[VIDEO] Ben Foakes stumping of Andrew Balbirnie - Fair?

[MenInG]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/vitmj/ofuzst" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

.

Opinions please - Seems that the batsmen thought ball was dead.

The key here is that Ben Foakes clearly felt the ball was in play. The law 20.1.2 states The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.

 

[Mueez]

Not fair imo.

 

[BaankeJi]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/vitmj/ofuzst" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

.

Opinions please - Seems that the batsmen thought ball was dead.

The key here is that Ben Foakes clearly felt the ball was in play. The law 20.1.2 states The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.

I don't think batsman thought ball was dead and that's why he lifted his foot.
Fielding Side clearly thought ball was in play. So it was a fair play.

 

[MenInG]

Bit sneaky of the keeper in my opinion but guess he is within the laws of the game.

 

[Green Patriot]

It is out IMO but the act in itself is a bit shifty.

 

[OmaIR1]

Fair.

 

[Big Mac]

This is far less sporting than a Mankad yet will get a tiny fraction of the hysteria from the "spirit of cricket" nutters. Here the batsman gains zero advantage, he's not overbalancing in the act of playing his shot, compare and contrast that to non-strikers being out of their crease when backing up which gains a measurable advantage for every run.

I'm not fussed either way but it does display the illogical hypocrisy of the anti-Mankad crowd if they're not pillorying Foakes for not giving the batsman a warning. But we know they're all mental anyway

 

[aloo paratha]

Within the laws of the game, but against the spirit.

 

[Shaka81]

He waited for a while for him to lift his foot..... seems more than a bit dodgy.... Forget spirit of the game. This just feels like plain cheating.

 

[hadi123]

It's fair but bad sportsmanship.

 

[Snowflake]

Oh, geez! How can anyone think that that's fair?

The batsman looked behind, ensured that his foot is inside the crease while the keeper has the ball in his hands.

This is not being sneaky, this is plain cheating. What is up with cricketers now a days trying to get such dismissals with blatant disregard of sporting ethics?

 

[MenInG]

Interesting to read some comments on Twitter where Foakes is being hailed as a genius 'keeper!

 

[introvert]

This rule Must be scrapped just like that run out rule where if batsman already made it to the crease then he is notout even if his foot is in the air after that.
If batsman is already in the crease then he can't be stumped.

Only third umpire could judge whether ball was still in the play or not. So after ashwin's mankad this is another egg on the cricket's faulty laws.

 

[zulfiqar]

To me this is completely not fair. The batsman clearly thought the ball was dead, which is why he relaxed. How long can the keeper hold on to the ball and keep it in play? As long as he wants? There's no time frame so-to-speak after which a ball becomes dead, it's just a general understanding that the batsman is in his ground and not attempting a run. That's what irks me about this dismissal.

For example, what if the batsman waited 2 more seconds before relaxing? 5 more seconds? 10? Is the ball in play as long as the fielding side believes it's in play? For me: as long as both batsman are not attempting a run and the ball has been collected by a fielder near the pitch - the ball should be considered dead, even if only 1 second has elapsed. I realized that "attempting a run" is a bit subjective, but some things have to be.

 

[ElRaja]

perfectly fair, foakes never motioned to throw the ball away, nor did he take his eyes of the stump. its not like hes try to feign the batsmen into lifting his foot.

is it in the spirit of things, borderline, but i give foakes the benefit of the doubt as in real time he didn't wait an eternity to do it.

 

[jazbati]

Reminds me of Stewart stumping Lara back in the days. Fair stumping imo.

 

[Snowflake]

Interesting to read some comments on Twitter where Foakes is being hailed as a genius 'keeper!

Some websites described it as 'sensational work'. Pathetic how some people are glorifying a cheap (cheating imo) tactic.

 

[moghul]

IPL culture is spreading , sportsmanship is dead and buried . I hate to see this happening.

 

[light]

IPL culture is spreading , sportsmanship is dead and buried . I hate to see this happening.

Amir, Azharuddin, Crojne and co did a fine job at destroying sportsmanship. Applying rule of the game however isn't the one to blame ... such a silly thing to say. As if IPL is a bench mark for sportsmenship.

 

[gazza619]

If this is not cheating..,,,,

Then nothing is..

