@@alextv293 Don't know why the English struggle so much to follow rules that they themselves wrote. Be done with your bs, just because things aren't done a certain way in your country doesn't mean everyone has to follow.
@@alextv293spirit of the game can buzz off. It's in the rules. Either change the rules or stop complaining. Do bowlers get a warning for stepping over the line? It's a direct no ball.
But he’s pretty dumb if he can’t see the difference between this and a mankad. He might not care about the difference but there is a clear difference. I think it was very sportsmanship on the part of the Aussies. Technically out yes. But I wouldn’t want a wicket like that.
I actually think Jarrod missed a trick here. The spirit of cricket is written down, in the preamble to the laws. And one of the elements is accepting the umpire’s decision. In fact, it’s one of the only parts of the Spirit of Cricket preamble which is unambiguous. Whether the Aussies should have warned Johnny is up for debate. What IS NOT up for debate is that the English - players, coach and fans - clearly didn’t respect the umpire’s decision. Disgraceful behaviour from the Poms. Totally against the spirit of cricket.
Disagree the idea that stokes somehow accidentally let it slip that England wouldn’t have done that. It was a deliberate, calculated, untrue statement designed to unfairly direct criticism on the Australians and away from his own team that had gone 2-0 down.
And it had the intended effect of firing up his team. The series finished 2-2. Rightly or wrongly he used the situation to his advantage. It was a cracking series.
@@jamespearce9973 finished 2--2 because the balls were changed on the last day at the oval, basically england cheated. everyone knows it, especially them.
same series, Bairstow tries the exact same move multiple times against Labuschagne trying to get him out. It didnt work but you can guarantee that the Aussies noted it and thought they could try it on him, it worked, too bad, so sad.
Weren’t these mid over as opposed to the last ball where umpires had already began switching ends and giving back the bowlers hat by the time the ball had hit the stumps. That’s what i thought the controversy was for even if the ball had technically been thrown before over was called
@@andyhook8952 irrelevant what time during an over it happens (i dont know when exactly bairstow did it, but im sure during the multiple times it was done at least once at an end of over) the umpire had not given the bowler his hat, he hadnt even called over, ball is live until then or until the keeper passes it to another fielder to return to bowler.
@@sparkitus1988it's not irrelevant at all. In the laws of the game it was allowed obviously, but as an England supporter I would not want England to get a wicket in such a manner, and as an under 10 cricket coach I would not be happy if any of my players did it. It was snide and not a great look.
@@sparkitus1988 think you’ll find Jonny never attempted it at the end of the over, and the body language of the umpires and the fact that Barstow clearly went back into the crease following the delivery marking his belief the over was finished before he left his crease again. This added with that fact that Carey and Cummins had planned to try and get Bairstow out this way shows once again that Australians have little concept in the spirit of cricket and prefer the ‘ win at all costs mentality’ which leads to things like sandpaper gate, punching opposition in bars, threatening breaking arms, appealing for obstruction of field after launching a ball at someone and the endless other examples
@@utha2665 Look at Mankading. Somehow the non-striker should be allowed to still stray from his crease after he's been admonished that he's just abusing the fielding team's generosity now? This, based on the "spirit of cricket"?
"Mate, if you carry on doing that, we're going to run you out. Stay in your ground!" Has Bairstow ever said that during the countless number of times he's tried that as a keeper, including to Warner and Marnus earlier in the same test? So, NO! There's not a bit of that you can do! No other keeper, captain, or team has ever said that.
My 12yr old lad wandered out of his crease and got stumped, learnt a lesson. Watched Bairstow and said “that’s out”. When a 12yr old gets it, first time, why is this even a discussion 😂
Mankad should be a genuine form of dismissal. It is now marked as runout. No it should be marked as Mankading. And there should be stats about most mankads etc. Just like most run outs or catches.
There is a rule in place to give it not out if the bowlers pull out way too late. Unfortunately they never seems to enforce it though. Not sure if umpires know that's a rule
It's the opposite of a 'win at all costs' mentality. Cricket is only a game, and the most important thing is that you preserve its traditions intact for future generations. It's an ethos rather than something that can be precisely defined. If you do something questionable on the field, ask yourself whether you'd like to see that becoming the norm in the future. If the answer is 'no' then you've made a judgement based on the spirit of cricket.
Spirit of Cricket means playing the game within laws and best of your skills and abilities to beat the opposition but don't create any way which might be in the laws of the game but seen as a cheap method to win the game,Play fair and hard and beat opposition conventionally
"Spirit of cricket" has always been stupid and I'm glad people are finally waking up to it. The fact that a genuine dismissal like the mankad was so taboo was always baffling to me. If you don't want to get get mankad, stay in your crease. The Bairstow stumping incident and Broad not walking incident have actually turned out very similar. What the Aussies did at Lord's and what Broad did at trent bridge were both totally acceptable, and both received incredibly over-the-top reactions from the opposition team and fans. Because both incidents happened in the biggest cricket event for both countries, an increased number of casual fans were watching that made it even easier to ramp up outrage. It's worth noting that almost all commentators, regardless of nationality, never really had any problems with what happened, and would've done the same. The reality is that Bairstow only had himself to blame for what happened, and the 2013 Aussies should've used their reviews more carefully (a lesson we clearly never learned!) I think "spirit of cricket" incidents often distinguish casual fans from hardcore cricket fans, who maybe aren't as partisan.
@@joebowden4065 I think it's like that in most places, from my experience anyway. I just think think it shouldn't be, and hopefully one day it's just treated the same way as when someone gets out stealing a base in baseball.
Comparing the Bairstow and Broad incidents is weird because they were both out. Bairstow was out of his crease and Broad smashed his. Only 1 of them resulted in the correct decision. Therefore, one set of fans had a right to be outraged. The other doesn't.
the “Spirit of cricket” is the knuckle-draggers at the Lords long room shouting verbal abuse at the winning team as they walk past. gracious in defeat as always 😂
I think the spirit of cricket as a concept exists in a friendly game but has no place in the professional game. The concept being play fair don't take advantage of a player just doing something stupid and being honest on a nick or a catch to me makes perfect sense if the aim is to go have a drink at the end with everyone and maybe a laugh at Jonny doing a walkabout. In the professional game its their livelihood, its the laws or nothing because the goal isnt a bit of fun for the players and every legal advantage should be taken otherwise a player is just not doing their job properly.
Good description. Commentators/pundits etc always seem to forget that 99% of cricket matches around the world are played by amateurs solely for the love of the game, usually with no technology in less-than-perfect conditions; unlike many sports, it is relatively easy to cheat in a manner that can significantly alter a match, so we rely on the honesty and fairness of our opponents to make sure the game functions as it should.
@@Ben-rq5re Yes, and up until the the late 70s Test cricket was an amateur sport too. But even then there are stark examples where they haven't played to what is considered within the spirit of the game. A prime example is bodyline, laws had to be changed to stop that BS, but the team claiming "spirit of cricket" is invariably on the losing side. The Jonny Bairstow game also had another incident when Stark caught Ben Duckett on the boundary and touched the ball on the ground to get back up, you never saw Australians carrying on like two-bob watches, even though it was not out on a technicality and it was plainly obvious Stark had control of the ball. Where was Ben Duckett's "spirit of cricket" not walking when he clearly saw he was caught? LOL, sorry for the rant, but there are plenty of examples of England not playing to their fabled "spirit of cricket", it's only used as an excuse to cover ones embarrassment of a loss.
It's not a "Spirit" of "cricket" - it's compassion, empathy, maybe pity sometimes. Teams can decide to implement them or not. The main thing is we need to communicate to children, future cricketers that want good people playing the game, not assholes who will win at all cost.
Play to the rules. They are written in black and white for all to see. Compassion, empathy and pity are variable and are often dictated by the demeanour of one person. Sport can not function on feelings. The same as society in general. Our feelings can influence the rules and laws, but once those laws are written, we stick to them. If someone wants to ignore the rules because they feel sorry for someone, then that's their decision. But they should never expect the same from someone else and should never complain about it.
On a mankad the bowler should have to do it in the delivery stride. Not stop and wait until batsman leaves when the bowler would have normally have released the ball. The non striker should not have to watch the bowlers hand for each ball but should be able to assume that the ball will be released in the delivery stride and can now leave then and not before.
