Cricket > England Test

Bairstow dismissal

(1/4) > >>

bwildered:
 Bairstow dismissal was dozy, fair or not in the spirit ?

smandlej:
The excuse being made is that the umpire had not called 'Over', but it might not have been the end of an over anyway.  So exactly when is the ball dead?  I would have thought that, if you have missed the ball and it has gone through to the keeper, provided you have not left your crease in your attempt to hit it, then it is dead once it has been collected.

If not, what is to stop the keeper tossing the ball to a fielder on its way back to the bowler and that fielder shying at the stumps if the batsman has walked down the wicket?

In any case, I heard that the umpires had already started walking to their next over positions when it happened, so it was obviously the end of the over, whether called or not.

Lynda

nat:

--- Quote from: smandlej on July 03, 2023, 07:47:43 AM ---The excuse being made is that the umpire had not called 'Over', but it might not have been the end of an over anyway.  So exactly when is the ball dead?  I would have thought that, if you have missed the ball and it has gone through to the keeper, provided you have not left your crease in your attempt to hit it, then it is dead once it has been collected.

If not, what is to stop the keeper tossing the ball to a fielder on its way back to the bowler and that fielder shying at the stumps if the batsman has walked down the wicket?

In any case, I heard that the umpires had already started walking to their next over positions when it happened, so it was obviously the end of the over, whether called or not.

Lynda

--- End quote ---

The umpire doesn't have to call 'over' for it to be 'over'. Nevertheless the Aussies could have/should have withdrawn the appeal and warned Bairstow.

Andy:
Can we tick all three boxes?  To me, Mankading is fine, but the laws should be amended so that the fielding side must explicitly warn the batsman beforehand. Whilst this seems strange, it does prevent any nastiness.

After all, we now have a limit on bouncers, whereas the Windies and Aussies were against that for years as it favours the batsman (which is a fair point) but it does prevent the nastiness of 1974/5 or 1976.

A brighter umpire would have called over and wandered off to square leg ignoring the likes of Warner (who needs a good slap IMHO).

smandlej:
Mankading seems to be a different kettle of fish, in that the batsman is dismissed for being out of his ground before the ball is delivered, in the same manner of a stumping when the batsman is out of his ground attempting to execute a shot.  As you say, Andy, this is fine, but if we take yesterday's situation to its extreme, the only time a batsman dare move out of his crease will be  as the ball is being delivered by the bowler.  Otherwise, there is the spectre of a batsman lifting his bat mid-pitch to acknowledge the crowd's applause for the run that brought up his century, only for the wicketkeeper to break the wicket and appeal.

Agree with you, Nat, that they should have withdrawn the appeal, but obviously the leopard hasn't changed its spots.

Lynda

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page