Australian CONVICTS "CHEAT" AGAIN.

Green to Bairstow, OUT

another half-tracker, YJB ducks it, walks out of his crease to talk to
his partner... and Carey then underarms into the stumps! The Australians
are celebrating, Bairstow looks befuddled and we could have another
flashpoint here! The batter clearly considered that the ball was dead,
but Marais Erasmus is going to decide once again... And this one is
given out! Boos around the ground as Bairstow stalks back to the
dressing room. He wasn't attempting to take a run, but the ball wasn't
dead either - at least as far as the umpires are concerned, which is the
key factor

Jonny Bairstow st †Carey b Green 10 (22b 2x4 0x6) SR: 45.45

Carey runs out Bairstow in dramatic fashion |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkAHxxL4kSc

WHY did Carey even throw the ball at the STUMPS, when Bairstow was STILL
in the CREASE and NEVER EVEN attempted a run?

At 3:24, Carey threw the ball at the stumps, BUT Bairstow was still
INSIDE the crease and was marking with his RIGHT FOOT.

May be max.it can shed some light on the rules BUT this is REALLY REALLY
MUCH WORSE than mankading.

Mankading was JUSTIFIED because batsmen were CHEATING gaining UNFAIR
ADVANTAGE, while here Bairstow DIDN'T EVEN attempt to run and WASN'T
TAKING ANY Advantage.

>
>
> Carey runs out Bairstow in dramatic fashion |
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkAHxxL4kSc
>
>
>
> WHY did Carey even throw the ball at the STUMPS, when Bairstow was STILL
> in the CREASE and NEVER EVEN attempted a run?

He threw it at the stumps because JB is in the habit of wandering out of
his crease. Seems reasonable to me.

>
> At 3:24, Carey threw the ball at the stumps, BUT Bairstow was still
> INSIDE the crease and was marking with his RIGHT FOOT.

I do no think the rules of cricket say that the batsman's right foot
gets to signal end of the over. I thought that was the umpire's job.
This may be true, that he was marking things, but it changes nothing.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/dead-ball

"20.1.2 The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the
bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the
wicket have ceased to regard it as in play."

Clearly the fielding side saw the ball as live. JB's back foot does not
tell the fielding side when to stop playing.

Carey had no way of knowing JB's plans because he threw the ball
immediately. He did not throw it in response to JB's actions but in
anticipation of them. JB should have shown the same awareness and stayed
in his ground. England should be dirty on JB and his brain fade, not on
Carey. Bairstow's lack of concentration probably cost them the game.

>
>
> May be max.it can shed some light on the rules BUT this is REALLY REALLY
> MUCH WORSE than mankading.
>
> Mankading was JUSTIFIED because batsmen were CHEATING gaining UNFAIR
> ADVANTAGE, while here Bairstow DIDN'T EVEN attempt to run and WASN'T
> TAKING ANY Advantage.
>

Is a batsman who topples over and gets stumped off a spinner trying to
take advantage? I mean, they are clearly not trying for a run. But are
they still out? Yes. Your reasoning does not hold up.

Starc's 'catch' was not out by the laws of the game. JB was out, by the
same laws. The fact that JB tried for the same kind of dismissal earlier
in the game and did not get it makes the whole thing even funnier.

There's no story here. England players just throwing the toys out of the
cot. England seem to think that their attitudes and interpretations
should be followed by other teams and that the spirit of the game is
whatever they say it is.

England need to let the umpires do their job. For example, last English
Ashes when Broad did not walk after that thick edge. He was 100% right.
A batter can't call themselves in, why should they call themselves out?

It is interesting to note the term "Australian convicts" in the headline
of the original posting (not your response). Imagine if an anglo person
had used a similarly pejorative term in a headline about the Indian,
West Indies or Pakistan team... seems like hypocrisy is everywhere.