Like Bumble said, in the old days it made sense - for example things like the umpire's decision is the final decision, if the catcher says they've caught it you accept it and move on - these things should still exist in club cricket. But now with all the technology in the professional game, every close decision an umpire makes can be based on a multitude of replays, camera angles, AI etc etc. So spirit of cricket just comes round when salty cricketers are held accountable for making stupid mistakes. Even the Bell example he gives, its such a stupid mistake.
Yeah but one thing you guys did.not discuss properly is that there have to be better rules for bal being 'alive',it seems like its done on feel and thats recipe for disaster
@@lochlanjohnston402The rules don’t match the way the game is played. Going forward England could claim the ball is always in play until it reaches the bowler. No one wants that.
@@lochlanjohnston402 Yes. I know the rules. But there's nothing in the laws that say you have to buy a few jugs of beer for the opposition when you host them but you're still a bunch of arseholes if you don't.
Cricket is a different beast now. It's a competitive professional sport. There is no room for any spirit nonsense. Players play to win and that's the way it should be. This spirit of the game was ok when cricket was played as a hobby and by Englishmen as a fun game.
Sportmanship is real. However, pulling out Unofficial Rules when it suits is nonsense. Playing hard and playing fair gets messy at times. Benefit of the doubt going to the batter is the most most basic acknowledgement that there are times when players and officials aren't sure what's 'exactly' right and so some leeway is built into the system to try and balance things out and give everyone a reasonable go. False piety is the natural end to a 'spirit of the game' unwritten rule. Personally I think players calling DRS rather than umpires checking themselves has led to a degradation of the relationship between players and umpires, whereby the players would accept the decision on the field with grace. We always know some might go for us and some against, but now we nitpick everything because apparently there can never be any doubt. The players seem to have an expectation of being able to question everything now and then act/think as if losing in the appeals court is completely unheard of.
Are people seriously still talking about that Ashes test? It was over a year ago now ffs. And yes, as an Englishman, I say exactly the same about the sandpaper incident. It happened years ago now. Cricket really is cooked if people have nothing else to talk about but these incidents, years after they happened.
Nobody cares about the Barstow incident. Only 1 guy ever really did and few media nonsense talking heads. The sand paper was a disgrace and people can boo the players all they like until they retire, if they so wish. But like you say, bar people talking on podcasts, nobody really cares.
Oddly enough, I saw Bancroft score a hundred against Surrey yesterday. Come on, this is cricket, we talk about stuff forever, in some cases when everyone involved is dead, like Bodyline. That's part of its odd charm because cricket people are more interested in history than followers of other sports.
@@therecanbeonlyone801 ...everyone was carrying on about the disgraceful sandpaper incident (and it was) and the three Aussie players were basically internationally shamed. Yet no one seemed to recall the fact that the then South African captain Faf DuPlessis was caught ball tampering 3 (!!) times before that. (At least Steve Smith got the last laugh on his return in the Ashes where he scored 4 centuries)
@@KevinSheedy10 Exactly. So why the hell do you want to adhere to the rules of the spirit of cricket when not everyone understand or agrees on them? That's why we have a rule book. Everyone on earth can read them and adhere to those rules.
@@PetrolSniffingDoofus hence the constant debate, personally I don’t want a load of kids at grassroots level trying to mankad every over or self umpires deliberately delaying the over call so their team can attempt a runout on the sly. Whats next, skipper taking a watch out to the field to time out the batsmen coming in.
Spirit of the game should not be very hard to describe, when a batter innocently finds himself in a compromising position, the other side ought to let him off, with a warning only. What Dhoni did was the correct interpretation of the spirit. Call it humanity for all you like. Compassion for forgiving an honest mistake is admirable. There’s a reason why Dhoni is admired by friends and foes. He played hard but was fair. Rules of the game can always be bent.
Playing a loose shot outside off stump which results in you edging it to 2nd slip, can also be "an honest mistake." Should we be expecting fielding captains to tell batsman who've been caught in the slip cordon to stay out in the middle because the batsman made a mistake and we all want to show humanity?
Once I went out with some people and a certain person was there. Next day I was playing cricket against this person's boyfriend. I said to the boyfriend; "Had your missus last night, she was alright to." I know that they hadn't been together since the night before. He was out next ball. Some people would disagree with what I did and others wouldn't. I'm not exactly proud of it myself, but the spirit of cricket is a myth. The Bairstow incident is vastly overrated. In the heat of battle you are doing everything you can to gain an advantage within the rules. I live in Ian Chappell territory.
Why not extend the "the Spirit of cricket" to run out and stumping? Warn the first time and only out if the batsman does it again!! Rules are clear. Just follow it. Plain and simple.
There are some very nebulous areas in the supposed "Spirit of Cricket" and that is why rules have been set so the notion of "what is fair" can be set aside and examples like below are not an issue. Mankad may on the surface appear to be unsportsmanlike, even if it is in the rules....HOWEVER, it becomes very subjective according to what the immediate situation is. For a real-life example that occurred last season in a game (and most likely NOT uncommon), here is my experience and view. Real Life : Two teams tied with 1 ball to go. Tail end batter confers with non-striker to run no matter what. Tale end non-striker could possibly crib a few feet but possibly runs the risk of being mankadded, instead keeps bat in the crease till the ball leaves the bowlers hand and then sprints down the pitch (nearly catching up with the ball !). The batter manages to make contact with the ball hits towards a fielder and takes off nearly as quickly. They achieve the single and win. HURRAH !!! OK, HYPOTHETICAL situation, but very believable. Exact same situation but with the non striker who is not a fast runner. Tail end batter manages to make contact and hits ball towards a fielder. Tail end non-striker to get an advantage, has DELIBERATELY walked out of their crease by 2 feet but bowler doesn't notice. Non striker starts running and gets to the crease just a millisecond before the wicket keeper takes out the stumps. QUESTIONS 1. Would a mankad have been justified in that situation? ....I believe YES if the bowler had noticed. (Of course if we are totally honest with ourselves it depends on who lost the game !) 2. How many times in the course of a normal game has a non-striker gone for a quick single and just got in (line ball) at the other end after clearly cribbing a foot or so and then been given NOT OUT by Square Leg (too close to call and receiving the benefit of doubt !). 3. If a non striker is basically being careless in the middle of an innings and not trying to get an advantage would you mankad ? No, not without a warning. Last century I was always taught to keep my bat grounded till the bowlers arm came over or risk walking back to the pavilion with an extremely silly look on my face ! cheers from down under
Sportsmanship has a place in every sport - cricket has always had it. But it's also true in the current day and age where winning is everything with so many different interpretations of the word "spirit" itself, better to stick to the game's laws.
Keeping game within the law of game and surely take some minor chances is all part of Spirit of game. If there are no laws of the game, then there is no Spirit of game, than there is no game of cricket.. Simple as that. MS Dhoni within the laws of game, didn't give a wrong out that day, simple. That's why he was appreciated.. I didn't know these people will be this naive to discuss it, OH god, which countrymen I'm expecting things to be fair and square. Countries and countrymen who never had self introspection would never value the spirit of any game, forget cricket.
I umpired a game where a similar thing happened. The player at my end started walking down the pitch after what he thought was the 6th ball. He apparently did not hear me calling a no ball during the over and I had not called over. The fielding team joyfully run him out and I have no alternative but to give him out and did so immediately, as I did not know why he had walked down the pitch in the first place and wondered why he did. As you might imagine the batting team not so much the player himself who was a nice chap went berserk and I soon found my self surrendered by the entire batting team. I wondered for a while if a punch up was going to start. However, I could not change my decision because it was according to the law and that is what I go by. Thankfully the batsman started leaving the pitch. Just before he left the field the fielding captive decided to call him back and they all kissed and made up. What pissed me off was that they all had a great laugh about it in the bar afterwards but only one player apologised for their outrageous behaviour which was the batsman that I gave out. No wonder these Saturday and Sunday teams have trouble finding umpires worth having. This is not to mention what has happened when I dare to give anyone out LBW. I once gave 5 LBWs in one game and guess why? Correct they were all so plumb out that I would have to have been either blind on a backhander not to put my figure up immediately. You really needed to be to there to have believed what happened after the 3rd one never mind the 4th and 5th. No wonder amateur umpires hardly ever give them and these idiots carry on playing across the line at dead straight ones like they are all undiscovered Brian Lara's. These are all grown men in their late 20s to 60s. I only do this at all because secretly I find it amusing watching a load of generally untalented numpties take something that they obviously have never been good enough at, so seriously. Suffice it to say I never take my young sons to watch these games any more in case they either start acting or playing like them.
