If you leave your crease before umpire calls “over” you’re out.
Bairstow needs to work on his match awareness. I’m betting it wasn’t a one off.
Also, Broad is a dick.
If you leave your crease before umpire calls “over” you’re out.
Bairstow needs to work on his match awareness. I’m betting it wasn’t a one off.
Also, Broad is a dick.
So not shit at all?
Being serious: I think this play deserves to be quite controversial. Mankadding absolutely does not. Mankadding is only made possible by a batsman trying to sneak an advantage. If there’s no risk involved in that, it’s just an unfair advantage. Mankadding is that risk. Totally fair.
This situation is a little different. I think the right call was made, but there was no advantage to be gained by Bairstow. He just made a mistake in thinking the ball was dead when it wasn’t. (And if you think the rules quoted make it clear it was dead—well by my reading, the strictest interpretation of that wording would mean that stumping is literally always impossible, because an unpire can’t stump without having the ball in his hands.)
It left a blight because you’d always rather win without a controversial call, but it was the right call.
There’s the laws of the game, and the spirit of the game.
I’m just sad that the spirit of the game has been eaten by the win at all costs attitude.
The fact we’re even discussing this is embarrassing and saddens me, and I won’t comment any more on it.
Sure, and I can see some ambiguity in whether or not the Bairstow stumping is within the spirit of the game.
But Mankadding? 100% fair play. It’s literally the only available counterplay to a batsman sneaking an advantage by advancing early. To suggest it’s not in the spirit of the game is to suggest that batsmen deserve to get free runs. I’d sooner say that advancing early is against the spirit of the game than I would say that of Mankadding.
I hope you stamped your foot furiously after writing this.