeing the english offended

[@raviscott4853]

I thrive on it. But I'm from Scottish stock and we've always thought they were c**s

[@eamonreidy9534]

@@raviscott4853 Irish stock here

[@raviscott4853]

@@eamonreidy9534 I actually lived next door to some Irish Reidy's as a kid. Really nice family

[@johnsmith-ky5qg]

Two wrongs don't make a right. The difference with the test match was that had Australia chosen to use this as a warning to Bairstow and withdrawn the appeal they would have been cheered from the pitch instead of being booed. A bit like slaying your opponent while they are asleep...a win is a win.

[@vettelfan17]

I love it when a someone bowls a cracking yorker, uproots the stumps then goes to the batter and tells them it's just a warning, next time they'll actually be out. So sportsmanlike ❤❤❤❤ Nah but seriously, I can't think of any other sport do players have to give a second chance to their opponents because they made a silly mistake? Imagine a football team withdrawing a penalty goal because a goalkeeper jumped the wrong way, or a racing driver parking his car because his rival spun off. Might as well give everyone a trophy or medal then and call it a day

[@johnsmith-ky5qg]

@@vettelfan17 The point of my post appears to have sailed over your head. The game of cricket was not set up like "any other sport". In its inception the spirit of fair play was part of the game and public opinion of "unspotrsmanlike" behaviour could easily end a man's career. Sad to say such values seen entirely absent from today's cricketers where "win at any cost" seems to be the mantra. Possibly there is nothing in the rules to prevent a batsman swinging his bat around so violently that he decapitates a wicket keeper that is up to the stumps, that could be a good way to win a match don't you think?

[@vettelfan17]

@johnsmith-ky5qg it appears the point of my post has also sailed over your head. Sportsmanspirit is ultimately about treating your opponent with respect - not doing stuff like pushing them while they run, or throw the ball at them to cause bodily harm. That could include trying to decapitate the wicketkeeper. The stumping, on the other hand, didn't harm anyone (apart from the team's ego). It was entirely legal - in fact, it makes 0 sense for the "spirit of cricket" to contradict the laws. If it is legal, its legal - that's why there's laws, so unlawful/unsportsmanlike things are illegal. Otherwise what's the point of the laws, why don't they just play for fun and make up the rules based on how it makes them feel? Also, I'd say it's pretty disrespectful to think that the game revolves around you to the point you can assume the over is finished whenever you want and the other team/umpires has to follow your interpretation (even though the ball was never settled and Carey threw it straight at the stumps). Ultimately, I'm not a sportsperson but if I was in a competitive situation where I made a mistake and the other person/team let me off because its "sportsmanlike", I'd feel pretty offended and patronised. You're not high and mighty because you withdrew an appeal, it suggests you think so lowly of your opponent that "yeah you're bad enough that we can beat you anyway".

[@petepierre6458]

There wasn't even one wrong let alone 2. Both were within the laws of the game, the ball wasn't dead in either case. Do you not know the laws of cricket? Perhaps you better study them for future reference.

[@petepierre6458]

@@johnsmith-ky5qg As Askash Chopra brilliantly stated, ''If it is right as per the laws, how can it be against the spirit?'' Your assumption is about fair play is a personal opinion only. Nowhere is it addressed in the rules so your interpretation is just that. An interpretation. The rules were not violated, ergo both are out!

[@youknowwho8700]

Different rules for gingers when it suits!

[@johnnyrogers6912]

HYPOCRITES

[@markchapman2933]

LOL Nice try. Bairstow first marked his crease and then intentionally walked out of his crease, believing it was the end of the over. For the spirit of the game there was every reason for Cummins to call him back. In contrast, this was just a normal stumping. Patel unintentionally out of his crease. Not the end of the over either. Hypocrisy? No, just either a failure by those who claim hypocrisy to understand why some didn't like Cummins decision. Or people claiming hypocrisy knowing there' is none, just to make themselves feel better about Bairstow's dismissal. Fact is if Australia had dismissed Bairstow in the same way Bairstow dismissed Patel there'd be absolutely nobody complaining. Those believing this is English hypocrisy or those wanting to at least understand the other point of view, may like to listen to ex-Australian cricketer Brad Hogg - who explains it better than any Englishman.

[@lcpholman]

Absolutely, Brad Hoggs explanation was incontrovertible.: "It just didn't feel right". Was laughing at Michael Vaughan's utter frustration at his inability to grasp the basic concept of dead ball

[@johnoshea2662]

Where is the part in the laws of cricket or the spirit of the game that says the ball is dead when Jonny scratches his crease?