The Spirit Of Cricket is something bought up by players when it suits their purposes & is applied accordingly. So England who had not that long before done almost exactly the same thing to dismiss a Kiwi batsman which Broad was happy, about is now against the spirit when it happens to them. Why is it ok for a batsman to stand there when he has hit the inside edge of the ball & yet it is wrong for a fielder to claim a catch that hit the ground a foot in front of him? Pretty much every game in history has seen ball tampering-why is it a mortal sin to use sandpaper & even the Aussie PM decries it & Hadlee was saying how awful it was-while reminiscing about the good old days of bouncing the ball in, using your fingernails, a bottle cap, rubbing sweets on it etc? What is the difference? Obviously something like the Bell incident is going to depend on the captain-Dhoni wanted to avoid an ugly scene like we saw with the Aussie thing & he wasn't a fiery character. Could you honestly imagine Allan Border, Douglas Jardine, Sourav Ganguly etc doing the same thing? Of course not, Bell was being a lackadaisical & arrogant chump by strolling down the ground-the ball was live, the umpire had not called over & the bails were removed-Bell was out. The whole response from him, the England team, the commentators & the crowd was ridiculously biased-they wouldn't have been calling for a recall if Dravid had done it. Also only a few years prior Sidebottom intentionally knocked Elliott over near the end of a tight ODI resulting in his run-out & Collingwood refused to withdraw his appeal, NZ won anyway & then refused England entry into their locker room.
I don't think there's a Spirit of Cricket". As in all sports, there are rules of the game - laws fine whatever - and if you break the rule, there's a penalty. BUT, as in all sports, there is also an element of fair play. Problem is, Fair Play is always going to mean different things to different people at different times. That's why it's easiest, and most sensible, to just stick to the rules.
He scraped his foot before walking out. To me, that’s acknowledgment of the end of the over. The umpire officially calling the end of the over is a mere formality. It’s not out, pure and simple.
I understand that and he shouldn’t have done what he did but it’s not as though he simply walked out of his crease. He did scrape his foot. For all intents and purposes, the ball is dead, even if the umpire hasn’t officially signaled as such. Anyway, my humble opinion..
Bairstow scraping his foot has nothing to do with the laws of the game and the umpire. Bairstow should do what 99% of batsman around the world do. Stop. Look around to the keeper to see if he's thrown the ball to a team mate. Then move out of the crease. Or, stop. Wait for the umpire to yell "OVER," then move out of the crease. 7 year old kids know these rules. Bairstow should know them and respect them too.
I believe we should include Mankad as a genuine form of dismissal... Now it's marked as runout. It should be stopped. It should be marked as Mankad. Trying to make a non striker out should be marked as Mankading. And there should be stats with most mankads etc...
@@joebowden4065 why does it matter if it's a skill or not? Are you going to cancel all dismissals off long hops or full tosses because there is no skill involved in bowling those deliveries??
He IS being confrontational that's why he does it, to dominate and intimidate the attack. He's not 'seeking to gain an advantage' is such a stupid thing to say. ALL stumpings are stumpings because they don't try to run, that's why it's called a stumping NOT a runout!! England just are so arrogant that they think they can abuse the Aussies on the spirit of cricket to mask their basic mistakes. They invented destroying the spirit of cricket in the 1932-33 Ashes series when they devised bodyline aiming the ball at players head (no helmets) to stop Bradman, always classy. What the Aussies did to Bairstow wasn't about the spirit of cricket, meaning he didn't accidentally stumble out of his crease, or get impeded by someone and Cummins thought to give him a fair chance (sportsmanship). He deliberately chose to walk out of his crease and had no intention of checking if the over was called, as Jarrod said he'd been doing it for years, no ifs or buts, out!! Even the umpires were not alert enough to realise what happened but the Aussies came to England as usual game ready. England were probably better than the Aussies but lost the first test and were clawing back to potentially win this one so that's the real reason why they were so annoyed he got out.
the argument each time from Australians is 'it was definitely out' and 'whatabout when X did it'. Both undeniable; it was out and other players have done it/tried it. But complete gaslighting. The question is whether it was right
It was right! Because he was out! The laws say it is a legal dismissal. So guess what, it is right to do from the fielding team. The rules state that Bairstow was in the wrong. And not following the rules could be considered 'against the spirit of cricket.'
Bairstow obviously knows the rule in question because he tried to do it in the previous innings. Where would all the English indignation be if he had hit the stumps when he tried?????
I think it was technically out but do remember after the sandpaper affair the Aussies saying they would play the game in the right spirit and the win at all costs mentality is gone. That turned out to be a load of rubbish.
It was out, no denying that. The people that are important aren't those connected with the profesional game. Many amateur players would agree with the law, but many wouldn't have expected that to happen in one of their games. It's a Marmite issue!
Non-striker run warning is the stupidest thing I ever heard. If it's my team I will tell my bowler to look for every chance to run out the non-striker Icc should introduce a law , If u leave your caress before the delivery you are one run short, it's not hard to implement as no ball is already being checked by 3rd umpire in every ball.
Difference is cultural. English who play cricket are middle and upper class who play in clubs and academies influenced by the tradition of cricket. Lot of world especially in Asia it is akin to football in popularity. English footballers would not be seen arguing if diving to get a penalty is against to spirit of football. Similarly spirit of cricket does not figure in many places where cricket is very popular in the streets. That is why we have laws of the game and that is the only thing to follow and respect. Try to expect everyone to have same understanding of an already vague concept is not going to work
Spirit of cricket isn't bullshit. It's real, but it's subjective, personal, unique to each individual. Otherwise, it'd be a law. So talking about it, and more importantly, accusing others on spirit of cricket is stupid and pointless. Most of us learned it playing any kind of sport as children. There were moments where I definitely felt guilty and then there were moments others accused me of not playing with the spirit of the game but I felt nothing.
This spirit of cricket is thing is nonsense. Cricket is no longer an amateur sport, it is professional so you have got to be professional, pay attention to the rules and have situational awareness.
Things that should happen before Bairstow is given a warning for wandering out of the crease: 1. Warn every bowler's first no ball without giving the batting team the extra run and ball. 2. Give Trent Boult the Stokes catch in the WC final (despite accidentally walking on to the boundary board). 3. Make every batter who has nicked the ball behind walk off before the umpire rules them out.
Re Mankad; if the non striker "steals" a few inches and then is given not out after a tight run - but the batter knows he was a couple of inches short would the batter give himself out? Probably not - in which case the bowler is justified in running him out if he backs up too far, too soon.
Spirit of any game is a convention used by old people who don't want to admit that the game is changing or someone has done something stupid. Same nonsense exists in baseball.
Its all about trying to gain an advantage for me. If a player is trying to gain an advantage by doing something contrary to the rules, and is caught in the act then he must suffer the penalty the law of the game decrees. If on the other hand a player breaks a law of the game inadvertently while not trying to gain an advantage then the spirit of the game says the law doesn't apply in that circumstance. Which is why I have no problem with the bowler running out the nonstriker when he's left his crease. Thats the batsman trying to gain an advantage, running before the ball is bowled. For that I have no sympathy. But a batsman wandering out to prod the pitch when the ball technically isn't dead? For me thats a case of the spirit of the game says not out.
Cricket should take inspiration from baseball, in situations like bairstow they'll blame the batter/coach for not being aware, the fielders also use slight of hand to get outs lol like pretending to throw the ball
Firstly, define spirit of the game. Also, what is the difference between going down the wicket to garden and batsman being stumped because he over balanced?
Cricket is the only sport in the world where fans and players try to condemn players showing game awareness/ presence of mind. Play withing the laws of the game, and spirit of cricket takes care of itself.
