The cricket...

[Jaded]

Ah, we had half our wickets left.

Unfortunately the other half got knocked over.

[andyoxon]

Run chase!   

[Wowbagger]

It’s goi g to take one hell of a last wicket stand…

[andyoxon]

Hum, yes, not going too well so far...

[Jaded]

Good bowling.

I'm not sure we expected that...

[SoreTween]

Oh dear, that's popular.

[Peter]

It's an awful situation.  Carey actually did nothing wrong.  Bairstow was being a bit casual, even allowing for the fact that he made a point of putting his foot behind the crease to show that he knew he could be run out.  I think it's very hard on Carey (not that I am against that in principle) to blame him for the "incident".  In both this case and the Starc "catch" the umpires have applied the rules.  The players need to learn them.  There's no need for this level of animosity.  As for Broad's antics, whilst they may be funny at a schoolboy level, it won't be lost on the Australians or anyone else with a memory that this is Stuart "I never walk, why would I?" Broad.  It's all a shame and the only good thing to have come out of these incidents is that the "catch" thing really pissed McGrath off.  That's always worthwhile.

[rafletcher]

It’s the spirit vs the letter of the law again. With Starc I think the decision was correct in both senses. Had he held the ball off the ground he’d have been given the catch. Stumping of the non-striker was supposed to be a deterrent against immoderate backing up, and used to be preceded by a friendly warning. That was clearly not the case here, hence the opprobrium. But match and series winning bonuses are at stake.

[Peter]

It's funny that nobody, including on the BBC has brought up, "It's not cricket!"  (Though several tabloids will have a version of that on their front and back pages tomorrow.)  It clearly IS cricket and it always has been, like it or not.

[toontra]

It’s the spirit vs the letter of the law again. With Starc I think the decision was correct in both senses. Had he held the ball off the ground he’d have been given the catch. Stumping of the non-striker was supposed to be a deterrent against immoderate backing up, and used to be preceded by a friendly warning. That was clearly not the case here, hence the opprobrium. But match and series winning bonuses are at stake.

The Duckett and Bairstow wickets cancel each other out.  Both decisions technically correct and both a result of errors of judgement by Starc/Bairstow but neither felt right or fair.

[citoyen]

Let’s not allow the “controversy” to distract from the fact that England gave away wickets cheaply in both their innings and gave away extras cheaply in both Australia’s innings (they lost by 43 runs having given away 70-something extras).

[SoreTween]

It's funny that nobody, including on the BBC has brought up, "It's not cricket!"  (Though several tabloids will have a version of that on their front and back pages tomorrow.)  It clearly IS cricket and it always has been, like it or not.

Listening to TMS it was brought up several times as the commentary team rotated.  And again in some of the interviews.  I don't think anyone suggested it was not out per the rules but the opinions on whether it was in the spirit of the game were far more diverse.  There is a paragraph on the spirit of the game at the start of the rule book which was read out.  Quite a bit of talk around similarities with a situation where India approached the umpires over lunch and withdrew their appeal, I don't recall the details but they'd taken a slightly early lunch due to a dismissal and with the appeal withdrawn the batsman was allowed to resume. 
Several today felt the umpires should have confirmed if Cummings wished to proceed with the appeal before giving it. 
Stokes said he'd have withdrawn & Cummings said he'd do the same again in a heartbeat - both exactly as you'd expect.

[SoreTween]

Both decisions technically correct and both a result of errors of judgement by Starc/Bairstow but neither felt right or fair.

The only objection to Starc's catch arises from nobody there apart from the umpires knowing the rule book, Glenn McGrath a prime example.  See this clarification from the MCC.  The umpires were right & correctly called for a review themselves, the players were all bystanders so spirit of the game doesn't come into it and there was no error of judgement from Starc, just ignorance.

[Peter]

It's funny that nobody, including on the BBC has brought up, "It's not cricket!"  (Though several tabloids will have a version of that on their front and back pages tomorrow.)  It clearly IS cricket and it always has been, like it or not.

Listening to TMS it was brought up several times as the commentary team rotated.  And again in some of the interviews.  I don't think anyone suggested it was not out per the rules but the opinions on whether it was in the spirit of the game were far more diverse.  There is a paragraph on the spirit of the game at the start of the rule book which was read out.  Quite a bit of talk around similarities with a situation where India approached the umpires over lunch and withdrew their appeal, I don't recall the details but they'd taken a slightly early lunch due to a dismissal and with the appeal withdrawn the batsman was allowed to resume. 
Several today felt the umpires should have confirmed if Cummings wished to proceed with the appeal before giving it. 
Stokes said he'd have withdrawn & Cummings said he'd do the same again in a heartbeat - both exactly as you'd expect.

Obviously, I know that the question of the spirit in which cricket "should" be played was endlessly discussed.   I just never heard the time-dishonoured exclamation, "It's just not cricket" used, though there has never been a more pertinent (if inaccurate) opportunity!

[toontra]

Both decisions technically correct and both a result of errors of judgement by Starc/Bairstow but neither felt right or fair.

