Cricket

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Australian love fest in full flow. Do they still do cheap boat trips to the colony? I'll wave you off.

Oh and Starc did not catch the ball legally. Check the record books if in doubt.

Meanwhile the superlative innings of Stokes has been a most useful deflection away from the awful showing in the 2nd innings of our top order. 3 of them only managed 10 runs between them and without Stokes and to a lesser extent Duckett it would have been a thrashing.

Without the rain the 1st Test would have been finished and lost much earlier.

We will do well to avoid being whitewashed.

It's not a love fest, they're a better team than us but we're making excuses of 'they were mean to us!' rather than fighting fire with fire. We're too easy to play against with this brand of cricket. If we'd have dug in at 180-1 rather than the we'll do what we want approach, we wouldn't have lost this test match.

[wilsdenrover]

12 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Yes, really. This might blow your brain but battling for and achieving a draw is tense and exciting Some of the best Test matches I've seen in 50 plus years of watching cricket have been draws.

A draw today would have put us only 1-0 behind and the series still winnable. As it stands the Ashes is more than likely over. I hate losing, you obviously don't mind as long as it's exciting. 

Against the convicts, that's incomprehensible

I take your point that a draw can be exciting but…

Would we want a boring draw with Burnley or an exciting loss to Burnley? - surely it’s always the former?  -

Why would this be any different for cricket? (particularly, as you say, against ‘this lot’)

I’m all for starting off with the mentality of trying to win rather than trying not to lose - but at some point the draw does become the more desirable option.

[wilsdenrover]

56 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

Bairstow himself tried it in the third innings multiple times, so I don’t buy the whole surprised look he had. Bowlers and keepers try it up and down the country. England have had multiple examples of things against the ‘spirit of the game’, look at de Grandhomme vs New Zealand. Bazball has made us lackadaisical and walking round like it doesn’t apply to us. He walked out of his ground every ball of the over and number one rule taught at grass roots level, don’t leave your ground unless told to. I’ve spoken to lots of people yesterday and today, coming from a family of cricketers who have played in county set ups at youth/development level and every single one said they’d have kept the appeal too. The ball passes his shoulder and he decided that was over and left his ground basically before the ball was even in the keepers hands. 

No complaints from me, and if I were Australia, after the Starc catch decision (he is more than in control of the ball) I’d have kept the appeal too. 

Re: the Starc catch,  the issue was whether he was in control of his movement as well - the  umpires confirmed they felt that he wasn’t.

[oldjamfan1]

1 hour ago, Mellor Rover said:

England have had multiple examples of things against the ‘spirit of the game’, look at de Grandhomme vs New Zealand. 

No complaints from me, and if I were Australia, after the Starc catch decision (he is more than in control of the ball) I’d have kept the appeal too. 

You are wrong on both counts here. The de Grandhomme dismissal was as a direct result of him coming too far down the wicket to try and influence the umpire in relation to the LBW appeal he was facing, or if I'm being kind it was his forward momentum. Either way the ball very obviously was not dead in that example. Pope genuinely ran him out, albeit it was an unusual dismissal. 

As for the Starc 'catch' - Bumble (not only a top player and coach in his time but also a superb umpire) summed it up perfectly for me yesterday when asked about it at Old Trafford . He said words to the effect of "Look, I don't know why this is even being debated. The ball was grounded, not a catch, end of story".

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Re: the Starc catch,  the issue was whether he was in control of his movement as well - the  umpires confirmed they felt that he wasn’t.

No I know what the decision was, but it was rubbish. It's out, he was never dropping it. 

But that's by the by, like Bairstows run out, we lost it by gifting cheap wickets unfortunately. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, oldjamfan1 said:

You are wrong on both counts here. The de Grandhomme dismissal was as a direct result of him coming too far down the wicket to try and influence the umpire in relation to the LBW appeal he was facing, or if I'm being kind it was his forward momentum. Either way the ball very obviously was not dead in that example. Pope genuinely ran him out, albeit it was an unusual dismissal. 

As for the Starc 'catch' - Bumble (not only a top player and coach in his time but also a superb umpire) summed it up perfectly for me yesterday when asked about it at Old Trafford . He said words to the effect of "Look, I don't know why this is even being debated. The ball was grounded, not a catch, end of story".

I'm really not. I just disagree with you.

