• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Second Test (Lord's, London) 28 June–2 July

hazsa19

International Regular
Haven't seen the dismissal in question, but if Carey had missed the stumps and given away a chance for the batsmen to run, would people have expected Bairstow to not take advantage because he thought the ball was dead?
No because everyone on the field other than Carey thought the ball was dead.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Oh right.

I don't think anyone defending this is anti-Mankad tbh.

If anything it's kind of the other way, a few posters here think this is ****house but have zero qualms with a Mankad.
Yeah, that is usually an attempt to take a run and therefore, far more likely to be a real run-out, no?
 

The_CricketUmpire

U19 Vice-Captain
As a former umpire, I am more than happy to explain the situation.

The initial parts of the Dead Ball law (Law 20) explain it:

20.1 BALL IS DEAD

20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when;

20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.

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.

20.2 BALL FINALLY SETTLED

Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.

The ball wasn't finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper (Alex Carey), therefore the ball was still "Live" & in play. Good thinking by Alex Carey and also I've seen a few comments on Twitter that what Carey did was against the spirit of game. I'm telling you now, it certainly was not against the spirit of the game.
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I can't wait for half this England side to spend the three days off writing editorials for the Sun on this matter
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DDP

The_CricketUmpire

U19 Vice-Captain
Both were legal and part of the rules. Deal with the fact Australia are falling apart and I predicted it
As a former umpire, I am more than happy to explain the situation.

The initial parts of the Dead Ball law (Law 20) explain it:

20.1 BALL IS DEAD

20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when;

20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.

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.

20.2 BALL FINALLY SETTLED

Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.

The ball wasn't finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper (Alex Carey), therefore the ball was still "Live" & in play. Good thinking by Alex Carey and also I've seen a few comments on Twitter that what Carey did was against the spirit of game. I'm telling you now, it certainly was not against the spirit of the game.
And whilst I am at it - Umpire Erasmus has had a good game and those two tricky decisions...he has nailed 100%....as per the Laws of Cricket.
 

Kirkut

International Regular
Onus in now on Australia if they have the nerves of steel to win this game, with Stokes in god mode and Lord's booing them.
 

chris.hinton

International Captain
As a former umpire, I am more than happy to explain the situation.

The initial parts of the Dead Ball law (Law 20) explain it:

20.1 BALL IS DEAD

20.1.1 The ball becomes dead when;

20.1.1.1 it is finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper or of the bowler.

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.

20.2 BALL FINALLY SETTLED

Whether the ball is finally settled or not is a matter for the umpire alone to decide.

The ball wasn't finally settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper (Alex Carey), therefore the ball was still "Live" & in play. Good thinking by Alex Carey and also I've seen a few comments on Twitter that what Carey did was against the spirit of game. I'm telling you now, it certainly was not against the spirit of the game.
Correct.
 

Gnske

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
To the credit of the Lords members, it must be shocking as born and bred racists to see a brown guy in that room. The only thing more inconceivable would be a brown woman.
 

ashley bach

International Captain
Some very well educated posters have more than once pointed out Stokes shouldn't even be playing.
Will be interesting catching up on their reasons, even more so if he was to miraculously get England across the line.
 

Top