This is a fair assessment and/or policy, the issue regarding mankading is that generally speaking batsmen try and time their ‘backing up’ to coincide with the delivery action of the bowler. It used to be in ‘the spirit of cricket’ that both bowlers and batters wouldn’t exploit this understanding and the bowler could warn the batter if he felt too much leeway was being taken. This policy was consistent from pro’s to grassroots but now the law is defined as ‘past the vertical arm’ which is impossible to enforce at club level.
Vinoo Mankad, one of the greatest cricketing talents and that's what he should be remembered for. Instead, his name has been sullied around for him just following the rules of the game. World cricket must apologise to his family.
When did naming something after a cricketer become insulting? There is no negative conoation to mankading. Dilscoop is named aftwr dilshan played that scoop shot. How are the two things different?
Bairstow tried doing it to Marnus multiple times the day before this incident. This is why the spirit of cricket is bullshit. Bairstow tries this legitimate run out attempt one day, but failed. He is fine with it, as is his whole team. The next day, he falls victim to his own antics. He thinks its unfair and his team mates cry about. The spirit of cricket was ignore by England on one day, but was relevant to them again the next. This is why the spirit of cricket is horseshit because nobody on earth ever sticks to it.
It's a bit like baseball's unwritten rules. Exceptionalism really, our sport is a little different, a little better than others, serving a higher purpose than just complying with rules. From what I gather from the spirit of cricket statement, it's basically Be nice to the opposition and follow the laws. The Broad edge and the Bairstow run out were more about Australia and England respectively needing something to get angry about to galvanize them, and to try to create some righteous indignation.
Spirit of cricket is f*** why? Prime example 2019 world cup final where after tie in both match and super over England declare winner on boundary base why not 2nd super over implement, its just a matter of another 10-15 min at least will get a fair result? Secondly during match in first over of boult roy was clear plumb in front of wicket after refer it to third umpire it shows pitch on line wickets hitting still on umpire call gave not out and people of that country discuss on spirit of cricket, Australia over the years in name of drop in pitch making cricketing world fool, now question may arise how? Why not they construct a permanent stadium for cricket like Melbourne and Sydney in places like parth, Brisbane,adalite drop in means you are prepareing pitch somewhere else and just put it on inside the ground where is the preparation of pitch like they do it in Melbourne and Sydney ACB has money to construct new stadium and from dacades ACB in name of drop in making world fool,and england is the biggest sufferer,as for them Ashes is the biggest rivelary then world cup.🤫
2019 those are the rules and completely out of their control. You cant withdraw your runs scored like cummins could have withdrawn his appeal for bairstow
Lol Drop in pitches are also used in New Zealand as well but Australia are fooling the world. What a bunch of bullshit. Simply say England is pathetic in Australia as they are also in the West Indies. South Africa won 3 consecutive test series in Australia. India have also won 2 back to back test series in Australia. But pathetic England who also lose in West Indies as well think they can beat Australia in Australia when they can't even win Ashes in their own backyard. All England is great at is crying loudly and making lame excuses 🤣. Australia and India are the current best teams in cricket.
@@sahilsingh8780 honestly speaking don't know about newzealand thanks for giving the information,the question is simple those country who has a tradition of 25+ years of cricket should have their own cricketing stadium Australia and New Zealand has 50+ year's so why not a full time cricket stadium ,why till now they are utilising multi sports stadium for cricket if New Zealand cricket board don't have money ICC should finance them according to me game should be fair as because when same Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa came to India raise questions over pitch that time too people like you should remember the wisdom you try to give me here it's a game of skill and watch out for this year BG trophy if both Boomrah and shami get fit till last test it will be India 3-1 Australia.🤫
@@rahulsinha623The batsmen have to score runs for the bowlers to make any impact.... there's no guarantee of that untill the series starts.....so hold on to your guessing games
Stay on the crease. Not hard to do it right ? Where are these analysts when a batsman nicks to the keeper and stays put ? Will there be this debate on SPIRIT OF THE GAME then ? 🤔
If spirit of cricket could be defined it would be a law of the game. The argument to define it is just stupid. Its by definition all that cannot be defined.
Why this bloody Neil Manthorp was dragging Vinoo Mankad"s name in run out incident of Jonny Bairstow? As a seasoned broadcaster he should have known that MCC has disassociated name of Vinoo Mankad long time ago.A run out caused by a bowler running into batter should be called (Ryan) "Sidebottomed" after the run out incident of Grant Elliot of New Zealand in 2008.
“The spirit of cricket” is best defined as “England is losing”. That seems to be the only time that we hear about it…..
Racism. Nice one.
Oh England can’t lose without moaning most spoilt people on earth products of a totally unstrict and lethargic parenting.
@@jamespearce9973 tell me you don't know what racism is because you've never actually been on the receiving end of it, without telling me.
This is surely not coming from an Indian?
Oh the irony.
Fantastic debate. Kudos Jarrod for holding your forte and calling out the BS.
Mankadding is against the spirit of cricket boss
Who’s Jarrod Kimber? He’s fantastic. Such a voice of reason
@@alextv293 Don't know why the English struggle so much to follow rules that they themselves wrote. Be done with your bs, just because things aren't done a certain way in your country doesn't mean everyone has to follow.
@@alextv293spirit of the game can buzz off. It's in the rules. Either change the rules or stop complaining. Do bowlers get a warning for stepping over the line? It's a direct no ball.
So is colonizing other countries and oppressing its natives.😂@@alextv293
I've never seen Jarrod so fired up in debates before, fantastic to watch.
But he’s pretty dumb if he can’t see the difference between this and a mankad. He might not care about the difference but there is a clear difference. I think it was very sportsmanship on the part of the Aussies. Technically out yes. But I wouldn’t want a wicket like that.
@@KevinSheedy10cry me a river Jonny teddybairstow
BEST DEBATE EVER. Kimber is gold. More of this please
I actually think Jarrod missed a trick here. The spirit of cricket is written down, in the preamble to the laws. And one of the elements is accepting the umpire’s decision. In fact, it’s one of the only parts of the Spirit of Cricket preamble which is unambiguous.
Whether the Aussies should have warned Johnny is up for debate. What IS NOT up for debate is that the English - players, coach and fans - clearly didn’t respect the umpire’s decision. Disgraceful behaviour from the Poms. Totally against the spirit of cricket.
Disagree the idea that stokes somehow accidentally let it slip that England wouldn’t have done that. It was a deliberate, calculated, untrue statement designed to unfairly direct criticism on the Australians and away from his own team that had gone 2-0 down.
And it had the intended effect of firing up his team. The series finished 2-2. Rightly or wrongly he used the situation to his advantage.
It was a cracking series.
@@jamespearce9973 finished 2--2 because the balls were changed on the last day at the oval, basically england cheated. everyone knows it, especially them.
English cricketers are quick to call Aussies cheats, when they've done exactly the same thing including ball tampering, short memories
🥱 🥱 🥱
Which england cricketer called Aussies ‘cheats’? Never happened during the Bairstowe incident. What are you thinking of?
@@HkFinn83 Stuart Broad!
same series, Bairstow tries the exact same move multiple times against Labuschagne trying to get him out. It didnt work but you can guarantee that the Aussies noted it and thought they could try it on him, it worked, too bad, so sad.
Weren’t these mid over as opposed to the last ball where umpires had already began switching ends and giving back the bowlers hat by the time the ball had hit the stumps. That’s what i thought the controversy was for even if the ball had technically been thrown before over was called
@@andyhook8952 irrelevant what time during an over it happens (i dont know when exactly bairstow did it, but im sure during the multiple times it was done at least once at an end of over) the umpire had not given the bowler his hat, he hadnt even called over, ball is live until then or until the keeper passes it to another fielder to return to bowler.
@@sparkitus1988it's not irrelevant at all. In the laws of the game it was allowed obviously, but as an England supporter I would not want England to get a wicket in such a manner, and as an under 10 cricket coach I would not be happy if any of my players did it. It was snide and not a great look.
@@sparkitus1988it’s the same as a mankad, it shouldn’t be allowed. It’s a cheap was to buy a wicket.
