"England Should Apologise To Australia!" Aussie Journalist SLAMS English Cricket 

Did he say that when he sneakily stumped Patel in a County match?

​@@acerimmehhis exact words made on tv when interviewed about it 😂 all this old footage coming back to haunt him

Hahaha yeah,maybe that's why old Jonny boy has been conspicuously quiet on this matter hey haha 😄

@@acerimmeh Yes, he actually stood holding the ball waiting for Patel's foot to clear the crease. Bit of a difference.

@@Bellas1717 Stumping players on the edge of their crease overbalancing has always been part of the game. Australians bringing up these false equivalencies, pointing out times Bairstow attempted regulation stumpings to justify their far from regulation ‘stumping’ of a player going for a between overs chat is disingenuous at best.

Exactly !

Yes 100%

One law for the Poms and another law for the others .

Meghan will be glad this has happened, she now gets a break from Morgan's big mouth. 🦘

The English are so used to making the rules they forgot who their cricket rules delegated authority to on the cricket field.

😂

We could even go back to "Over the fence is 6 & out"

Australian fan and appreciate your level-headedness. Personally, I don't like these gotcha kinds of wickets - Mankads and sneaky keeper underarms. I'd rather see batsmen dismissed by high quality bowling or fielding. But clearly these dismissals are within the law and they are occasionally needed as as a reminder to batsmen that (a) the creases are there for a reason, and (b) they don't determine whether the ball is live or dead. I can guarantee Bairstow will never take that for granted and get out that way again, and it'll be a wake-up call for a few others too. As for the 'spirit of cricket', it's outlined in the preamble to the Laws of Cricket and says nothing about captains being so generous as to hand dozy opposition batsmen a second chance.

Fawning submissive.

Dude. He was batting in his crease. He marked his crease. Both umpires where on the move. One umpire unclipping the bowlers cap. Oh but the ball wasn’t dead? It was sneaky and crooked. Was JB gaining an advantage? NO. A batsman batting 3 yards out for his crease would be gaining an advantage. A batsman running down the wicket to a spinner would be gaining an advantage. The batsman at the non strikers end backing up to early before the bowler has released the ball would be gaining an advantage. JB wasn’t the whole thing stinks, same old Aussies always cheating theyve got previous this lot, a disgusting bunch.

@@Doghead.89 do you have a life to get on with?

​@@Doghead.89and yet when England has done it in the past, no one in England said anything.

i totally agree. If you want to debate someone then you should allow them to respond freely. Unfortunately Piers Morgan is the epitome of a whinging Pom. As an Aussie I watched Stokes batting and had a terrible feeling that this bloke is going to pull the rabbit from its hiding place again. However as an Australian I also appreciated his display of trying to win the game. This is how England should be.

Yup, the umpire is always right, even when they're wrong.

Pretty crook when they have to go back to the Trevor Chappell issue, and that was against the Kiwis. The laws have changed since that. And Sandgate, after Smith scored on of the best centuries in recent history?

Has anyone read his continual tirade on Twitter I blocked him in the end he was whinging for 36 hours 😂😂

Piers is a horrible person

Considering the massive Australian over-reaction to the Starc non-catch the day before (crowding the umpires, blaming Duckett for not walking) I highly doubt that your compatriots would feel the same way! Also, Australians were wandering out of their crease throughout both of their innings without positive confirmation the ball was dead, which I guess just means that they all must be negligent also, or was Bairstow only negligent because he did it against Australia, a team known to be unsporting?

Of course you’d say that.

Not a chance mate... This will be on the headlines, just as its been portraited in the English newspapers.. They will definitely talk about lack of spirit for the game and they will also be called cheats, BY EVERYBODY IN AUSTRALIA MATE... Lets be honest, nobody talks highly of The Australian spirits for the game.. I can only think of Adam Gilchrist when it comes to Australian spirit of the game. I mean who would thought of sandpaper and how long did that happen before its been caught? How many test matches and odis been played that way? Guess nobody will know that now but yeh.. Australians would react the same way if the tables were turned.

Yep!

​@@jamesjones-z4u😂😂😂😂 you're wanker of a captain has tried it multiple times champ. Get over it your team just aren't good enough.

@nafizimtiaz5680 absolutely😁

It's not infrequent...

Not really. It happens quite often.

How so?

