Cricket: International Discussion Thread

stefan9 said:
This is about applying your moral code consistently not tactics.
This is not even close to the same as changing your field or bowlers as the match progresses.
Click to expand...
Okay. I'll bite. Though I don't like the word "moral" used in this sense, why don't you explain the nuance between your view and mine?
 
Maurice Kitching said:
Okay. I'll bite. Though I don't like the word "moral" used in this sense, why don't you explain the nuance between your view and mine?
Click to expand...
A moral code is applied consistently, it isn't applied just when you feel like it. Spirit of cricket has to do with morals.
It's not tactical.

Can't say I am a good guy, I just occasionally steal. Here you can't say we are honorable cricketers we just occasionally use underhanded methods.

You view this just as part of the game so you view it as "tactical". I view it as underhanded so against the spirit of the game and not an acceptable tactic.
Just cause something is legal at the time doesn't mean it's right. See the rule changes after "bodyline" and the "under arm delivery" as other examples of this concept.
 
stefan9 said:
A moral code is applied consistently, it isn't applied just when you feel like it. Spirit of cricket has to do with morals.
It's not tactical.

Can't say I am a good guy, I just occasionally steal. Here you can't say we are honorable cricketers we just occasionally use underhanded methods.

You view this just as part of the game so you view it as "tactical". I view it as underhanded so against the spirit of the game and not an acceptable tactic.
Just cause something is legal at the time doesn't mean it's right. See the rule changes after "bodyline" and the "under arm delivery" as other examples of this concept.
Click to expand...
Would you consider it underhanded if Carey had been standing up to the stumps?
 
stefan9 said:
A moral code is applied consistently, it isn't applied just when you feel like it. Spirit of cricket has to do with morals.
It's not tactical.

Can't say I am a good guy, I just occasionally steal. Here you can't say we are honorable cricketers we just occasionally use underhanded methods.

You view this just as part of the game so you view it as "tactical". I view it as underhanded so against the spirit of the game and not an acceptable tactic.
Just cause something is legal at the time doesn't mean it's right. See the rule changes after "bodyline" and the "under arm delivery" as other examples of this concept.
Click to expand...
A wicket keeper is probably in the best position on the field to judge what's happening in the game. If you watched Ali and Bairstow, and later Root and Bairstow, you'd have seen the bowler slowly leading the batter forward out of his crease, or sometimes sideways to do the same. Wickets were taken like this. It's a tactic. Lyon did the same.

In the case of Bairstow batting, no one had to lead him out of his crease. He did it all by himself by being dozy. The astuteness of Carey in seeing this and waiting for the most opportune moment to dismiss him is also tactical. 0.87s between catching the ball and releasing it is premeditated. Had Bairstow not stepped forward, he would not have been out, but Carey could make a pretty good educated guess that Bairstow would do what he had done before. And fairly so.

The most ridiculous thing about this storm in a teacup is the fact that it was the wicket keeper who had himself dismissed like this. Had it been Anderson it may have been forgivable, but when it's the guy who has been doing/attempting this against others, it's just thickheaded.
 
stefan9 said:
No because it wouldn't be the same situation.
Click to expand...
I don't see how. Look at the replay. Bairstow did not look behind him. Had Carey not gloved the ball properly, Stokes would possibly have called him for a run. Would that have been in the spirit?

The least you do is look at the keeper or check where the ball is.
 
stefan9 said:
No because it wouldn't be the same situation.
Click to expand...
It's exactly the same. The keeper's proximity to the stumps in no way changes whether the batsman should be outside of the crease. If he shouldn't be waltzing down the track when the keeper is standing up he also shouldn't be doing it when the keeper is standing back.
 
stefan9 said:
A moral code is applied consistently, it isn't applied just when you feel like it. Spirit of cricket has to do with morals.
It's not tactical.

Can't say I am a good guy, I just occasionally steal. Here you can't say we are honorable cricketers we just occasionally use underhanded methods.

You view this just as part of the game so you view it as "tactical". I view it as underhanded so against the spirit of the game and not an acceptable tactic.
Just cause something is legal at the time doesn't mean it's right. See the rule changes after "bodyline" and the "under arm delivery" as other examples of this concept.
Click to expand...
I always thought people not walking or trying to claim dodgy catches is far more against the "spirit of cricket" than something like this...
 
Speedster said:
It's exactly the same. The keeper's proximity to the stumps in no way changes whether the batsman should be outside of the crease. If he shouldn't be waltzing down the track when the keeper is standing up he also shouldn't be doing it when the keeper is standing back.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, I've been having a chat with a former NZ first class umpire, who told me this story:

In one of the games he was officiating, there was a similar incident, though in this case the batsman was taking guard outside his crease and not really caring too much about getting back in his crease (even after first slip politely informed him). The next time he was dozy about it, the keeper did the exact thing Carey did. Given out, batsman immediately trudged back in shame. All was well until the lunch break, where the umpires had a knock on their door. It was the bowler.

"I hear that dismissmal's been recorded as a stumping?"

"Correct."

"Can't you change it to a run out?"

"No. The batsman wasn't attempting a run, and only the keeper was involved."

"But, the newspapers are going to have 'st keeper b fast bowler' in them tomorrow, and I don't want anyone to think that bastard was standing up to the stumps for my bowling!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X