@@sparkitus1988 think you’ll find Jonny never attempted it at the end of the over, and the body language of the umpires and the fact that Barstow clearly went back into the crease following the delivery marking his belief the over was finished before he left his crease again. This added with that fact that Carey and Cummins had planned to try and get Bairstow out this way shows once again that Australians have little concept in the spirit of cricket and prefer the ‘ win at all costs mentality’ which leads to things like sandpaper gate, punching opposition in bars, threatening breaking arms, appealing for obstruction of field after launching a ball at someone and the endless other examples
Somehow, I wonder if "the spirit of cricket" is one of those "rules for thee but not for me" deals?
100%, just look at bodyline. No complaints about spirit of cricket from the English back then.
@@utha2665 Look at Mankading. Somehow the non-striker should be allowed to still stray from his crease after he's been admonished that he's just abusing the fielding team's generosity now? This, based on the "spirit of cricket"?
@@utha2665 only when the West Indies did it to them the following summer. 😂
Jarrod continues to be a voice of sanity in this game.
"Mate, if you carry on doing that, we're going to run you out. Stay in your ground!"
Has Bairstow ever said that during the countless number of times he's tried that as a keeper, including to Warner and Marnus earlier in the same test?
So, NO! There's not a bit of that you can do!
No other keeper, captain, or team has ever said that.
My 12yr old lad wandered out of his crease and got stumped, learnt a lesson. Watched Bairstow and said “that’s out”. When a 12yr old gets it, first time, why is this even a discussion 😂
Mankad should be a genuine form of dismissal.
It is now marked as runout.
No it should be marked as Mankading.
And there should be stats about most mankads etc. Just like most run outs or catches.
It should be one of those things that has two names and I agree that it should be counted as a stat.
There is a rule in place to give it not out if the bowlers pull out way too late. Unfortunately they never seems to enforce it though. Not sure if umpires know that's a rule
"DEFINE SPIRIT OF CRICKET"
no one can. Everyone has different definition .
For me following law of cricket is spirit of cricket
Spirit of Sportsmanship is the spirit of cricket.
It's the opposite of a 'win at all costs' mentality. Cricket is only a game, and the most important thing is that you preserve its traditions intact for future generations. It's an ethos rather than something that can be precisely defined. If you do something questionable on the field, ask yourself whether you'd like to see that becoming the norm in the future. If the answer is 'no' then you've made a judgement based on the spirit of cricket.
Spirit of Cricket means playing the game within laws and best of your skills and abilities to beat the opposition but don't create any way which might be in the laws of the game but seen as a cheap method to win the game,Play fair and hard and beat opposition conventionally
@@SunilPokhrel-wo9ew playing within the laws is playing fair
"Law of Cricket are made to maintain Spirit of Cricket". So As long as you are within the Law, you are maintaining Spirit of the Game. That's it.
I love Jarrod.
You've seen the UA-cam ads. It's perfectly clear: the Spirit of Cricket IS Merv Hughes!
"Spirit of cricket" has always been stupid and I'm glad people are finally waking up to it. The fact that a genuine dismissal like the mankad was so taboo was always baffling to me. If you don't want to get get mankad, stay in your crease.
The Bairstow stumping incident and Broad not walking incident have actually turned out very similar. What the Aussies did at Lord's and what Broad did at trent bridge were both totally acceptable, and both received incredibly over-the-top reactions from the opposition team and fans. Because both incidents happened in the biggest cricket event for both countries, an increased number of casual fans were watching that made it even easier to ramp up outrage. It's worth noting that almost all commentators, regardless of nationality, never really had any problems with what happened, and would've done the same. The reality is that Bairstow only had himself to blame for what happened, and the 2013 Aussies should've used their reviews more carefully (a lesson we clearly never learned!)
I think "spirit of cricket" incidents often distinguish casual fans from hardcore cricket fans, who maybe aren't as partisan.
If i mankaded someone in my local game it would start a fight for sure. Maybe in india it is different
@@joebowden4065 I think it's like that in most places, from my experience anyway. I just think think it shouldn't be, and hopefully one day it's just treated the same way as when someone gets out stealing a base in baseball.
@@joebowden4065wow
@@joebowden4065 welll you are just playing with a bunch of cricket illiterates.
Comparing the Bairstow and Broad incidents is weird because they were both out. Bairstow was out of his crease and Broad smashed his. Only 1 of them resulted in the correct decision.
Therefore, one set of fans had a right to be outraged. The other doesn't.
Spirit of Cricket is Spirit of Sportsmanship.
Its how i want to raise my kids.
😂 it just means that you should moan when you are not winning you sure you want to raise your kids like that wise guy
Then teach them to play by the rules.
Your kids can only be good sports if they know the rules.
the “Spirit of cricket” is the knuckle-draggers at the Lords long room shouting verbal abuse at the winning team as they walk past. gracious in defeat as always 😂
I think the spirit of cricket as a concept exists in a friendly game but has no place in the professional game.
The concept being play fair don't take advantage of a player just doing something stupid and being honest on a nick or a catch to me makes perfect sense if the aim is to go have a drink at the end with everyone and maybe a laugh at Jonny doing a walkabout.
In the professional game its their livelihood, its the laws or nothing because the goal isnt a bit of fun for the players and every legal advantage should be taken otherwise a player is just not doing their job properly.
Good description. Commentators/pundits etc always seem to forget that 99% of cricket matches around the world are played by amateurs solely for the love of the game, usually with no technology in less-than-perfect conditions; unlike many sports, it is relatively easy to cheat in a manner that can significantly alter a match, so we rely on the honesty and fairness of our opponents to make sure the game functions as it should.
Well said
@@Ben-rq5re Yes, and up until the the late 70s Test cricket was an amateur sport too. But even then there are stark examples where they haven't played to what is considered within the spirit of the game. A prime example is bodyline, laws had to be changed to stop that BS, but the team claiming "spirit of cricket" is invariably on the losing side. The Jonny Bairstow game also had another incident when Stark caught Ben Duckett on the boundary and touched the ball on the ground to get back up, you never saw Australians carrying on like two-bob watches, even though it was not out on a technicality and it was plainly obvious Stark had control of the ball. Where was Ben Duckett's "spirit of cricket" not walking when he clearly saw he was caught?
LOL, sorry for the rant, but there are plenty of examples of England not playing to their fabled "spirit of cricket", it's only used as an excuse to cover ones embarrassment of a loss.
I love this channel 😂😂... Spirit of cricket = Playing within the laws. That's the only definition.
Exactly. Why would anyone write laws of cricket that weren't in the spirit of cricket?
It's not a "Spirit" of "cricket" - it's compassion, empathy, maybe pity sometimes. Teams can decide to implement them or not. The main thing is we need to communicate to children, future cricketers that want good people playing the game, not assholes who will win at all cost.
Play to the rules. They are written in black and white for all to see.
Compassion, empathy and pity are variable and are often dictated by the demeanour of one person. Sport can not function on feelings. The same as society in general.
Our feelings can influence the rules and laws, but once those laws are written, we stick to them.
If someone wants to ignore the rules because they feel sorry for someone, then that's their decision. But they should never expect the same from someone else and should never complain about it.
On a mankad the bowler should have to do it in the delivery stride. Not stop and wait until batsman leaves when the bowler would have normally have released the ball. The non striker should not have to watch the bowlers hand for each ball but should be able to assume that the ball will be released in the delivery stride and can now leave then and not before.
Like Bumble said, in the old days it made sense - for example things like the umpire's decision is the final decision, if the catcher says they've caught it you accept it and move on - these things should still exist in club cricket. But now with all the technology in the professional game, every close decision an umpire makes can be based on a multitude of replays, camera angles, AI etc etc. So spirit of cricket just comes round when salty cricketers are held accountable for making stupid mistakes. Even the Bell example he gives, its such a stupid mistake.
Yeah but one thing you guys did.not discuss properly is that there have to be better rules for bal being 'alive',it seems like its done on feel and thats recipe for disaster
The law on dead ball is quite extensive. Which part do you believe is left ambiguous?
@@lochlanjohnston402The rules don’t match the way the game is played. Going forward England could claim the ball is always in play until it reaches the bowler. No one wants that.
@@KevinSheedy10 the ball is dead when it leaves the keepers gloves unless they are attempting a dismissal
@@lochlanjohnston402 Yes. I know the rules. But there's nothing in the laws that say you have to buy a few jugs of beer for the opposition when you host them but you're still a bunch of arseholes if you don't.