One mans opportunistic approach is another mans 'cheating'. Bairstow was a dopey bastard and was run out. No complaints.

On the second point, the ball is under control. Would've been out in a county match, and I dare say if it was an England fielder. Every single catch is 'grounded' at some point. Who decides when that point is? Maybe the rules need looking at, it's not like he was sliding over the boundary. By the rulebook it's probably not out, as a former player of any level, we've all took a catch like that at some level and knew it was out.

If we're quoting ex players like it adds weight to an argument.. Collingwood said falling with your hands pointing upwards is a very compromising position for your wrist and shoulder, and the rule should be looked at.

[Guest]

I also think it was very telling that not a single pundit dwelled on the run out much, at all. They all knew Bairstow was dopey and had no problem with the appeal or the wicket. Maybe a mandate by sky? But I remember them being a lot more scathing about Bell being run out when he thought it had gone for 4 runs against India a while back. 

EDIT: Which was probably an even more fair dismissal.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Mellor Rover

[oldjamfan1]

3 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

I'm really not. I just disagree with you.

One mans opportunistic approach is another mans 'cheating'. Bairstow was a dopey bastard and was run out. No complaints.

On the second point, the ball is under control. Would've been out in a county match, and I dare say if it was an England fielder. Every single catch is 'grounded' at some point. Who decides when that point is? Maybe the rules need looking at, it's not like he was sliding over the boundary. By the rulebook it's probably not out, as a former player of any level, we've all took a catch like that at some level and knew it was out.

If we're quoting ex players like it adds weight to an argument.. Collingwood said falling with your hands pointing upwards is a very compromising position for your wrist and shoulder, and the rule should be looked at.

It was only under control because he basically slid it along the ground! The basic premise for a catch is that the ball doesn't touch the ground. The modern thing about it still being a valid catch even if the ball hits the floor as long as there are fingers under the ball has muddied the waters a bit. But even in this case there was nowt under that ball other than grass.

And that second bit in bold - really? The Aussies had already got away with two very debatable catches in their previous two tests (Green and Smith), are you implying or suggesting that England are being treated more favourably? I'd love to see some evidence for that. 

PS - I quoted Bumble predominantly because of his umpiring background (as stated in my post)

[jim mk2]

Bairstow was a fool. He’s played against the other lot enough to know that if you give them half a chance they’ll take it. Same with the declaration in the first Test - we provided them with a way back into match that should have been made safe.

This win at all costs “because we don’t do draws” is the reason we’re 2-0 down. And I don’t buy this is some great convict side either - they’re solid and professional and they know how to win games by attacking and defending with the ball and the bat at the right time. 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

It was only under control because he basically slid it along the ground! The basic premise for a catch is that the ball doesn't touch the ground. The modern thing about it still being a valid catch even if the ball hits the floor as long as there are fingers under the ball has muddied the waters a bit. But even in this case there was nowt under that ball other than grass.

And that second bit in bold - really? The Aussies had already got away with two very debatable catches in their previous two tests (Green and Smith), are you implying or suggesting that England are being treated more favourably? I'd love to see some evidence for that. 

PS - I quoted Bumble predominantly because of his umpiring background (as stated in my post)

Duckett walked, stopped to look at the screen, and carried on walking. He was happy it was out.

We can agree on the rules being applied, but I've got to respectfully disagree and say for my money it's out. Opinion's are rightfully split on it because like you say it's slightly muddied the waters. But having played a lot in my younger days (not that it counts, just providing context), from a personal point of view, I think it's a bit of a silly rule. He 'grounded' it to prevent injury and not to gather the ball and get it under control in my opinion. And having given the Green and Smith ones, I'm very surprised they picked that one to give not out. 

Let's see if that precedent is now consistently followed!

[oldjamfan1]

2 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

Duckett walked, stopped to look at the screen, and carried on walking. He was happy it was out.

We can agree on the rules being applied, but I've got to respectfully disagree and say for my money it's out. Opinion's are rightfully split on it because like you say it's slightly muddied the waters. But having played a lot in my younger days (not that it counts, just providing context), from a personal point of view, I think it's a bit of a silly rule. He 'grounded' it to prevent injury and not to gather the ball and get it under control in my opinion. And having given the Green and Smith ones, I'm very surprised they picked that one to give not out. 

Let's see if that precedent is now consistently followed!

