Remove this Banner Ad

Keep sooking Jonny

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Cmarsh said:


I may be late to the chase here, but I didn't realise that Bairstow was routinely walking out of his crease after every ball before the "spirit of cricket" incident, as the above video shows.

So Bairstow was already very much in the habit of walking out of his crease. The English argument against Bairstow's dismissal has relied upon him believing it was the end of the over so that's why he walked out of his crease. To me, Bairstow seemed to have this air of entitlement in his mind that he could routinely walk out of his crease and it be all fine. But clearly the Aussies were within their rights to attempt a run out. If Carey threw down the stumps the ball before, they certainly couldnt use the "he thought it was the end of the over" defence.
Click to expand...

None of it matters.

It's out. **** off, Jonny. You were out. It's not that ****ing hard to stand still. There's no 'unspoken rules', 'gentleman's sport' malarkey going on here: you stay in your crease until the ball's dead, and you're not the one who gets to decide when the ball's dead.
 
Terrible from everyone involved except the wicket keeper.

Very poor by the umpires who should not have indulged the complaints at all.

Ridiculous dissent from the batting side.

Terrible leadership from Flower and others from his team. Should have backed the keeper up.

Nothing wrong at all with what happened. There is no way the ball was dead or over had been called. Had the keeper missed it and the batsmen stole another run, would the umpire have signalled dead or allowed it? We all know the run would have been allowed.
 
If the umps did call over while the ball is still in flight being returned to the keeper, then why? The ball is still live. It appears they have called over prematurely.

In any case, a batter just can't leave their crease thinking it's ok, as Bairstow did and now Curran as well.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

ioppolo said:
More English antics.

Shockingly amatuer umpiring though it has to be said.

Click to expand...


I hope the English umpire Alex Wharf was saying nothing more than 'do you wish to go ahead with the appeal?' A la the mankad. If he tried to talk the fielding captain into withdrawing the appeal, that would be overstepping the mark. Andy Flower overstepped the mark too.
 
Last edited:
010203 said:
I hope the English umpire Alex Wharf was saying nothing more than 'do you wish to uphold the appeal?' A la the mankad. If he tried to talk the fielding captain into withdrawing the appeal, that would be overstepping the mark. Andy Flower overstepped the mark too.
Click to expand...
Even asking the question is crossing the line, IMO. They appealed, it's the umpire's job to say yes or no and that's it.
 
big_e said:
Even asking the question is crossing the line, IMO. They appealed, it's the umpire's job to say yes or no and that's it.
Click to expand...


It’s game management.

In rugby league it’s a huge part of a referee’s job in addition to the application of the rules/laws and while cricket doesn’t regularly call for it, when things do get heated an umpire’s job is also to make sure things don’t get too out of hand.

If an umpire can see a scenario where that can be a possibility, it’s his responsibility to take steps to manage it; it’s certainly not in his wheelhouse to influence a decision of whether to go through with an appeal - ie. talk a team out of it. But I don’t see an issue with clarifying ‘do you wish to continue with it’ when he knows that there will be fallout.’

He doesn’t have to say it with any inolicational tone (ie. are you SUREEEE you want to do this???). A simple ‘are you proceeding with the appeal’ is sufficient.

That’s decent game management IMO. It gives the appealing team a chance to make sure they assess the situation and circumstances make the right call each time.
 
Someday the appropriate approach to game management will be to tell the aggrieved player to suck it up.

It is like rewarding a child for disobedience.
 
Last edited:
Black Diamond said:
Someday the appropriate approach to game management will be to tell the aggrieved player to suck it up.

It is like rewarding a child for disobedience.
Click to expand...


If it’s a case like these ones then absolutely. If it’s a case of, I dunno, a player going for a run, they get tangled up with a fielder where it’s completely by accident and there’s a run out: that’s where game management is judicious umpiring is what I mean
 
PhatBoy said:
It’s game management.

In rugby league it’s a huge part of a referee’s job in addition to the application of the rules/laws and while cricket doesn’t regularly call for it, when things do get heated an umpire’s job is also to make sure things don’t get too out of hand.

If an umpire can see a scenario where that can be a possibility, it’s his responsibility to take steps to manage it; it’s certainly not in his wheelhouse to influence a decision of whether to go through with an appeal - ie. talk a team out of it. But I don’t see an issue with clarifying ‘do you wish to continue with it’ when he knows that there will be fallout.’

He doesn’t have to say it with any inolicational tone (ie. are you SUREEEE you want to do this???). A simple ‘are you proceeding with the appeal’ is sufficient.

That’s decent game management IMO. It gives the appealing team a chance to make sure they assess the situation and circumstances make the right call each time.
Click to expand...
Make the call and then deal with the fallout separately. If the batting side were to get heated about something like this, you talk to the batting side's captain and tell them the rules are the rules and to pull their heads in.

To do otherwise means the umpire is in a position where they are letting value judgements get in the way.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

big_e said:
Make the call and then deal with the fallout separately. If the batting side were to get heated about something like this, you talk to the batting side's captain and tell them the rules are the rules and to pull their heads in.

To do otherwise means the umpire is in a position where they are letting value judgements get in the way.
Click to expand...

Yes, something like THIS instance being discussed here, I agree with. But there are many instances that aren’t THAT far removed from this where they are probably obliged to ask the question.