Cricket is a different beast now. It's a competitive professional sport. There is no room for any spirit nonsense. Players play to win and that's the way it should be.
This spirit of the game was ok when cricket was played as a hobby and by Englishmen as a fun game.
Sportmanship is real. However, pulling out Unofficial Rules when it suits is nonsense.
Playing hard and playing fair gets messy at times. Benefit of the doubt going to the batter is the most most basic acknowledgement that there are times when players and officials aren't sure what's 'exactly' right and so some leeway is built into the system to try and balance things out and give everyone a reasonable go.
False piety is the natural end to a 'spirit of the game' unwritten rule. Personally I think players calling DRS rather than umpires checking themselves has led to a degradation of the relationship between players and umpires, whereby the players would accept the decision on the field with grace. We always know some might go for us and some against, but now we nitpick everything because apparently there can never be any doubt.
The players seem to have an expectation of being able to question everything now and then act/think as if losing in the appeals court is completely unheard of.
Are people seriously still talking about that Ashes test? It was over a year ago now ffs.
And yes, as an Englishman, I say exactly the same about the sandpaper incident. It happened years ago now.
Cricket really is cooked if people have nothing else to talk about but these incidents, years after they happened.
Nobody cares about the Barstow incident. Only 1 guy ever really did and few media nonsense talking heads.
The sand paper was a disgrace and people can boo the players all they like until they retire, if they so wish. But like you say, bar people talking on podcasts, nobody really cares.
Oddly enough, I saw Bancroft score a hundred against Surrey yesterday. Come on, this is cricket, we talk about stuff forever, in some cases when everyone involved is dead, like Bodyline. That's part of its odd charm because cricket people are more interested in history than followers of other sports.
@@therecanbeonlyone801 ...everyone was carrying on about the disgraceful sandpaper incident (and it was) and the three Aussie players were basically internationally shamed. Yet no one seemed to recall the fact that the then South African captain Faf DuPlessis was caught ball tampering 3 (!!) times before that. (At least Steve Smith got the last laugh on his return in the Ashes where he scored 4 centuries)
The spirit of any game is playing according to the rules! Nothing more, nothing less!
For you, other people have a concept of sportsmanship.
@@KevinSheedy10
Exactly. So why the hell do you want to adhere to the rules of the spirit of cricket when not everyone understand or agrees on them?
That's why we have a rule book. Everyone on earth can read them and adhere to those rules.
Do we require a definition for sportsmanship? Isn’t that what spirit of cricket is essentially. A rejection of the ‘win at all costs mentality’
That won't be the same across the cultures though, would it? The sense of morality is different for different people.
@@PetrolSniffingDoofus hence the constant debate, personally I don’t want a load of kids at grassroots level trying to mankad every over or self umpires deliberately delaying the over call so their team can attempt a runout on the sly. Whats next, skipper taking a watch out to the field to time out the batsmen coming in.
@@andyhook8952100% agree. Don’t be a dick on the field. Don’t appeal for things you know aren’t out. To claim catches that have bounced.
Spirit of the game should not be very hard to describe, when a batter innocently finds himself in a compromising position, the other side ought to let him off, with a warning only.
What Dhoni did was the correct interpretation of the spirit. Call it humanity for all you like. Compassion for forgiving an honest mistake is admirable. There’s a reason why Dhoni is admired by friends and foes. He played hard but was fair. Rules of the game can always be bent.
Playing a loose shot outside off stump which results in you edging it to 2nd slip, can also be "an honest mistake."
Should we be expecting fielding captains to tell batsman who've been caught in the slip cordon to stay out in the middle because the batsman made a mistake and we all want to show humanity?
Never seen Kimber so fired up. Loved this side of him.
Once I went out with some people and a certain person was there. Next day I was playing cricket against this person's boyfriend. I said to the boyfriend;
"Had your missus last night, she was alright to."
I know that they hadn't been together since the night before. He was out next ball. Some people would disagree with what I did and others wouldn't. I'm not exactly proud of it myself, but the spirit of cricket is a myth. The Bairstow incident is vastly overrated. In the heat of battle you are doing everything you can to gain an advantage within the rules. I live in Ian Chappell territory.
It is in the laws, it defined by what fair and unfair play is, that is responsibility of the umpire and the captains.
Nice work Jarrod. Keep it up.
Why not extend the "the Spirit of cricket" to run out and stumping? Warn the first time and only out if the batsman does it again!!
Rules are clear. Just follow it. Plain and simple.
Was ENG using Murray Mints for the whole 2005 Ashes in the spirit of cricket? 2019 CWC...Stokes...spirit of cricket? epic hypocrites
There are some very nebulous areas in the supposed "Spirit of Cricket" and that is why rules have been set so the notion of "what is fair" can be set aside and examples like below are not an issue.
Mankad may on the surface appear to be unsportsmanlike, even if it is in the rules....HOWEVER, it becomes very subjective according to what the immediate situation is.
For a real-life example that occurred last season in a game (and most likely NOT uncommon), here is my experience and view.
Real Life :
Two teams tied with 1 ball to go.
Tail end batter confers with non-striker to run no matter what.
Tale end non-striker could possibly crib a few feet but possibly runs the risk of being mankadded, instead keeps bat in the crease till the ball leaves the bowlers hand and then sprints down the pitch (nearly catching up with the ball !).
The batter manages to make contact with the ball hits towards a fielder and takes off nearly as quickly.
They achieve the single and win. HURRAH !!!
OK,
HYPOTHETICAL situation, but very believable.
Exact same situation but with the non striker who is not a fast runner.
Tail end batter manages to make contact and hits ball towards a fielder.
Tail end non-striker to get an advantage, has DELIBERATELY walked out of their crease by 2 feet but bowler doesn't notice. Non striker starts running and gets to the crease just a millisecond before the wicket keeper takes out the stumps.
QUESTIONS
1. Would a mankad have been justified in that situation? ....I believe YES if the bowler had noticed. (Of course if we are totally honest with ourselves it depends on who lost the game !)
2. How many times in the course of a normal game has a non-striker gone for a quick single and just got in (line ball) at the other end after clearly cribbing a foot or so and then been given NOT OUT by Square Leg (too close to call and receiving the benefit of doubt !).
3. If a non striker is basically being careless in the middle of an innings and not trying to get an advantage would you mankad ? No, not without a warning.
Last century I was always taught to keep my bat grounded till the bowlers arm came over or risk walking back to the pavilion with an extremely silly look on my face !
cheers from down under
Sportsmanship has a place in every sport - cricket has always had it. But it's also true in the current day and age where winning is everything with so many different interpretations of the word "spirit" itself, better to stick to the game's laws.
Keeping game within the law of game and surely take some minor chances is all part of Spirit of game. If there are no laws of the game, then there is no Spirit of game, than there is no game of cricket.. Simple as that. MS Dhoni within the laws of game, didn't give a wrong out that day, simple. That's why he was appreciated.. I didn't know these people will be this naive to discuss it, OH god, which countrymen I'm expecting things to be fair and square. Countries and countrymen who never had self introspection would never value the spirit of any game, forget cricket.
I umpired a game where a similar thing happened. The player at my end started walking down the pitch after what he thought was the 6th ball. He apparently did not hear me calling a no ball during the over and I had not called over. The fielding team joyfully run him out and I have no alternative but to give him out and did so immediately, as I did not know why he had walked down the pitch in the first place and wondered why he did. As you might imagine the batting team not so much the player himself who was a nice chap went berserk and I soon found my self surrendered by the entire batting team. I wondered for a while if a punch up was going to start. However, I could not change my decision because it was according to the law and that is what I go by. Thankfully the batsman started leaving the pitch. Just before he left the field the fielding captive decided to call him back and they all kissed and made up.
What pissed me off was that they all had a great laugh about it in the bar afterwards but only one player apologised for their outrageous behaviour which was the batsman that I gave out.
No wonder these Saturday and Sunday teams have trouble finding umpires worth having. This is not to mention what has happened when I dare to give anyone out LBW. I once gave 5 LBWs in one game and guess why? Correct they were all so plumb out that I would have to have been either blind on a backhander not to put my figure up immediately. You really needed to be to there to have believed what happened after the 3rd one never mind the 4th and 5th. No wonder amateur umpires hardly ever give them and these idiots carry on playing across the line at dead straight ones like they are all undiscovered Brian Lara's.