Hes a walking embarrasment!

Pierce is a whinging Pom. And he's Trump apologist. With his history, how dare Morgan talk about integrity......🤮

@@johnnichol9412 Corrected! Mind the lapsus! 😅

...or Piers's feelings.

When the ball is in the gloves and both batsmen are in their crease it’s a dead ball, you don’t then make it live again I’ve umpires and I would have laughed at the fielding side if they’d tried this.

I have supported Piers on just about everything argument he puts up, but this interview and a couple of others on this Bairstow stuff up, has me disliking him. I wouldn't be surprised if he has never played cricket at any level, and is just quoting what he has heard. He refuses to listen to the facts and avoids the words of previous English. captains. This just proves, that he is as bad as the average ignorant English members of the Marylebone Cricket Club.

Thank you dude. Restored my faith in the English!!!.. now please go and spread the word .. Ben stokes nearly pulled off a miracle and everyone's focused on a legitimate piece of cricket play and likening it to sandpaper-gate and cheating.. I'm actually really disappointed in your entire country ATM and I'm honestly looking at this as objectively as possible..

Well said but many suspect that this is not about the 'incident' itself, its about drawing attention away from the failures of 'bazball'.

Very true. But the answer to this conundrum is that the umpires should be empowered (and educated) to over-rule the laws of cricket on certain rare occasions to 'protect the integrity of the sport'. As an Aussie, I believe Bairstow should have been given a reprieve by the umpires. It's the umpires who have failed not Cummins or Carey who did the right thing. Gutless umpiring has caused this controversy.

@@michaellincoln3739 i actually agree with u here because u can't blame Carey or Cummins and it's a shit way to get someone out or to get out.. I was thinking the exact same way, the umpires have all the angles and all the cameras so it's all up to them.. then I realized that giving him a reprieve here will set a precedent where umpires are now having to decide if a batsmen is being careless or made a mistake.. the rules are the way they are so umpires don't have to make these decisions.. therefore I revert back to it being entirely bairstow's fault and if england want to blame anyone it should be him. After all he's a keeper and all keepers know the rules regarding the crease and gameplay etc.. especially considering he made a similar play in the previous innings and he's got a history of using the same rules to his advantage and then quoting 'its I'm the rules and it's part of the game'..

And you naturally did this at the end of an over.

Well said mate. I agree with Piers on most things; I generally disagree with him here although I didn't like the look of the dismissal as Bairstow wasn't trying to get an advantage. But even on causes I agree with Piers on, I wish he would stop interrupting the guest as I'd like to hear and understand their view so I can make my own judgement. That should be the job of the media, to allow both sides of an argument to be aired so the public can make informed decisions.

agree 100%

Writing as a MCC member and lifelong cricketer, Piers you would be well served to read the rules of cricket before spouting a stream of inaccurate consciousness.

I’m Australian and I think we are the pathetic ones, to try and justify this shows what and immature and desperate people we are.

Nobody believes that the batter was trying to steal a run. Why try to somehow get a wicket that you haven't earned. Even in Mankading, the accusation is that the batter is trying to get an advantage, which is not the case here.

@@todddixon1005 my brother bairstowe attempted the exact same dismissal

Are you an English Cricket fan, though? It doesn't sound like you are.

sadly this obvious fact needs to be explained to people like Morgan and others who sympathise with him.

The thing I find most sickening is the 'lost opportunity' and 'haven't moved past Sandpapergate' drivel, which Piers Morgan pontificated at the time. Just because Australia did the wrong thing 5 years ago, and egregiously so, doesn't mean that from then on - perhaps forever - they must play to some moral standard higher than everyone else, including their opponents in highest stakes competitive matches. Australia and the relevant players were punished at the time - rightly, and the team has cleaned up its act so that, one thinks, it will never happen again. That's enough, without Australia having to then play on some kind handicap system for 5 years or eternity thereafter.