[@lcpholman]

@@johnoshea2662 It is within the spirit of the game to take pity on those unable to achieve even a schoolchild's level of competence

[@jonverzosa6106]

Hogg's initial response was out and would gone ahead with the appeal. Only upon reflection Hogg said, actually I want to withdraw the appeal. Hogg has the luxury of hindsight Cummins did not

[@patrickwastie5]

What a big baby

[@Ghoul9888]

Its the english ,what do u expect ?😂

[@simonjess8471]

Anybody who thinks this is an equivalence of the stumping at Lords, simply has no idea about cricket. It is an embarrassing attempt at an analogy.

[@jimmyjames7667]

Yes, the ball never rested in Carey's glove, the ball was on its way to the stumps before Bairstow "scraped his boot" There is no case for dead ball. The ball did settle in the gloves in this Bairstow stumping. There is a case for dead ball, but I think both were legitimate stumpings, and so do the laws of cricket. Umpires were correct with both desisions.

[@inefekt]

And you and your fellow English are an embarrassing example of top level hypocrisy. This example aside, there are plenty more that show English players attempting very similar dismissals to the one that got Bairstow. Jonny attempted to get Marnus in identical fashion just the innings prior from the same test match. But I guess you'll twist that to suit your narrative, won't you? When the entire cricketing world is taking Australia's side, what does that tell you?

[@heretichello8253]

Yeah because Carrey didn't take time to release the ball. So Carrey is much better keeper than Bairstow. Delighted to watch the Bairstow wicket now. 😂

[@kymbo72]

That's a lot of people you are saying have no idea about cricket! The analogy is simply that both dismissals are controversial. In this one, Bairstow doesn't care about the controversy, and just says "It's within the rules of the game". However, when he is on the receiving end of a controversial decision like the one with Carey, suddenly the rules aren't quite as relevant anymore, and instead he would rather swan around accusing the opposition of not playing by the Spirit of the Game. So the point (seeing as you seemed to miss it) is that JB can't have it both ways. Otherwise he comes off as a massive hypocrite, which is what most people outside of England will remember him for now. Of course, if you do not view the dismissal in this video as somewhat controversial, then you will not understand the analogy.

[@raviscott4853]

@@kymbo72 I tend to think of Johnny as that kid who was always picked last in school sports because the other captain had already picked Ben Foakes earlier...

[@MrOlympuse410]

so a stumping that comes about from the action of leaving the ball, making his balance take his weight off of his foot, and you're trying to equate the situations? No-one is going to deny that Bairstow is out by the letter of the law. But if you compare it to a mankad dismissal, the captain will usually withdraw the appeal if the bowler hasn't previously warned the non striker about leaving his crease early. That's the 'spirit of the game' people are talking about. This is a fairly similar situation, Cummins even admitted that Carey had premeditated it! But Carey decided to ignore that and take what amounts to a cheap shot. A mankad is a way to negate the advantage of making a run early, Bairstow wasn't even attempting to run (hence no attempt to gain an advantage from it), thinking the play was over. Keeper should have warned him imo, at least I would have done. Hope that explains the distaste a lot of people (not just England fans) expressed about the Carey stumping. That said, it might not have impacted the outcome of the game. But who knows how far a Stokes and Bairstow partnership could have gone? England only lost by about 40 runs

[@H3XGroup]

I was listening to Michael Holding explaining the dead ball rules during an over. It seems England may actually be right about it. It’s very confusing and needs to be clarified. If the batsmen isn’t gaining any advantage then it should be dead. Australia got away with it. Personally thought it was good cricket but it seems the umpires got it wrong

[@adhart88]

Looks like this was the 5th ball of the over not the final ball like Bairstow's dismissal was. The issue was that batsmen always walk down the pitch at the end of the over and genuinely thinking the over has been called is different to accidentally stepping out your crease in the middle of an over...

[@JohnSmith-fz1ih]

So absent-mindedly lifting your foot after you think the ball is done and getting stumped is fine, but absent-mindedly walking down the pitch after you think the ball is done and getting stumped is unfair because it was the end of the over in the second case? I’m not seeing the significance of it being ball #6 that you are. The factors that seem relevant to me are the same in both of these cases.