These are all grown men in their late 20s to 60s. I only do this at all because secretly I find it amusing watching a load of generally untalented numpties take something that they obviously have never been good enough at, so seriously.
Suffice it to say I never take my young sons to watch these games any more in case they either start acting or playing like them.
Nah, it sounds like there's a second side to this story that you're not being frank about.
Spirit of Cricket is the term invoked when teams get caught cheating or when their cheating doesnt come off.
Where was the spirit of cricket when the ball went for a overthrow boundary after hitting ben stoke's bat at the worldcup final 2019
🤝😤😡🤝
That's how this conversation went
GOLD from Kimber, really really GOOD
What a great debate !
The Spirit Of Cricket is something bought up by players when it suits their purposes & is applied accordingly. So England who had not that long before done almost exactly the same thing to dismiss a Kiwi batsman which Broad was happy, about is now against the spirit when it happens to them. Why is it ok for a batsman to stand there when he has hit the inside edge of the ball & yet it is wrong for a fielder to claim a catch that hit the ground a foot in front of him? Pretty much every game in history has seen ball tampering-why is it a mortal sin to use sandpaper & even the Aussie PM decries it & Hadlee was saying how awful it was-while reminiscing about the good old days of bouncing the ball in, using your fingernails, a bottle cap, rubbing sweets on it etc? What is the difference?
Obviously something like the Bell incident is going to depend on the captain-Dhoni wanted to avoid an ugly scene like we saw with the Aussie thing & he wasn't a fiery character. Could you honestly imagine Allan Border, Douglas Jardine, Sourav Ganguly etc doing the same thing? Of course not, Bell was being a lackadaisical & arrogant chump by strolling down the ground-the ball was live, the umpire had not called over & the bails were removed-Bell was out. The whole response from him, the England team, the commentators & the crowd was ridiculously biased-they wouldn't have been calling for a recall if Dravid had done it. Also only a few years prior Sidebottom intentionally knocked Elliott over near the end of a tight ODI resulting in his run-out & Collingwood refused to withdraw his appeal, NZ won anyway & then refused England entry into their locker room.
I don't think there's a Spirit of Cricket". As in all sports, there are rules of the game - laws fine whatever - and if you break the rule, there's a penalty. BUT, as in all sports, there is also an element of fair play. Problem is, Fair Play is always going to mean different things to different people at different times. That's why it's easiest, and most sensible, to just stick to the rules.
He scraped his foot before walking out. To me, that’s acknowledgment of the end of the over. The umpire officially calling the end of the over is a mere formality. It’s not out, pure and simple.
What rubbish. The batsman doesn't call over.
I understand that and he shouldn’t have done what he did but it’s not as though he simply walked out of his crease. He did scrape his foot. For all intents and purposes, the ball is dead, even if the umpire hasn’t officially signaled as such. Anyway, my humble opinion..
@@123canuckfanWhich is 100% correct no matter what the jobsworths think.
Bairstow scraping his foot has nothing to do with the laws of the game and the umpire.
Bairstow should do what 99% of batsman around the world do. Stop. Look around to the keeper to see if he's thrown the ball to a team mate. Then move out of the crease.
Or, stop. Wait for the umpire to yell "OVER," then move out of the crease.
7 year old kids know these rules. Bairstow should know them and respect them too.
My biggest issue with it is that it’s a run out not a stumping 🤔
How this is still being debated is beyond me. Bairstow was out of his crease and was run out. If the rule says it, then that's that.
Because you don’t understand sportsmanship.
@@KevinSheedy10
Following the rules and respecting them is being a good sport.
Cheating and/or ignoring the rules is being a bad sport.
I believe we should include Mankad as a genuine form of dismissal...
Now it's marked as runout.
It should be stopped.
It should be marked as Mankad.
Trying to make a non striker out should be marked as Mankading.
And there should be stats with most mankads etc...
Indian spotted
There is no skill in a mankad. Warn the players then you can mankad him if he does it again. Thats what everyone should do
Why name it as Mankand? Named after a person.
Just simply call it out and move on.
@@joebowden4065 why does it matter if it's a skill or not? Are you going to cancel all dismissals off long hops or full tosses because there is no skill involved in bowling those deliveries??
An example on how to debate if you stick to your point 😅
Brilliant debate!
Spirit of cricket is following the laws and rules of game,that's about it..
The spirit of cricket is upheld by the rules. That's what the rules are for. To uphold the spirit of cricket. Do you need it written again?
Kudos Jarrod ❤❤
Spirit of sports exist in all games for one-off sportsmanship. Spirit of cricket is not special and not needed
Man KUDOS to KIMBER🎉🎉 calling it as it is..
Merv Hughes should be the arbiter of that.
Well done Jarrod. Define Spirit of Cricket is going to last for a while.
So am I to believe that Stokes thought about it and then realized that Bairstow was out fair and square?
He IS being confrontational that's why he does it, to dominate and intimidate the attack. He's not 'seeking to gain an advantage' is such a stupid thing to say. ALL stumpings are stumpings because they don't try to run, that's why it's called a stumping NOT a runout!! England just are so arrogant that they think they can abuse the Aussies on the spirit of cricket to mask their basic mistakes. They invented destroying the spirit of cricket in the 1932-33 Ashes series when they devised bodyline aiming the ball at players head (no helmets) to stop Bradman, always classy.
What the Aussies did to Bairstow wasn't about the spirit of cricket, meaning he didn't accidentally stumble out of his crease, or get impeded by someone and Cummins thought to give him a fair chance (sportsmanship). He deliberately chose to walk out of his crease and had no intention of checking if the over was called, as Jarrod said he'd been doing it for years, no ifs or buts, out!! Even the umpires were not alert enough to realise what happened but the Aussies came to England as usual game ready. England were probably better than the Aussies but lost the first test and were clawing back to potentially win this one so that's the real reason why they were so annoyed he got out.
the argument each time from Australians is 'it was definitely out' and 'whatabout when X did it'. Both undeniable; it was out and other players have done it/tried it. But complete gaslighting. The question is whether it was right
It was right! Because he was out!
The laws say it is a legal dismissal. So guess what, it is right to do from the fielding team.
The rules state that Bairstow was in the wrong. And not following the rules could be considered 'against the spirit of cricket.'
Why would you let a batsman who was run out come back when he thought a ball had gone for four? That’s madness! What was Dhoni thinking?
Bairstow obviously knows the rule in question because he tried to do it in the previous innings. Where would all the English indignation be if he had hit the stumps when he tried?????
I think it was technically out but do remember after the sandpaper affair the Aussies saying they would play the game in the right spirit and the win at all costs mentality is gone.
That turned out to be a load of rubbish.
What about the perfect catch Mitchell Starc caught and disallowed?
It is the right spirit? It's perfectly fine to anyone reasonable.
It was out, no denying that. The people that are important aren't those connected with the profesional game. Many amateur players would agree with the law, but many wouldn't have expected that to happen in one of their games. It's a Marmite issue!
The spirit in cricket is the sediment that remains in the mind of hypocrites
Jarrod talking over the top of Jon is infuriating - let the man finish his sentence…
You remember 2019 cwc final
Jarrod Kimber, he and Bumbles are the voices of reason; they are grouse.
Didnt the umpire start walking towards the wicket? Isnt it assumed that umpire called over theb starts walking
Its like, batsman saying , it wasn't a bad shot, that was jaffa, that's it, this is cricket, beware
When is your book releasing Jarrod?
If you are asking about his book "Overthrowing cricket's Empire", it's available on Amazon.
Non-striker run warning is the stupidest thing I ever heard. If it's my team I will tell my bowler to look for every chance to run out the non-striker
Icc should introduce a law , If u leave your caress before the delivery you are one run short, it's not hard to implement as no ball is already being checked by 3rd umpire in every ball.