I think we can all agree that they were all brilliantly taken, whether legit or not 🙂

[Ianrally]

1 hour ago, Mellor Rover said:

It's not a love fest, they're a better team than us but we're making excuses of 'they were mean to us!' rather than fighting fire with fire. We're too easy to play against with this brand of cricket. If we'd have dug in at 180-1 rather than the we'll do what we want approach, we wouldn't have lost this test match.

I agree that results show that they are a better team than us, and also we should “fight fire with fire”. 
I thought the correct thing for Carey to have done was to warn Bairstow that if he kept walking out of his ground then he would stump him. Obviously the Aussies didn’t think that was required, fair enough. 
So when we come to the next test and Australia bat, Englands opening bowler runs in, and whips off the bails thereby stumping the backing up non striker, also not giving a prior warning. 
It’s  not in the spirit of the game but it is allowed in the laws of the game. Australia would have no complaints I presume.

That is certainly fighting fire with fire.

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, Mellor Rover said:

No I know what the decision was, but it was rubbish. It's out, he was never dropping it. 

But that's by the by, like Bairstows run out, we lost it by gifting cheap wickets unfortunately. 

Is dragging it along the ground not the same as dropping it?

I think the problem with the rule is that, to a certain extent,  control of the player’s movement is subjective. 

I agree with you regarding why we lost.

[47er]

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Re: the Starc catch,  the issue was whether he was in control of his movement as well - the  umpires confirmed they felt that he wasn’t.

Can't remember another catch like that. He caught it cleanly and never let go of it but it definitely hit the ground in the process. Tough one--you could argue for either decision.

[RoverDom]

"In control" is subjective but I would have said if he's still falling he's not in control. Could he have turned round and passed the ball to someone stood next to him with out that ball touching the floor? Not a chance. 

[47er]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

Bairstow was a fool. He’s played against the other lot enough to know that if you give them half a chance they’ll take it. Same with the declaration in the first Test - we provided them with a way back into match that should have been made safe.

This win at all costs “because we don’t do draws” is the reason we’re 2-0 down. And I don’t buy this is some great convict side either - they’re solid and professional and they know how to win games by attacking and defending with the ball and the bat at the right time. 

 

Smith is world class, Labousagne isn't far behind---rated world's best batter and L 2nd and Kawaja has been playing the best cricket of his life. But the real difference in these 2 sides is the attack. Lyons better than anything we have, though out of it now---Starc, Hazelwood and Cummins would all walk into our side. And their keeper has been very sound.

That's what makes things so maddening, we came so close to overcoming all this but threw it away---twice.

[RoverDom]

1 hour ago, Ianrally said:

I agree that results show that they are a better team than us, and also we should “fight fire with fire”. 
I thought the correct thing for Carey to have done was to warn Bairstow that if he kept walking out of his ground then he would stump him. Obviously the Aussies didn’t think that was required, fair enough. 
So when we come to the next test and Australia bat, Englands opening bowler runs in, and whips off the bails thereby stumping the backing up non striker, also not giving a prior warning. 
It’s  not in the spirit of the game but it is allowed in the laws of the game. Australia would have no complaints I presume.

That is certainly fighting fire with fire.

One thing I like about cricket is everyone (well most people) playing within the spirit of the game. That said, as a leveller it would be hilarious to see Warner sent back first ball because of this 

[Dreams of 1995]

Starc grounded that ball. End of story

Smith got Root out with a catch that benefitted from the rule changes; in reality the ball touched the ground there as well

It really has been a magnificent 10 days of cricket. That innings by Stokes will go down in history. Had we been able to bring it along the line it would have trumped Headingley. The control and the way he manipulated the field was a masterclass; a class of cricket that Stokes shows once a year. He is at his best when his back is to the wall. I have a feeling he knows that now- he now has 3 tests to turn this around. He doesn't strike me as a man who accepts losing despite all the talk of entertainment and Bazball

I don't look down on the Australians for the Bairstow wicket because it is what we come to expect. I hope to see that level of nastiness, and gamesmanship, from ourselves at Leeds. The crowd will be hostile and so should we. I'd be looking to bowl both Tongue and Wood and come at Australia with pace. Warner and Khawaja have both shown they are susceptible to Tongue, who was our best bowler by a long way. Be hostile, be aggressive and let's try and turn the anger of the Baristow wicket to change the game

Genuinely though, it has been a pleasure to watch this Ashes despite the results. Both games could have gone either way. Yet we find ourselves 2-0 down, with a task in front of us that hasn't been achieved since the 30s. But, you know what, I still think this England squad are in with a chance

If anybody knows of any tickets going at Headingley or OT, name your price and message me. It has been sensational so far. I really cannot explain how privileged it felt to be able to see Ben Stokes in that form.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Dreams of 1995

[Ewood Ace]

15 hours ago, Ianrally said:

Smith should have never been anywhere near a test match since sandpapergate. 