What a stupid thing to say by piers. There's no ifs and buts

As much as I dont like Piers, England were in position to win both test matches.. 55 runs needed with 2 wickets to go on the final day with new ball, England were clear favorites.. they dropped too many catches.. and again here, England were chasing down a total with 2 of their best on the crease,, JB run out is more controversial as it robbed us on a great finish, I dont say that England would have won but it would have been an exciting contest.. its clear that JB was not trying to take any advantage (which was the case with Labushane attempt which everyone is citing as he stood out of the crease to negate swing), he clearly marked the crease, his only fault was to assume it was the end of the over, you can call it silly or dumb, but its what every batsmen does... even the leg umpire started moving and facing umpire was taking out the cap to give it to the bowler.. what didnt set with me well that it was not a competitive dismissal and it sets up a wrong precedent to win at any costs.. well the bar has been set, Aussies have opened up the door.. now everything with the laws of cricket will happen, irrespective of the situation..

@@ChatPOPPAT One could equally state that the patriotic effort by Nathan Lyon to bat, as he did, and contribute to a 21 run partnership could have amounted to a game winning effort.

Coulda shoulda woulda...the perfect response

The sandpaper boys will always be remembered as the biggest crybabies in history😂😂😂

Morgan can call himself whatever he likes but I think he’s a celebrity.

Maybe ...don't know the person however what we are watching here is not journalism is it. On the face of it it's two guys with conflicting views about an incident in a cricket match. It could just as easily be you and I having a discussion in a pub. It's not journalism to have an opinion.

Ironically Piers is streets behind.

i spotted that too, at most the standing umpire only looked down and Bairstow didn't even look at him before he started off.

You watch it from the various angles available, NEITHER umpire had moved.

Exactly. We see and hear too much of him on Australian TV.

Best way.

exactly, he just loves the sound if his own voice and his arguments are very thin indeed. love these aussies. cheers from Melbourne.

poms are bad looses

So true.

Yeah they should have won lol, I love the way they say that considering that dismissal is what set Stokes off. How do they know if the Aussies had withdrawn the appeal Stokes would have played like he did? Typical poms that think they know the rules but don’t know this one

@@knight2425 The poms wrote the rules and still don't know them. 🤣🤣🤣

@@brettallan7417 Some of them know the rules but don’t want to abide by them when it’s to their detriment

They couldn’t even win on day one…

Ridiculous. Had England done to Australia what Australia did to them there’s a reasonably high chance they would have walked off the pitch and flown home. You only had to see their ridiculous response to the Starc grounded catch the day before, where they surrounded the umpire in an attempt to intimidate him.

HAHAHA sounds like an uneducated whinger to me.

I completely agree with that. That said, if you watch the video carefully, the only valid excuse for Bairstow's failure to look back, is the fact that he looked towards the bowler's end, where the umpire definitely began to react as though the over has ended. However, the umpire hadn't yet called 'over.' From the umpire's initial movement (where he started to look down), I don't think he had yet spotted that Carey had not stopped playing. A full view of Carey would be blocked by Bairstow, and/or (like Bairstow) the umpire made a wrong assumption, because he wasn't paying sufficient attention.

@@davidbrear8642 Batsmen on both sides were doing exactly what Bairstow did throughout the game, wandering out of their creases at the end of overs without looking back or positive confirmation the ball was dead. If that’s careless then it’s something many batsmen are guilty of. It hadn’t been a problem before that, though, because before that nobody would have attempted a stumping, however Australia were enraged up by the Starc decision the day before! The most careless thing Bairstow did was thinking he could be complacent around the angered Australians! It’s true that Carey threw the ball immediately, though. So it’s not necessarily that Carey was being unsporting, as much as Cummins was to not withdraw the appeal.

@@jamesjones-z4u Yes, you make very good points. This incident was the result of many combined factors not least revenge. The entire England team should have been on their toes after the Starc decision. I previously pointed out on another thread that amongst international players it seems to have become an unspoken 'gentlemen's' agreement that, when the keeper is standing back to pace and the ball is cleanly pouched, if the batter is safe in his crease, both sides have invariably stopped playing and umpires have taken the same approach. Perhaps the laws of cricket will now be modified to deem the ball as automatically dead in these particular circumstances? Currently in these particular circumstances in test matches, during overs (and even at the end of overs) when batsmen leave their crease for a chat or to do a bit of gardening, it's often unclear whether the ball is dead or still in play.

Doesn't understand or doesn't care, because he is an outrage factory and needs to be angry about _something_ when Megan and Harry aren't in the news.

@@davidbrear8642 Why change the rules? when all you need to do is pay attention to the current rules.

Absolutely spot on. Bairstow was an idiot!