Yeah that is a good point, like your thinking,that would work in the pro game 👍
Difference is cultural. English who play cricket are middle and upper class who play in clubs and academies influenced by the tradition of cricket. Lot of world especially in Asia it is akin to football in popularity. English footballers would not be seen arguing if diving to get a penalty is against to spirit of football. Similarly spirit of cricket does not figure in many places where cricket is very popular in the streets. That is why we have laws of the game and that is the only thing to follow and respect. Try to expect everyone to have same understanding of an already vague concept is not going to work
Let's ask WG.
Spirit of cricket isn't bullshit. It's real, but it's subjective, personal, unique to each individual. Otherwise, it'd be a law. So talking about it, and more importantly, accusing others on spirit of cricket is stupid and pointless. Most of us learned it playing any kind of sport as children. There were moments where I definitely felt guilty and then there were moments others accused me of not playing with the spirit of the game but I felt nothing.
This spirit of cricket is thing is nonsense. Cricket is no longer an amateur sport, it is professional so you have got to be professional, pay attention to the rules and have situational awareness.
Things that should happen before Bairstow is given a warning for wandering out of the crease:
1. Warn every bowler's first no ball without giving the batting team the extra run and ball.
2. Give Trent Boult the Stokes catch in the WC final (despite accidentally walking on to the boundary board).
3. Make every batter who has nicked the ball behind walk off before the umpire rules them out.
Re Mankad; if the non striker "steals" a few inches and then is given not out after a tight run - but the batter knows he was a couple of inches short would the batter give himself out? Probably not - in which case the bowler is justified in running him out if he backs up too far, too soon.
Jon Norman invites people on to his show and then continually interrupts them mid-sentence.
Bumble will not have been amused by that, I promise you.
These titles must be written by a child. Trust the viewer to click on quality content, no need to stupefy us.
Spirit of any game is a convention used by old people who don't want to admit that the game is changing or someone has done something stupid. Same nonsense exists in baseball.
Its all about trying to gain an advantage for me. If a player is trying to gain an advantage by doing something contrary to the rules, and is caught in the act then he must suffer the penalty the law of the game decrees. If on the other hand a player breaks a law of the game inadvertently while not trying to gain an advantage then the spirit of the game says the law doesn't apply in that circumstance. Which is why I have no problem with the bowler running out the nonstriker when he's left his crease. Thats the batsman trying to gain an advantage, running before the ball is bowled. For that I have no sympathy. But a batsman wandering out to prod the pitch when the ball technically isn't dead? For me thats a case of the spirit of the game says not out.
Cricket should take inspiration from baseball, in situations like bairstow they'll blame the batter/coach for not being aware, the fielders also use slight of hand to get outs lol like pretending to throw the ball
Look up hidden ball trick in baseball
Firstly, define spirit of the game. Also, what is the difference between going down the wicket to garden and batsman being stumped because he over balanced?
Cricket is the only sport in the world where fans and players try to condemn players showing game awareness/ presence of mind. Play withing the laws of the game, and spirit of cricket takes care of itself.
This is a fair assessment and/or policy, the issue regarding mankading is that generally speaking batsmen try and time their ‘backing up’ to coincide with the delivery action of the bowler. It used to be in ‘the spirit of cricket’ that both bowlers and batters wouldn’t exploit this understanding and the bowler could warn the batter if he felt too much leeway was being taken. This policy was consistent from pro’s to grassroots but now the law is defined as ‘past the vertical arm’ which is impossible to enforce at club level.
Vinoo Mankad, one of the greatest cricketing talents and that's what he should be remembered for. Instead, his name has been sullied around for him just following the rules of the game. World cricket must apologise to his family.
When did naming something after a cricketer become insulting? There is no negative conoation to mankading. Dilscoop is named aftwr dilshan played that scoop shot. How are the two things different?
The Spirit of Cricket definitely exists, the question should be should it exist. I'd so probably not anymore.
Do you have a definition? Sportsmanship is a thing, but it is never necessary
Icc should stop giving spirit of the cricket award as well, just adds to the confusion
If my recollection is correct England did it to India’s K Srikanth what Australia did to Bairstow.
No.
Bairstow tried doing it to Marnus multiple times the day before this incident.
This is why the spirit of cricket is bullshit.
Bairstow tries this legitimate run out attempt one day, but failed. He is fine with it, as is his whole team.
The next day, he falls victim to his own antics. He thinks its unfair and his team mates cry about.
The spirit of cricket was ignore by England on one day, but was relevant to them again the next.
This is why the spirit of cricket is horseshit because nobody on earth ever sticks to it.
Kimber didn't have to do Jon like that, smoked him
It's a bit like baseball's unwritten rules. Exceptionalism really, our sport is a little different, a little better than others, serving a higher purpose than just complying with rules.
From what I gather from the spirit of cricket statement, it's basically Be nice to the opposition and follow the laws.
The Broad edge and the Bairstow run out were more about Australia and England respectively needing something to get angry about to galvanize them, and to try to create some righteous indignation.
Spirit of cricket is f*** why? Prime example 2019 world cup final where after tie in both match and super over England declare winner on boundary base why not 2nd super over implement, its just a matter of another 10-15 min at least will get a fair result? Secondly during match in first over of boult roy was clear plumb in front of wicket after refer it to third umpire it shows pitch on line wickets hitting still on umpire call gave not out and people of that country discuss on spirit of cricket, Australia over the years in name of drop in pitch making cricketing world fool, now question may arise how? Why not they construct a permanent stadium for cricket like Melbourne and Sydney in places like parth, Brisbane,adalite drop in means you are prepareing pitch somewhere else and just put it on inside the ground where is the preparation of pitch like they do it in Melbourne and Sydney ACB has money to construct new stadium and from dacades ACB in name of drop in making world fool,and england is the biggest sufferer,as for them Ashes is the biggest rivelary then world cup.🤫
2019 those are the rules and completely out of their control. You cant withdraw your runs scored like cummins could have withdrawn his appeal for bairstow
Your second point doesn’t even make sense. Are you suggesting Roy should have walked for a plumb lbw??? Thats what DRS is for you complete mug
Lol Drop in pitches are also used in New Zealand as well but Australia are fooling the world. What a bunch of bullshit. Simply say England is pathetic in Australia as they are also in the West Indies. South Africa won 3 consecutive test series in Australia. India have also won 2 back to back test series in Australia. But pathetic England who also lose in West Indies as well think they can beat Australia in Australia when they can't even win Ashes in their own backyard. All England is great at is crying loudly and making lame excuses 🤣. Australia and India are the current best teams in cricket.
@@sahilsingh8780 honestly speaking don't know about newzealand thanks for giving the information,the question is simple those country who has a tradition of 25+ years of cricket should have their own cricketing stadium Australia and New Zealand has 50+ year's so why not a full time cricket stadium ,why till now they are utilising multi sports stadium for cricket if New Zealand cricket board don't have money ICC should finance them according to me game should be fair as because when same Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa came to India raise questions over pitch that time too people like you should remember the wisdom you try to give me here it's a game of skill and watch out for this year BG trophy if both Boomrah and shami get fit till last test it will be India 3-1 Australia.🤫
@@rahulsinha623The batsmen have to score runs for the bowlers to make any impact.... there's no guarantee of that untill the series starts.....so hold on to your guessing games
Stay on the crease. Not hard to do it right ? Where are these analysts when a batsman nicks to the keeper and stays put ? Will there be this debate on SPIRIT OF THE GAME then ? 🤔
He was lively but, not always convincing
Did Joe Root stay what Kimber said in a recent interview
If it helps England it's spirit of cricket, if it helps other team its against spirit of cricket.
Laws are God.
If law says out. It is out.
Yeah but mankading without a warning is against the spirit of cricket. This is similar to
@@joebowden4065again, DEFINE SPIRIT OF CRICKET
@@v1rat.Nonsense = spirit of cricket
If spirit of cricket could be defined it would be a law of the game. The argument to define it is just stupid. Its by definition all that cannot be defined.
Put Jarrod with Nass and Athar already!! Talk about spirit of cricket
Why this bloody Neil Manthorp was dragging Vinoo Mankad"s name in run out incident of Jonny Bairstow? As a seasoned broadcaster he should have known that MCC has disassociated name of Vinoo Mankad long time ago.A run out caused by a bowler running into batter should be called (Ryan) "Sidebottomed" after the run out incident of Grant Elliot of New Zealand in 2008.