 

[moghul]

Amir, Azharuddin, Crojne and co did a fine job at destroying sportsmanship. Applying rule of the game however isn't the one to blame ... such a silly thing to say. As if IPL is a bench mark for sportsmenship.

Those guys were punished for their crime, Ashwin was not .

 

[iPakistani]

Looool let Sarfraz do this and then we’ll see if everyone has the same reaction

 

[light]

Those guys were punished for their crime, Ashwin was not .

Wait ... why would he be punished for something that's legal and well within the game? This spirit of the game nonsense needs to go. Either remove it from the rule or make a statement that bowler needs to warn the batsmen before attempting the runout. You being serious here? LMAO ... Can't be worst than bitting the ball or sand paper gate.

 

[light]

If this is not cheating..,,,,

Then nothing is..

If this was cheating then the umpired needed to step up. Yet they went along with their decision. Where is the bashing against the umpires here? All the umpire had to do was annouce dead ball and game goes on. Not send it upstairs to review. Thus, well within the rules of the game. Unsportmenship perhaps, but legal in every way.

 

[Mueez]

I find it funny how English fans were crying about Ashwin’s mankad incident but can’t see anything against ‘spirit of cricket’ in this.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Not out, dead ball.

When a batsmen is no longer looking for a run, the ball is dead. The umpires shouldnt have given this out(if they did). Poor from the keeper.

 

[Mamoon]

Looool let Sarfraz do this and then we’ll see if everyone has the same reaction

I doubt if he is smart enough to pull it off.

 

[Snowflake]

Not out, dead ball.

When a batsmen is no longer looking for a run, the ball is dead. The umpires shouldnt have given this out(if they did). Poor from the keeper.

This. The ball wasn't in play anymore. The keeper can hold his pose for as long as he wants, it doesn't keep the play going!

 

[Gilly]

The very first thing you learn in cricket is to keep something grounded behind the crease.

 

[Snowflake]

watch it in real time, obvious the batsmen over balances and foakes is quick enough to make him pay.

there is no way the batsmen here thinks the ball is dead less than two seconds after the keeper has collected it, esp to a spinner.[/QUOTE]

Dead ball. Shameless cheating

 

[light]

Dead ball. Shameless cheating

I don't understand how people are referring to this as cheating. If this was cheating, umpires would have got involved. Unsportmenship at best, not cheating. Cheating is when you drop the ball and pretend as if you caught it or stump wihtout the ball in hand and appeal like no tomorrow.

Y'all need to realize that this went to the 3rd umpire for review. If this was considered as cheating, on field umpires would have stopped it right there.

 

[Snowflake]

I don't understand how people are referring to this as cheating. If this was cheating, umpires would have got involved. Unsportmenship at best, not cheating. Cheating is when you drop the ball and pretend as if you caught it or stump wihtout the ball in hand and appeal like no tomorrow.

Y'all need to realize that this went to the 3rd umpire for review. If this was considered as cheating, on field umpires would have stopped it right there.

Just like the umpires mucked it up with the Ashwin mankad episode, they mucked it up with this one too.

 

[Sunny_majoka]

Within the laws but not in a spirit of the game

 

[mon858]

Within the laws but not in a spirit of the game

Summed it up perfectly.

 

[introvert]

Watched the video again I think it was fair. In real time it happened in just under one & half second. It was all batsman's fault to loose his balance just when foakes was watching feet.

 

[light]

Just like the umpires mucked it up with the Ashwin mankad episode, they mucked it up with this one too.

Umpires has nothing to do with something that's in the rule book. They are there to inforce the rules and make sure players are following the law of the game. However, ICC needs to update their rulebook. Players gets shamed for applying rules that's in the book but for some reason it's considered as unsportmenship. Either modify it or stop shaming the players. No two way around it.

 

[Robert]

Looked out to me from the few seconds of footage. Didn’t follow the match so don’t know what happened before.

 

[Snowflake]

Umpires has nothing to do with something that's in the rule book. They are there to inforce the rules and make sure players are following the law of the game. However, ICC needs to update their rulebook. Players gets shamed for applying rules that's in the book but for some reason it's considered as unsportmenship. Either modify it or stop shaming the players. No two way around it.