Exactly. Australia is the only team i would never cheer for in cricket. But that is out. Carey did nothing wrong

As a South African I love nothing more than seeing England and Australia going at each other. Having Pierce Morgan getting his own medicine is so much fun! But honestly, this "run out" is not cricket, it's bad sportsmanship. Nuff said.

@@NemoNiemand497 You see as an England supporter I do still disagree! It really wasn't hard to just stay in another second or two. I feel like people use the likes of MS Dhoni as a reference to how "good sportsmanship" should be displayed, but even that circumstance in my opinion was totally different to this! Bairstow (WHO MIGHT I ADD IS A WICKET KEEPER?! 😆) Doesn't even look back to see if Carey caught it or fumbled or whatever... (I appreciate it isn't village cricket) but it doesn't take a lot to just turn a head and see / check everything is ok!

@@NemoNiemand497 Its not even a run out. He was stumped. Nothing weird, and quite common even off a seamer. They saw their hopes and dreams dashed thats all.

Mitch Starc made the silly mistake of letting the ball scrape against the ground for a catch, and as a result, it was ruled not-out.

Bairstow would have done the exact same thing and Stokes would never have called the batsman back.

@@mickm6309lol 100% believe that lol.

If Bairstow was out of his crease at any point from the start of the bowlers run up to the ball entering the keeper's gloves, I would agree. But the fact that he tried to deliberately time it for the moment he left his crease after all of that was said and done, AND did so on the last ball of an over, makes it entirely unacceptable..... And I'm and Aussie.

@@johnnysoccer1983it was an instant throw. It was a schoolboy error

​@@johnnysoccer1983well said mate

​​@@jakkaxn5513he instant throw, was, based on what Cummins said, related to what Carey had observed Bairstow doing earlier. Let's not pretend Carey was just being instinctive.. It was pre planned

@@jakkaxn5513 Choosing to go for an instant throw when the batter was never out of their crease in the hopes of timing it for when they leave AFTER they believe the ball dead and on the last ball of the over is a dog act to try and buy a wicket you couldn't get legitimately.

Conveniently cutting off Lalor trying to tell how Steve Smith's mum left the ground in tears. Well done England, you absolute twatwaffles.

Well said. Glad you said Laws, not Rules.

Yea what happened to respecting the decision of the umpire?

@@falaramal3979 that ended at the same time as saying “crease leave”! 🤣🤣🤣🙊

For the record. The Spirit of the game is NOT written into the actual Laws. It appears as a preamble to those Laws. Such as a preface would in a book.

That, my friend, is very typical of the way these "shock jocks" operate. They have their hand on the "kill" switch.

it was also pure cheating when England used mints to shine the ball for the entire 2005 Ashes series

Sandpaper happened cos the Aussies and the South Africans had bad blood outside the field as well, and both were at each others' throats. No excuse, but it was a very turbulent tour and emotions were out of control.

Was a dark day for Aussie cricket. We love to win. But not at any cost. And not by cheating.

Yes, and the English commentary team called it ‘very clever wicket keeping’. When asked about it after the match he said ‘it’s within the rules’.

Smokescreen is what he said and how true haha.

And it’s why I always cheer for whoever England is playing lol.

Yes if the ball missed and went to the boundary the poms wouldn't of run a couple more runs,you know this because of the spirit of cricket thing they claim for themselves

And the Aussies acted true to form. It's the expectation that the Aussies may be committed to fair play that makes the English look stupid.

We Australians have a inferiority complex and will do anything to win……I’m afraid!!!

He was equating the Australian attitude to cricket not the laws of the game.

@brianwilson49 Remember the game with England and West Indies where the keeper waited the batter to slide his foot out of his crease and stumped him. Not to mention Bairstow tried the same f***ing thing in the same match so what does England know about the spirit of the game.

They wrote them too

You sound clueless son.

@@pablojescobar3400 that's the most funniest thing that the writers of cricket rules and laws forget about them😆

If Australia had of won both tosses and had the favourable conditions instead of England, Australia would have won more comfortably.

If englnd scored 700 and got aussies out for 50 they would have won. 2nil down and 3 more to lose. Come on aussies. From a South African 🇿🇦

If my gran had wheels, she'd have been a bicycle.

@@runawaypuppet Your kind of rewriting the joke there, but good on you.