He's not the first and he's not that last to get done for ball tampering, Smith was given a disproportionate ban by his own board and has served his time compare that to Atherton when he was caught he continued on as captain into the next test.

3 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

We will do well to avoid being whitewashed.

We won't be whitewashed, this Aussie team is good but not great.

4 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Just to clarify my thoughts about the Bairstow incident. It wasn’t cheating any more than Chappel bowling underarm to prevent the batsman hitting a six was cheating. You were allowed to bowl underarm. However both incidents rode roughshod over the ethos of the game of cricket and lowered the standards expected from players. It’s significant that both culprits were Australians whose “ win at all costs “ methods cross the line of sportsmanship. If the roles had have been reversed and Bairstow had have run out Carey I would have been deeply embarrassed.

Some jingoistic nonsense here. The underarm incident was wrong and a clear gap in the rules which was changed after it was exploited for the first time. The Bairstow dismal and similar ones have happened numerous times over the years and the laws have not been changed because it is not exploiting the rules it is just sharp fielding taking advantage of gormless batting, just like when de Grandhomme was run out at Lords last year, or when Brendan McCullum whipped the bails of to run Murali out in 2006. The only person to blame for all 3 of those dismals are the dozy batsmen.

As for the win at all costs attitude an Aussie would point to 32/33 with England exploiting the rules to win at all costs in regard to bodyline. Personally I would disagree with that and believe that bodyline was a fair tactic that used the full potential of a frighteningly quick attack and troubled the greatest player the game will ever see to deliver arguably England's greatest ever series victory. They could also point to the fact that England have the second most players out obstructing the field in international cricket, including the only one in a test match, that is cheating & against the laws of the game. They could also point to Paul Collingwood upholding the appeal to run out Grant Elliott in 2008. Was using Murray Mints to shine the ball riding roughshod over the ethos of the game of cricket and lowering the standards expected from players? Again I personally don't have a problem with it but it is another thing a jingoistic Aussie might point to about England

As for your talk of the ethos of the game England are captained by a man who has been given out obstructing the field after using his hand to stop the ball from hitting the stumps to run him out. When Stokes got a fortunate 4 overthrows of his bat in the World Cup final did he worry about that? Surely if he wanted to uphold the spirit he should have just blocked the next ball out. And don't forget that the England captain has also been fined and banned by his own board for bringing the game into disrepute.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Ewood Ace

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

He's not the first and he's not that last to get done for ball tampering, Smith was given a disproportionate ban by his own board and has served his time compare that to Atherton when he was caught he continued on as captain into the next test.

We won't be whitewashed, this Aussie team is good but not great.

Some jingoistic nonsense here. The underarm incident was wrong and a clear gap in the rules which was changed after it was exploited for the first time. The Bairstow dismal and similar ones have happened numerous times over the years and the laws have not been changed because it is not exploiting the rules it is just sharp fielding taking advantage of gormless batting, just like when de Grandhomme was run out at Lords last year, or when Brendan McCullum whipped the bails of to run Murali out in 2006. The only person to blame for all 3 of those dismals are the dozy batsmen.

As for the win at all costs attitude an Aussie would point to 32/33 with England exploiting the rules to win at all costs in regard to bodyline. Personally I would disagree with that and believe that bodyline was a fair tactic that used the full potential of a frighteningly quick attack and troubled the greatest player the game will ever see to deliver arguably England's greatest ever series victory. They could also point to the fact that England have the second most players out obstructing the field in international cricket, including the only one in a test match, that is cheating & against the laws of the game. They could also point to Paul Collingwood upholding the appeal to run out Grant Elliott in 2008. Was using Murray Mints to shine the ball riding roughshod over the ethos of the game of cricket and lowering the standards expected from players? Again I personally don't have a problem with it but it is another thing a jingoistic Aussie might point to about England

As for your talk of the ethos of the game England are captained by a man who has been given out obstructing the field after using his hand to stop the ball from hitting the stumps to run him out. When Stokes got a fortunate 4 overthrows of his bat in the World Cup final did he worry about that? Surely if he wanted to uphold the spirit he should have just blocked the next ball out. And don't forget that the England captain has also been fined and banned by his own board for bringing the game into disrepute.

 

 

He also didn't decide to concede the World Cup to New Zealand when that was given as 6 runs instead of 5 leading to the super over... McCullum and Stokes giving it the whole 'we wouldn't have appealed' is utter bollocks based off their own track records. Should Broad have walked when he middled it to first slip before making a match winning contribution? Is that 'in the spirit of the game? We were beat by the better side over the 5 days and need to harness some of the false outrage people are pretending to feel to give it to them at Leeds.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Mellor Rover

[Dreams of 1995]

4 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

He's not the first and he's not that last to get done for ball tampering, Smith was given a disproportionate ban by his own board and has served his time compare that to Atherton when he was caught he continued on as captain into the next test.

We won't be whitewashed, this Aussie team is good but not great.

Some jingoistic nonsense here. The underarm incident was wrong and a clear gap in the rules which was changed after it was exploited for the first time. The Bairstow dismal and similar ones have happened numerous times over the years and the laws have not been changed because it is not exploiting the rules it is just sharp fielding taking advantage of gormless batting, just like when de Grandhomme was run out at Lords last year, or when Brendan McCullum whipped the bails of to run Murali out in 2006. The only person to blame for all 3 of those dismals are the dozy batsmen.

As for the win at all costs attitude an Aussie would point to 32/33 with England exploiting the rules to win at all costs in regard to bodyline. Personally I would disagree with that and believe that bodyline was a fair tactic that used the full potential of a frighteningly quick attack and troubled the greatest player the game will ever see to deliver arguably England's greatest ever series victory. They could also point to the fact that England have the second most players out obstructing the field in international cricket, including the only one in a test match, that is cheating & against the laws of the game. They could also point to Paul Collingwood upholding the appeal to run out Grant Elliott in 2008. Was using Murray Mints to shine the ball riding roughshod over the ethos of the game of cricket and lowering the standards expected from players? Again I personally don't have a problem with it but it is another thing and Aussie might point to about England

As for your talk of the ethos of the game England are captained by a man who has been given out obstructing the field after using his hand to stop the ball from hitting the stumps to run him out. When Stokes got a fortunate 4 overthrows of his bat in the World Cup final did he worry about that? Surely if he wanted to uphold the spirit he should have just blocked the next ball out. And don't forget that the England captain has also been fined and banned by his own board for bringing the game into disrepute.

I don't think we should be focusing on what has gone on before Ewood.

At the end of the day, all of the above is trumped with the fact two of Australia's run scorers have both been sidelined for genuinely cheating

Whatever has happened previously is irrelevant - the deGrandhomme incident is not even in the same context. Pope was not the wicket keeper at the time of run out and the batter had not grounded either his foot or his bat in the crease. Therefore, there could never ever be any confusion as to whether the bowl was dead or live

[Guest]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

I don't think we should be focusing on what has gone on before Ewood.

At the end of the day, all of the above is trumped with the fact two of Australia's run scorers have both been sidelined for genuinely cheating

Whatever has happened previously is irrelevant - the deGrandhomme incident is not even in the same context. Pope was not the wicket keeper at the time of run out and the batter had not grounded either his foot or his bat in the crease. Therefore, there could never ever be any confusion as to whether the bowl was dead or live

You can't focus on what's not happened though. I personally don't believe with the track records of our squad and coaches that we wouldn't have also appealed. And the crowd would've absolutely loved it too!

[Ewood Ace]

43 minutes ago, 47er said:

Smith is world class, Labousagne isn't far behind---rated world's best batter and L 2nd and Kawaja has been playing the best cricket of his life. But the real difference in these 2 sides is the attack. Lyons better than anything we have, though out of it now---Starc, Hazelwood and Cummins would all walk into our side. And their keeper has been very sound.

That's what makes things so maddening, we came so close to overcoming all this but threw it away---twice.

I'm not fully convinced by Labuschagne outside of Australia yet. Only averaging 37 with 1 century away from home. 

9 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

Should Broad have walked when he middled it to first slip before making a match winning contribution? Is that 'in the spirit of the game? 

I did have to chuckle at Broad yesterday taking the moral high ground.

7 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I don't think we should be focusing on what has gone on before Ewood.

At the end of the day, all of the above is trumped with the fact two of Australia's run scorers have both been sidelined for genuinely cheating

They were side lined by their own board just as the current England captain was side lined by his own board for bringing the game into disrepute. He has also previously been given out obstructing the field, that is genuinely cheating.

4 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

You can't focus on what's not happened though. I personally don't believe with the track records of our squad and coaches that we wouldn't have also appealed. And the crowd would've absolutely loved it too!

One thing we know for certain is that Brendan McCullum the wicket keeper would have done what Carey did as he did a similar thing to Murali in 2006. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Ewood Ace

[Dreams of 1995]

5 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

You can't focus on what's not happened though. I personally don't believe with the track records of our squad and coaches that we wouldn't have also appealed. And the crowd would've absolutely loved it too!

I don't think I have Mellor.

I disagree with you on our track record. Most, if not all, of the examples being thrown around are not within the same context of the Carey and Bairstow incident.

In the incident of Bairstow he had scratched his crease with his foot; the umpire had got the hat of the bowler out of his pocket. The crowd, the players, all except Carey was acting like the ball was dead.

The laws of the dead ball is "finally the bowl has settled in the wicket keepers hands"

2 minutes ago, Ewood Ace said:

hey were side lined by their own board just as the current England captain was side lined by his own board for bringing the game into disrepute. He has also previously been given out obstructing the field, that is cheating.

One thing we know for certain is that Brendan McCullum the wicket keeper would have done what Carey did as he did a similar thing to Murali in 2006. 

I don't know why you keep bringing in Stokes being side lined for

Stokes was side lined pending an investigation into a fight which happened outside of the sport. He was found not guilty for those crimes. The ECB punished him for bringing the game in to disrepute. As much as you may pretend there isn't, amongst sportsmen at least, there is a marked difference between an incident outside of the sport and an incident within it. It has no relevance in this debate

There was also a degree of controversy around Stokes' exit following obstructing the field. He had the ball thrown at him from a very close distance. It seemed like instinct for me as opposed to a calculated effort at cheating. Whereas Warner and Smith orchestrated a concerted effort to cheat and were found guilty for it

One thing is for certain though - this incident has overshadowed an otherwise excellent game of cricket. And the fact that such lengths have been gone to in an attempt to justify the Carey decision tells me that it was not within the character of the game

The actions of yesterday do not, and have never, justified the actions of today. So talk of 1930s series and a game of Sri Lanka vs NZ years ago do not have any relevance in the discussion around Bairstow's wicket

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I don't think I have Mellor.

I disagree with you on our track record. Most, if not all, of the examples being thrown around are not within the same context of the Carey and Bairstow incident.

In the incident of Bairstow he had scratched his crease with his foot; the umpire had got the hat of the bowler out of his pocket. The crowd, the players, all except Carey was acting like the ball was dead.

The laws of the dead ball is "finally the bowl has settled in the wicket keepers hands"

I don't know why you keep bringing in Stokes being side lined for

Stokes was side lined pending an investigation into a fight which happened outside of the sport. He was found not guilty for those crimes. The ECB punished him for bringing the game in to disrepute. As much as you may pretend there isn't, amongst sportsmen at least, there is a marked difference between an incident outside of the sport and an incident within it. It has no relevance in this debate

There was also a degree of controversy around Stokes' exit following obstructing the field. He had the ball thrown at him from a very close distance. It seemed like instinct for me as opposed to a calculated effort at cheating. Whereas Warner and Smith orchestrated a concerted effort to cheat and were found guilty for it

One thing is for certain though - this incident has overshadowed an otherwise excellent game of cricket. And the fact that such lengths have been gone to in an attempt to justify the Carey decision tells me that it was not within the character of the game

The actions of yesterday do not, and have never, justified the actions of today. So talk of 1930s series and a game of Sri Lanka vs NZ years ago do not have any relevance in the discussion around Bairstow's wicket

There was less than two seconds from the time the ball touched Carey's gloves to the bails being on the floor. He wasn't stood there waiting for him to do it.