[@adhart88]

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih I’d agree I don’t think it’s the clear cut situation a lot of England fans do but I do think there’s a difference between accidentally stepping out the crease mid-over and intentionally doing it at the end of the over when the final delivery has come to nothing. I actually think, if anything, the strongest argument in favour of it being fair is that Carey started the motion of throwing the ball before Bairstow started walking down the pitch.

[@rocknral]

The ball was tossed by Carey before JB moved, before umpires moved, before "over" was called. Nothing sneaky really. Spirit of cricket is a fart in the wind as they say. If Carey fumbled and it ran away 40metres would Stokes have called him thru....Yes.

[@JohnSmith-fz1ih]

@@adhart88 Interesting. I watched a stumping Bairstow did years ago where he was up to the stumps and waited for the batsman to lift his back foot and reposition it. This was well after Bairstow took the ball. It wasn’t part of the batsman lunging forward, just lifting his rear foot to reposition it. Bairstow took off the nails in that split second his rear foot was up and it was out. I agree there is a difference between this and deliberately walking out of your crease at the end of the over, but I don’t see it as a relevant one. In both cases the batsman failed to look back to see where the ball was. In both cases they left their crease through a deliberate action of their own free volition (they didn’t fall or anything), and in both cases they paid the price for their inattentiveness. These are the relevant factors for me. [Edit: and of course the ball was still live in both cases, which is the most relevant factor] A commentor in another thread made the point that “spirit of the game” is a bit meaningless because everyone interprets it differently. And I agree. I haven’t been able to find a single person that can give me a rule of thumb for determining if something is within the spirit of the game or not. And certainly not a rule of thumb that makes this action by Carey outside of the spirit, but other actions (the stumping Hairstow did that I described above, the attempted stumping by Bairstow on day three of the past test, the run out England did when Collingwood collided with the runner and knocked him to the ground, the four that ricocheted off Stokes’s bat to win the game) would be considered fair.

[@jmilne5751]

Umpire never got to call over before Bairstow was run out... Means the ball was still live, Carey threw it towards the stumps knowing Bairstow had continually moved out of the crease and did him like a dinner....OUT no ifs no buts, rules of cricket CREATED by the Poms & they moan when it goes against them...Hope Aussies win 5-0...

[@universalspirit5831]

This oversmart cheater Bairstow got cheated upon in the Ashes 😂😂😂...... karma eventually comes back 😇😇

[@princeroytilakasiri5675]

Mitchell starc grounded the bowl😂 at Lord's, cheat😂

[@kymbo72]

his cereal bowl?

[@mistergnat638]

Those emojis won't hide the pain

[@odelayrowemonkey2145]

...and so it wasn't out. how is that cheating princess?

[@petepierre6458]

Again you may need to learn the laws. The catch was not given due ot the fact he wasn't in control of his actions. nothing to do with the ball being on the ground. But, unlike the English, the Aussies accepted the umpires decision.

[@TerryChimes123]

Totally different to the Australian cheating. This stumping was 100% legitamate.

[@inefekt]

Perhaps. But Bairstow made an attempt to stump Marnus in the same test in exactly the same fashion that he was dismissed.....it's just that his throw was so comically wide of its target that Marnus survived. You English really have taken hypocrisy to new levels and have turned the entire cricket world against you.....I mean, when you can get Australia's traditional enemies to defend them then that tells you all you need to know in regards to who is right and who is wrong.

[@heretichello8253]

If this is legitimate. Bairstow wicket is 200% legitimate. Who are you to call Carrey's Stumping cheating. Are you ICC or umpires. Bairstow was sloppy and umpires righty gave it out. Anyone accusing its a cheating never read ICC rules. Like Bairstow said it's within the Rules. 🤣🤣

[@TerryChimes123]

@@heretichello8253 Is sandpaper within the rules? Is underarm bowling within the rules? Is using an aluminium bat within the rules? See my point? It's ALWAYS the Australians.

[@Gunnadoo]

Actually underarm bowling was legal at that time, they only changed the rules after that incident. Aluminium bats where also legal at the time Dennis Lilllee used it, only changed after that incident as well. Better check your facts first.

[@TerryChimes123]

@@Gunnadoo As you righteously state "all within the rules" but, once utilised immediatly banned. Seems to be a pattern here in that it's always done by, Australians. Win at all cost and trash ones own reputation as a nation, not to mention drag the wonderful game into the gutter. If you think that's all acceptable we are miles apart when it comes to the game of cricket. Shame on you.

[@ashleyleboydre7751]

This is brilliant by Bairstow, but Carey is vilified. Typical double standards by the windging poms.