@@runawaypuppet I have to say, I'd be laughing like a mad man, if the tables were turned.

exactly, and was refusing him a runner also 'in the spirit of the game'? Hmmm

That was ruff 😮

😂 😂

It crossed my mind at the time it could be shared.

Yeah according to spirit of game they should have given the trophy to new Zealand 😂

By the way Piers, the disgusting underarm incident was in 1981,not 1991.

@@margaretreid2153 And he got things wrong, Trevor Chappel argued with his brother over doing that, you can see he clearly didn't want to do it but in the end he did as his captain ordered him to do. In my view the only thing Trevor is guilty of is obeying his Captain.

and he conveniently never mentioned England used mints to shine the ball for the entire 2005 Ashes series

@@DaveWhoa We would have flogged England that series had they not cheated. At the time, I had my suspicions they were cheating when watching that series, because they were getting the ball to revers swing within 20 overs. I find sandpaper gate disgusting as all Aussies do, but England have no moral high ground when it comes to cheating.

@vivekpokhriyal5303 best comment lmfao🤣🤣😆😆

They certainly shouldn't have lost. That stupid declaration made me laugh so hard

We were the better side at Edgbaston throughout the 5 days and made stupid decisions and crucial times which made it too close and you won a game you didn’t deserve! Happens all the time in any sport. You deserved to win at Lords regardless of Bairstow but I just think you didn’t need to revert to those tactics

@@Shandyboy8612 I was on your side til you had a bitch about the stumping

He doesn't really care , he just takes the opposite view to get air time

Thank god Australia is where the UK sent all its prisoners. Racist sexist backward hell hole

Man I love Aussie commentary. Can you give me an example for a bad Australian commentator?

And get here you are

@@nsh1772 Most of the faces on Sky News would fit the bill as well as out famous Alan Jones

Or that pocket full of dirt. How convenient!

Or the player that got pinned this series

No. Smith and Warner are convicted cheats if we’re going that way. Myopic Aussies. Never sinning but always sinned against.

That’s odd, myopic Dave. I thought that the convicted cheats were Smith, Warner and young Bancroft, etc. The saliva from the Murray Mints was so game changing that you only complained after your boys got caught and the amino acids in the mints were obviously doing more damage than the abrasive sandpaper! There was also the case when Mark Waugh and Shane Warne got caught, taking money off of a bookie in Sri Lanka in 1994. CA didn’t give either of them a ban. Incredible to think that they covered it up for four years when you remember that Hanse Cronje forfeited his career for something similar. Then there was Warney getting sent home from the World Cup in 1999, after falling a drugs test. Did CA give him a ban? No, of course not. They’re in a different position to anyone else. Oh wait ... all of the above was the poms fault ... they forced those incidents onto poor old Australia! 🤣👍🤣👍🤣👍

Well, like Piers said, no one else would.

​@@murph7421 Shocking that no-one would want to spend 7 and a half minutes of an 8 minute interview being bullied and berated by the host, then interrupted and muted whenever they get a chance to counter Piers' logical fallacies and whataboutism.

It's not that simple. It involves the spirit of the game

Aussies keep saying Bairstow has tried doing this, can’t provide any examples. Almost like it’s a lie.

@@jamesjones-z4u if you actually open the other eye and check media outside of that idiot Piers Morgan there's plenty of evidence of Pommy sneakiness and hypocrisy. You wankers just can't handle that Australia always win fair and square.

@@jamesjones-z4ugo back and watch the second test. He tired it against Warner and also in the second innings against Marnus

@@theearthrexden also tried against Head at Edgbaston

​@@theearthrexdenplease go back and learn the rules of the game. Bairstow did that to them when they took guard outside the crease not when they were going to talk to their mate at the end of an over. Different scenarios

@ST-hr4xv hypocrisy at it's finest

Bullshit

Tune in for tomorrows next Test at Leeds…. They’ll be more fireworks than July 4th

I hear Dave Portnoy is our resident cricket expert across the pond 😅

You like English defeat??