Application of rules can be subjective in such cases. One umpire might argue that that was a dead ball while the other would argue it wasn't.

Just like the mankad episode where it can easily be argued that Ashwin paused after getting into his delivering stride and waited for the batsman to leave the crease before hitting the stumps.

In my opinion, in this case, it was clear that the play had ended once the batsman saw the keeper collect it and turned his head back to the bowler. So, I would argue that the umpire made an error in not calling it a dead ball and the keeper cheated his way to a wicket.

 

[Hasan123]

It's unfortunate for the batter but you shouldn't think the game is dead in that situation until the keeper has released the ball.

 

[ARK Rafay]

What's the rule on time if the ball is in play or not? How does one knows a ball is still in play?

 

[criclove34]

Out but unsportman

 

[light]

Application of rules can be subjective in such cases. One umpire might argue that that was a dead ball while the other would argue it wasn't.

Just like the mankad episode where it can easily be argued that Ashwin paused after getting into his delivering stride and waited for the batsman to leave the crease before hitting the stumps.

In my opinion, in this case, it was clear that the play had ended once the batsman saw the keeper collect it and turned his head back to the bowler. So, I would argue that the umpire made an error in not calling it a dead ball and the keeper cheated his way to a wicket.

I agree with you on the fact that it could be subjective. However, I still would like ICC to clear out their own rules. Such as, give a batsmen a warning before running them out while bowling. Or, clearly state when the ball is dead. Watching this at full speed, I understand why the umpires did not call it a dead ball, and should not call it a dead ball. It's unfair for the players to get backslash when such law is in the rulebook. If this isn't fixed, this will occur over and over again.

 

[Snowflake]

I agree with you on the fact that it could be subjective. However, I still would like ICC to clear out their own rules. Such as, give a batsmen a warning before running them out while bowling. Or, clearly state when the ball is dead. Watching this at full speed, I understand why the umpires did not call it a dead ball, and should not call it a dead ball. It's unfair for the players to get backslash when such law is in the rulebook. If this isn't fixed, this will occur over and over again.

Completely agree that such rules, in fact a few others too, are wishy-washy in cricket and need clarity.

Yes, I agree that on full speed it does look less blatant. But again, the batsman took all the precaution here and I felt he wasn't careless as some argue Buttler was. Keeping that in mind, I don't think he should be losing his wicket like that. Also, what the keeper did was neither smart nor anything skillful.

Net, getting a wicket like that just doesn't right with me. Felt like the rule of the ball still being in play was stretched a little too far.

 

[light]

Completely agree that such rules, in fact a few others too, are wishy-washy in cricket and need clarity.

Yes, I agree that on full speed it does look less blatant. But again, the batsman took all the precaution here and I felt he wasn't careless as some argue Buttler was. Keeping that in mind, I don't think he should be losing his wicket like that. Also, what the keeper did was neither smart nor anything skillful.

Net, getting a wicket like that just doesn't right with me. Felt like the rule of the ball still being in play was stretched a little too far.

Would be quite interesting to see how many of these sort of events pops out during the WC. We have about 40 ish games, won't be surprised to see 1-2 controversial dismissals. Maybe that will push ICC to take a look into the rules.

 

[iPakistani]

I doubt if he is smart enough to pull it off.

My bad, should have mentioned an Indian wicket-keeper, maybe then you would have liked what I said better.

 

[Sin Nombre]

If an Indian or a Pakistani would have done it to an English batter, the entire English cricketing community would be calling him a cheat.

Typical hypocrisy to see them gloating about how smart Foakes is.

 

[Snowflake]

Would be quite interesting to see how many of these sort of events pops out during the WC. We have about 40 ish games, won't be surprised to see 1-2 controversial dismissals. Maybe that will push ICC to take a look into the rules.

Unfortunately, that is what cricket has come down to so I won't be surprised

 

[Smbhayi]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/vitmj/ofuzst" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

.

Opinions please - Seems that the batsmen thought ball was dead.

The key here is that Ben Foakes clearly felt the ball was in play. The law 20.1.2 states The ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsmen at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.

that's out.. nothing wrong there...

 

[Smbhayi]

why he has to lift his foot.. it's weird to lift backfoot from that position if you're not over balanced...