The only objection to Starc's catch arises from nobody there apart from the umpires knowing the rule book, Glenn McGrath a prime example.  See this clarification from the MCC.  The umpires were right & correctly called for a review themselves, the players were all bystanders so spirit of the game doesn't come into it and there was no error of judgement from Starc, just ignorance.

In both cases commentators have called for a review of these two specific rules. 

Starc said in his defence that he put his hand down "ball first" to prevent injury - to twist the arm around could have caused significant damage to his arm or shoulder - not ideal for a fast bowler.  He was in complete control of the ball - no question - so something isn't right with a rule that penalises self-preservation at a time when the physios are running on regularly for concussion assessments for glancing blows to the helmet.

[Tom B]

It's an awful situation.  Carey actually did nothing wrong. 

Don Mosey’s 1980’s book We Don't Play it for Fun: A Story of Yorkshire Cricket opens with Derek Randall being run out while backing up in a 1978 test against NZ.
There was some outrage about this at the time. The author uses this example to make a point about the ‘spirit’ of Yorkshire cricket:  (paraphrase - sorry, don’t have the book handy): “Whatever the rest of England were saying, from Hull to Huddersfield the chorus went up  - ‘serve t’stupid bʊgger reight’”
This seems to be a similar situation.

[SoreTween]

Starc said in his defence that he put his hand down "ball first" to prevent injury - to twist the arm around could have caused significant damage to his arm or shoulder - not ideal for a fast bowler.  He was in complete control of the ball - no question - so something isn't right with a rule that penalises self-preservation at a time when the physios are running on regularly for concussion assessments for glancing blows to the helmet.

OTOH you could say that the rule requiring both ball and fielder to be under control discourages reckless dives and slides?

I don't know which side of that fence I sit on, just playing devil's wossname.

[SoreTween]

It's an awful situation.  Carey actually did nothing wrong. 

Don Mosey’s 1980’s book We Don't Play it for Fun: A Story of Yorkshire Cricket opens with Derek Randall being run out while backing up in a 1978 test against NZ.
There was some outrage about this at the time. The author uses this example to make a point about the ‘spirit’ of Yorkshire cricket:  (paraphrase - sorry, don’t have the book handy): “Whatever the rest of England were saying, from Hull to Huddersfield the chorus went up  - ‘serve t’stupid bʊgger reight’”
This seems to be a similar situation.

I agree and should have said earlier - IMO YJB is a muppet.  I was simply passing on what I'd heard.

[Deano]

Just catching the highlights - the dopey sod Bairstow went wandering after Carey let the ball go.

It's a hard game, can't really blame the Aussies for taking advantage. The pendulum was slightly swinging England's way with Duckett and Stokes batting, getting Bairstow out sealed it, despite Stokes's heroics.

Anyway, I cannot believe the front of Stuart fucking Broad trying to give the Aussies lessons in cricket etiquette. Well, I can, he's Stuart Broad, but still, what a dick (great player though he is).

[SoreTween]

Just catching the highlights - the dopey sod Bairstow went wandering after Carey let the ball go.

According to Cummings it was not a one off, YJB'd gone for a premature stroll several times already most recently 4 balls earlier. Carey had spotted it & spoken to Cummings about the possibility who'd responded gopher it. No reason to doubt their account.
Far from the only dumb thing the England team have done so far this series.

[Peter]

Just catching the highlights - the dopey sod Bairstow went wandering after Carey let the ball go.

It's a hard game, can't really blame the Aussies for taking advantage. The pendulum was slightly swinging England's way with Duckett and Stokes batting, getting Bairstow out sealed it, despite Stokes's heroics.

Anyway, I cannot believe the front of Stuart fucking Broad trying to give the Aussies lessons in cricket etiquette. Well, I can, he's Stuart Broad, but still, what a dick (great player though he is).

see 2856, Dean and I expect you'll agree about Glenn McGrath, too.  He's another one who's got a nerve.  The only Aussie who's lost every sledging match he started, I bet!

[andyoxon]

Having lost the first two - England to win 3:2 seems unlikely*, but it's the only way to do it; Headingley, OT, & Oval all must win now.

* "England have never come from 2-0 down to win the Ashes."

[citoyen]

Carey had spotted it & spoken to Cummings about the possibility

In which case I'm totally on the Aussies' side on this.

Far from the only dumb thing the England team have done so far this series.

Indeed.

They should all be made to stick their head in an ice bucket for a few minutes before going in to bat.

[rafletcher]

Carey had spotted it & spoken to Cummings about the possibility

In which case I'm totally on the Aussies' side on this.

[/quote]

But had he warned Bairstow - which is etiquette, not rules?

[toontra]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jul/03/australias-actions-in-ashes-test-not-in-the-spirit-of-cricket-says-rishi-sunak

That settles it.  Sunak has paddled in on the wave of populist outrage, waving the sword of righteous indignation and denouncing the Aussies as sullying the "spirit" of cricket.  He'd be better off concentrating on the day job - if he hadn't noticed the country's well and truly fucked, as are his 5 pledges.  Reckon he's taken his eye off the ball whilst busily lining up jobs to scurry away to in 15 months' time.