In Cricket there are 3 formats in which 5 days cricket is the longest format and in which a player need more skill, more patience both physically and mentally... And other two one day and T20 are just for entertainment which last 7 hours and 2.5 hours respectively.... In 5 days cricket there are lot of minor things which can be sought out by both teams by themselves and they also have laws for it, as these minor things can be a loopholes in laws of cricket on which a team can take advantage... In this particular case Australian wicket keeper stumped (out) English cricketer by that minor thing on which English cricketer doesn't want to take any advantage and which costs England the match... And also Cricket is known as Gentlemen's game not because only mens play it (women's also play it) but all players are supposed to play it within spirit of game...

Cricket 🏏 is religion Matches between Australia 🇦🇺 - England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 , India 🇮🇳-pakistan are serious business . You get over billion people watching the game .

There’s a side that’s easy to love?

@@analogpixellmao that’s funny but I do like the way he handles some things (note that I said some)

I like your point, but woke actually means aware and accepting of a need to redress discrimination, particularly racial discrimination. It is unfortunate that you used the American bastardisation of the word, a tactic used to keep groups of people subjugated and to protect the power and position of old white men. (But then, isn’t that the composition of the group in the Long Room who showed us what the spirit of the gentleman's game should look like?)

@@Bellas1717 Grow up and tell the story to someone in your victim group that might care.

@@thatsbollox it is actually quite grown up to be able to accept another point of view. It is quite the opposite to be dismissive and insulting. I belong to no group. I am not a victim. I simply bring a little discernment to what I read and hear, especially the spin coming out of America. Let’s get back to enjoying the cricket.

@@Bellas1717 Thats wonderful. Truly it is. However i didnt come here for anyone else's "point of view", for your discernment, definitions of woke, nor your naive evangelical political advice. In fact just take a hike bozo.

Yes it's a gentleman's so why is it played by Aussie's

@@jeffmackie547 England have proven that cricket is no longer played just by gentlemen. While we Australians have our fair share of gentlemen, the term "gentlemen's game" is anachronistic.

@@Bellas1717 Yep bodyline

@@jeffmackie547 because England burnt the stumps after losing.

@@Bellas1717 Oh there's nowt like a good laugh

@@Eric_Cartman______yet your own team did the same act in New Zealand. Hypocrite much? Loser.

This is a brilliant , i wish someone in the media picks up on this. There is absolutely NO argument after this. WELL SAID

Good argument and I don't even follow cricket, well done

"Consider this hypothetical. Bairstow walks out of his crease in the exact same way, but instead stops and realizes that he's out of his crease while the ball is live. Bairstow immediately tries to get his bat behind the crease but just fails and is stumped. This would be considered by anyone to be an uncontroversial stumping. Bairstow's obliviousness can't dictate whether a dismissal is fair or not. Piers Morgan's argument is reductio ad absurdum." That's a great comment.

I don't think you know what reductio ad absurdum means

Jehan. I see you everywhere and I await your input next on CFA Nation 😊.

Indian here. I supported Australia the moment I saw Bairstow dismissal. My first thought was intelligent work by Carrey. Even though I hated Australian teams over the years. I support them on this issue. That was out.

@quicksquiz even England's only odi world cup winner Captain Morgan supported Carey

Cricket is a bit weird in this perspective because in various aspects for alot of people spirit of the game overrides the laws of the game in cases like Mankad etc. In footballing terms if a team puts the ball out for a throw in because there players is injured then the other team takes the throw in and scores. It's legal and in the rules of football but is it in the spirit of the game?

@@paramtageja6891 Then a new set of rules should be drawn up so that everyone is aware of what the rules (spirit) of the game are and then there can be no disagreement on the matter and the umpires can enforce it. As an aside, is it also in the spirit of cricket for the bowling side to heckle the batsman (who is all alone on the field)? This happens all the time! So, to my mind, gamesmanship forms a big part of the "spirit of the game" as you referred to it.

These umpires have been shit. Neither were looking at the crease when Bairstow had his stumps hit.

@@paramtageja6891 But it _is_ the in the spirit of the game according to the English. And according Bairstow himself. See his comments about his own delayed stumping of Patel in 2014.

@@paramtageja6891 Just rampant hypocrisy and bad sportsmanship from the English.

Spot on mate ! i also find it to be a ridiculous argument that because of what happened in Cape Town YEARS ago that Australia/Pat Cummins was supposed to withdraw the appeal & give Bairstow a free pass

Have you been to Lord's Cricket Ground mate?

@@pimp4984 No, but i bet the tears of lords & sirs from the long room taste pretty sweet though.