In the second test with the Windies and Pakistan the other day Warrican and Babar - at the non strikers end - got themselves in a mess as Warrican tried to field a ball nudged into the onside and he went to prevent a single. He was clearly only aiming to get to the ball, Babar was clearly only aiming to get around him to make his ground at the other end.

There were a number of potential scenarios as a bit of chaos ensued: Babar could have been short of his ground having probably run maybe an extra 7-8 metres ultimately to get to the crease, while Warrican could have made an argument that Babar obstructed the field.

So if an appeal was made for a run-out or OTF even though neither player was in any way legitimately at fault in what they were doing, that’s the sort of scenario I mean: a good umpire to me should be saying ‘are you happy to go through with the appeal’ because that will cause fallout - no one was at fault, no one was lazy, no one did anything wrong
 
Last edited:
Rabish Binney said:
Is Johnny a chance to regain his place in the English test side or has that ship sailed?
Click to expand...

I cannot see how. He keeps - and to tell the truth probably bats - worse than Smith.

His only possibly way back would be if they spear Pope or he comes back as an opener in place of Crawley.



And given his complete lack of runs in recent times you would think he’d have to force his way in with a stack of them, much as they do love him.

There’s a bit of irony in the fact that it was basically him that started Bazzball in the first place with those crazy run chases against the Kiwis and now he can’t get a look in for love nor money
 
The weakest argument I have heard as to why Jolly Jonny should not have been out came from Piers Morgan. During an interview with Peter Lalor, part of what Morgan states (just after the one-minute mark of this clip) is:

"When he (Bairstow) scrapes his boot he's denoting the fact it's the end of the over. Six balls have been bowled, they're going to change ends. Scrapes his boot: everyone in world cricket history knows that denotes that the batsman is marking his crease, and then he goes up to walk to his captain."




While Lalor correctly informs Morgan that it is not up to Bairstow to signify the end of the over, I would further argue that absolutely nobody in world cricket history has ever thought the batter scraping his/her boot denotes the end of an over. It has never been applied in backyard cricket, lunchtime cricket at school, beach cricket, indoor cricket, blind cricket, or any other form. It's thoroughly bewildering how somebody such as Morgan, who claims to be a cricket lover, can arrive at this conclusion. How often do batters actually scape their boot at the end of an over anyway?
 
worbod said:
The weakest argument I have heard as to why Jolly Jonny should not have been out came from Piers Morgan. During an interview with Peter Lalor, part of what Morgan states (just after the one-minute mark of this clip) is:

"When he (Bairstow) scrapes his boot he's denoting the fact it's the end of the over. Six balls have been bowled, they're going to change ends. Scrapes his boot: everyone in world cricket history knows that denotes that the batsman is marking his crease, and then he goes up to walk to his captain."




While Lalor correctly informs Morgan that it is not up to Bairstow to signify the end of the over, I would further argue that absolutely nobody in world cricket history has ever thought the batter scraping his/her boot denotes the end of an over. It has never been applied in backyard cricket, lunchtime cricket at school, beach cricket, indoor cricket, blind cricket, or any other form. It's thoroughly bewildering how somebody such as Morgan, who claims to be a cricket lover, can arrive at this conclusion. How often do batters actually scape their boot at the end of an over anyway?
Click to expand...


When Pete read out the MCC's own guide to the spirit of cricket to Piers, it's not bias on our part to suggest that Australia adhered to the spirit of cricket much more than England did in that series.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

The "sixth ball of the over" argument was always nonsense.

The circumstances leading to dead-ball on deliveries 1-5 are exactly the same as that for the 6th.

Out. And because of my internet history the YouTube algorithm gives me the dismissal and analysis to watch every week. Never gets old.
 
worbod said:
The weakest argument I have heard as to why Jolly Jonny should not have been out came from Piers Morgan. During an interview with Peter Lalor, part of what Morgan states (just after the one-minute mark of this clip) is:

"When he (Bairstow) scrapes his boot he's denoting the fact it's the end of the over. Six balls have been bowled, they're going to change ends. Scrapes his boot: everyone in world cricket history knows that denotes that the batsman is marking his crease, and then he goes up to walk to his captain."




While Lalor correctly informs Morgan that it is not up to Bairstow to signify the end of the over, I would further argue that absolutely nobody in world cricket history has ever thought the batter scraping his/her boot denotes the end of an over. It has never been applied in backyard cricket, lunchtime cricket at school, beach cricket, indoor cricket, blind cricket, or any other form. It's thoroughly bewildering how somebody such as Morgan, who claims to be a cricket lover, can arrive at this conclusion. How often do batters actually scape their boot at the end of an over anyway?
Click to expand...

Well he is the same cricketing mind who thought England were just soft and would have won the 2013/14 ashes if they played johnson on the front foot.
 
010203 said:
Today is the 2 year anniversary of Jonny not knowing when a ball is dead. Ben Stokes St Brendan were a disgrace that day too.
Click to expand...

I might have told this on here already, but I coached under 10s cricket last season. We had one training session before our first game, all but one kid had never played. Anyway we had a lot of stumpings that game, I hadn't gotten around to teaching them about staying in their crease apparently!

So on the way to the second training session my number 1 thing to teach them was staying in their crease. I did then wonder what the **** Jonny Bairstow was whinging about, I mean how fundamental is it? Kudos to Carey, big fan of his anyway but clever (and fair) cricket.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom