The ashes 2023

[RowlattsFox]

In fairness to Stokes, I don't think he's throwing the ball in the air, he's just bringing his arms up to appeal. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

It does matter if he's dislodged it without the ball in his hand first? 

Bairstow’s initial contact moved the stump but didn’t dislodge the bail. The third umpire’s decision was that the bail spigots hadn’t left the grooves before Smith made his ground after Bairstow had taken the ball which wasn’t the case. 

[Foxdiamond]

22 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

The run out was out, clearly out, the bail was out of both middle and off stump. No wonder Smith has such a good average at the Oval, he’s had 4 lives. 

I was thinking when Bairstow wandering off the crease in the earlier test

[Bobby Hundreds]

1 minute ago, Foxdiamond said:

I was thinking when Bairstow wandering off the crease in the earlier test

Oh aye, and the missed stumping and dropped catches. Batted well in rain affected matches though 

[coolhandfox]

England's fielding has been generally below par all series. 

[leicsmac]

Quite possibly the English weather may end up having the final say again

[Sparrowhawk]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, that was a completed catch.

I believe not - if he'd had the ball under control, by definition he wouldn't have dropped it.

You could see from his immediate reaction that he knew he'd messed up.

 

[StanSP]

How come England lost a review with the Stokes catch? 

[Sparrowhawk]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

How come England lost a review with the Stokes catch? 

All a bit confusing. But they clearly signalled for a review, although I'm not sure anyone really knew what they were reviewing...

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

I believe not - if he'd had the ball under control, by definition he wouldn't have dropped it.

You could see from his immediate reaction that he knew he'd messed up.

 

Yeah, and as per above, I think that reaction convicted him. If he'd gone around celebrating, then I think there may have been a different result.

 

4 minutes ago, StanSP said:

How come England lost a review with the Stokes catch? 

I'm not entirely 100% on this, but I think LBW's involving umpires call are the only situations where a review can be retained under the current rules? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that though.

[Bert]

7 minutes ago, StanSP said:

How come England lost a review with the Stokes catch? 

It was reviewed and given not out. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

I think the point is it should have been an umpire’s review rather than us doing it.

[Bert]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, and as per above, I think that reaction convicted him. If he'd gone around celebrating, then I think there may have been a different result.

 

I'm not entirely 100% on this, but I think LBW's involving umpires call are the only situations where a review can be retained under the current rules? Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that though.

Correct. 

[AKCJ]

5 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I think the point is it should have been an umpire’s review rather than us doing it.

Correct. As soon as England appealed the catch, Joel Wilson should have reviewed it as an umpire review.

 

Can only imagine he thought that it missed Smith's glove and it came off his pad to leg slip?

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

I think the point is it should have been an umpire’s review rather than us doing it.

From what I remember it was given not out on the field so we had to review, because Wilson thought he hadn't gloved it. The Stokes part was incidental until the replay.

[leicsmac]

Just now, AKCJ said:

Correct. As soon as England appealed the catch, Joel Wilson should have reviewed it as an umpire review.

 

Can only imagine he thought that it missed Smith's glove and it came off his pad to leg slip?

Yeah, he didn't think Smith gloved it, as per above. Was nothing to do with Stokes.

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, Bert said:

It was reviewed and given not out. 

As @Bobby Hundreds said, the review was to check Smith had gloved it. Once that's confirmed, England shouldn't have lost their review as clean catches are umpire reviews. 

 

[leicsmac]

Just now, StanSP said:

As @Bobby Hundreds said, the review was to check Smith had gloved it. Once that's confirmed, England shouldn't have lost their review as clean catches are umpire reviews. 

 

That's the way it probably should work, but is it the way it is working under the existing rules?

[Bobby Hundreds]

The Mitchell Starc none catch was an umpire review. We shouldn’t be losing a review because the issue was with the ruling of control of body. 

[Sparrowhawk]

Starting to look like the series is probably just going to soggily peter out, ending as a bit of a damp squib...

Australia are unlikely to decide to chase 150 more in three hours play or so (maybe even less), so it's just whether England can take seven wickets in that time. Not impossible by any means, but a draw now looks quite likely...

[purpleronnie]

Thankfully we wont have to endure the weather next time.

[Matt]

Gotta love an English “summer”.

[Lionator]

I reckon the Aussies still might go for it then shut up shop if they lose a couple. They'll want that asterix removed which will always be there if it's 1-2.

[Super_horns]

I suppose the rain will mean that Stokes error won't be so costly.

 

No doubt Smith would have gone on and won the test for Australia. 

[trabuch]

Re-start at 16.20