Bairstow: cheated, stumped or just sloppy?

“It was cheating, wasn’t it ?”

So says one of the millions of English people keen to talk about the latest  Ashes controversy, as he handed back my change at the petrol station.

This week, millions more – in offices and factories across the land – will debate whether Yorkshireman Jonny Bairstow was dismissed in the spirit of the game, or not.

It was a decision or non-decision, that is likely to be argued about all week. It certainly made Bairstow and his captain burn with the same anger as the fans in the stands at Lord’s who chanted: “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie..cheat cheat, cheat!”

Riot in the Long Room

It led to unprecedented scenes in the Long Room at Lords; elderly members in striped ties j and blazers, jostling, pointing fingers and squaring up to Aussie players David Warner and Usman Khawaja.  One newspaperman wrote that by the genteel standards of the Lord’s Long Room, this was tantamount to a riot.

The stumping caused all the trouble.

So, what was all the fuss about? Well, Bairstow, the flame-haired Bradford battler, had scored 10 and was getting set to help win a fairly close game for England. He ducked a bouncer, the last ball of the over, paused, and then walked down the wicket to speak to his batting partner Stokes.

In a flash, Aussie wicketkeeper Alex Carey under-armed the ball and hit Bairstow’s stumps, with the batter well out of his ground. The Aussies appealed and the umpire gave out Bairstow; to his anger and fury from the crowd.

Sharp practice or shrewd wicketkeeping?

Now the point is that, yes, under the rules of the game Bairstow was out; the ball was not yet declared dead. The dismissal was basically an opportunistic long-range stumping. You could say it was sharp practice by the wicketkeeper; you could say it was poor cricket; you could also say Bairstow was sloppy by leaving his ground without checking the danger behind.

Was it fair? That is the big question. Probably not, in my view.

Spirit in the sky?

Surely, it would have lifted the spirit of the game into the clouds, in this cynical world of professional sport, if the Aussies had withdrawn the appeal and called Bairstow back. After all, the rules also say that any benefit of the doubt should go to the batter.

Captain Stokes asked the Aussies to take back the appeal – they replied by celebrating as if it was Christmas. They probably would have won anyway, but the greatest pity is that cricket fans were robbed of what could have been a cracking finish.

What if the cricket boot was on the foot?  

To be fair, if the cricket boot was on the other foot, would it be such an issue? In the famous 2005 Ashes series, Aussie captain Ricky Ponting left the field spitting and swearing after substitute fielder Gary Pratt (pictured) ran him out with a lightning throw. At the time, Pratt was one of the finest fielders in England.

Ponting – who was as key to his batting lineup as Bairstow was this weekend – accused England of sharp practice. He claimed they exploited the rules allowing them to rest their bowlers. This resting of bowlers gave the fleet-footed Pratt ample chance to run out the opposing captain.

In 2005, England fans merely laughed at the objection and celebrated the resulting victory in the Ashes series.

Cheated or merely stumped?

For me, this stumping was also confirmation – if ever one was needed – that sport is a business and no longer a gilded, gentlemanly, game. It is all about winning and money – sportsmanship stands less of a chance than an absent-minded batter.

In your opinion, Bairstow:  cheated, sloppy or merely stumped?