• @gila
    link
    English
    21 year ago

    Yeah but the latter requires an arbitrary interpretation of the spirit of the game which is dependent on outcome

      • sloonark
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        He thought it was dead ball.

        Exactly. Bairstow made a dumb mistake and as a result, he got out. The ‘spirit of cricket’ doesn’t mean you get a second chance if you do something dumb, otherwise Khawaja shouldn’t have been out when he shouldered arms and was bowled. “Oops that was silly of me. Can I have it over again?”

        There was nothing deceitful about this - it’s not like they claimed a catch when they knew it hit the ground. The batter made a mistake and lost his wicket.

          • @gila
            link
            English
            21 year ago

            Batting isn’t just the skill of hitting a ball, it’s also the athleticism and tactics of running. The batsman’s position in relation to the crease is a fundamental concept in batting tactics. This is absolutely not a case where the batsman would generally be considered ok to absent-mindedly wander outside the crease, such as for the off-strike batsman during a bowler’s run-up. There is no substance to the principle argument like with a mankad-style dismissal, just the vague suggestion that the fielding team should reasonably allow the batsman to self-determine whether the ball is live or dead.

            It’s really not a neutral-sounding argument. McCullum has dismissed the same way, Bairstow has attempted to dismiss the same way, yet you’re holding Australia to this imaginary standard of sportsmanship which none of the involved parties can hope to live up to.