Like the under arm ball or the Mankad

@nickrad6966 I have no problem with the Mankad but yeah, that underarm caper was shameful.

It’s actually nowhere near the same. 😂 Cricket is a gentleman’s sport, it’s etiquette to play it as it should be played, but….the ozzys have just played dirty to get a W, and as an English man, I’d like to congratulate them on their success. England I hope would do the same thing and take advantage of a dirty play if it arose.

Because it’s scummy and this Aussie team is most famous for sandpaper gate (they were found cheating)

Cricket is a gentleman’s game

@@georgejung5429 A gentleman’s sport 😂😂😂😂

You are correct, according to the laws of cricket, the bowler's end umpire can only rule that the ball is dead when all the players on the field (the two batters and the fielders) come to regard it as dead. In other words, the ball becomes dead when both sides have stopped playing. Bairstow stopped playing, but Carey didn't, because he wasn't obliged to. The ball was, therefore, still in play. It has to be said that when a keeper takes a ball cleanly whilst standing back to pace in a test match, and the striking batsman is safely anchored in his crease, invariably everyone has stopped playing. It's almost as though this has become an unspoken agreement amongst international players, and this explains all the furor. Bairstow is a good bloke, but he was far too careless in the moment, particularly since this was an Ashes test where traditionally no holds are barred. He didn't even look round to see if Carey had pouched the ball, let alone to verify that he'd stopped playing. Bairstow must have heard the ball slam into his keeper's gloves so he signalled his intention to leave his crease not realising that the ball was on its way to the stumps Carey and Cummins are good blokes, but they have too much pressure on them to win.

Most of the past England players including captains have come out and supported Australia over this, it’s just the sore losers that are looking for a way to blame everyone else that are whinging at the moment

couldnt agree more. A painful listen. Like so many of the other interviews he does.

Agreed. I timed Bairstow ducking the ball (ball above his head), to the moment he started to move out of his crease at 1.8 seconds. Who walks out the crease in 1.8 seconds of ducking a bouncer and does not expect to be stumped.

@@acerimmeh haha exactly and thats fast if the ball goes through to the keeper on the full let alone bouncing on the way to the keeper

@deepu14693 exactly😀😀😆😆

Nah he's an experienced cricketer, he thinks he demolished Brett Lee in the nets

That's summarizing his sports knowledge in general

@@jehanariyaratnam2874 hahahaha best comment😆😆😂😂

You’re telling an Englishmen to stop dragging up the past hahahahahahahahaha if any nationality had th e past brought up the most it’s the English ! You clown!

Not instinctive. Carey knew Bairstow would walk to the middle at the end of the over. Bairstow wasn't dozy, he assumed some level of professional understanding among players by saying 'I'm in' with his foot scrape.

@@CR-gr4bx where was this professionalism when Bairstow did that exact same thing to Marnus and Warner at Lord's and to Head at Edgbaston? Bairstow also didn't warned them before threw the ball to the stamps direction but all 3 times he missed and all 3 times Aussie batsmen were care enough to look back and since when batsman earned this facility to mark the crease with shoe and then get out of the crease? there's no rule or nothing like that kind of facility given to batsman atleast till now, an over will only end when 1 of the 2 on field umpires call it "Over" until then the ball and the over is alive and batsman is obliged to stay inside his crease

@@CR-gr4bx "Professional understanding" is knowing the rules of the game. The over isn't finished until the umpire says it is.

@@CR-gr4bx The truth is Bairstow was an idiot who made a mistake a rookie wouldn't have, and is too embarrassed or cowardly to admit it. Scraping your shoe only means something if you are playing Bairstow Rules and this isn't. Otherwise the opposition team wouldn't be allowed bats, according to Bairstow rules 🤪

It's over when the batsman scratches the crease with his foot once.....lol

@@jehanariyaratnam2874 No, it's over when the batsman adjusts his cup. 🤪

Me too...guess what I am an Indian🤓🤓

Bhaisaab as an Indian this is like Diwali came early. Maybe Bakrid ki khushi mei yeh tohfa diya hai goron ne 😂

as indian fan, me too lol

@@miloblackmetalhate fjijewroijfioejofijweoifjoi i can speak gibberish too djweojfimeovimv[oew c

Yes of course it would. England would not have taken the runs.