DAVID ISAACSON | Dozy Bairstow only has himself to blame for soft dismissal

If ever a controversy in world sport has been overblown, it’s the one raging over the dismissal of Jonny Bairstow in the second Ashes Test at Lord’s.

It also illustrates just what’s wrong with modern society, where the notions of accountability and responsibility appear to have gone Awol from almost all walks of society.

It’s obviously a problem with sports stars just as much as it is politicians.

So as a quick recap, at the end of the 52nd over of England’s second innings, with the hosts on 193/5 chasing 371 for victory, Cameron Green bowled to Bairstow.

Bairstow didn’t play at the ball, which went through to wicketkeeper Alex Carey who caught it and then, as many ’keepers have done, including Bairstow, immediately threw the ball at the stumps, knocking them over while the batsman was supposedly wandering down the pitch to chat to Ben Stokes at the other end.

Not even the English dispute that the dismissal was legal, but they’re arguing that it wasn’t in the spirit of the match and this led to, horror of horrors, ungentlemanly conduct by members in the Long Room. Or is it the Wrong Loom.

Mankad is often cited as the go-to case when discussing the spirit of cricket, where Indian bowler Vinoo Mankad dismissed the non-striking batsman, Bill Brown of Australia, after he had left his crease in search of a possible quick single in a Sydney Test in 1947.

But reports say that Brown had been warned for backing up earlier in the match. If that’s correct, then the Mankad case is probably more an illustration of prevailing racist attitudes at the time — had an Indian batsman been Mankaded by an Australian or English bowler, it probably wouldn’t have had the same impact on the mores of the game. 

No, a far better illustration of breaking the spirit of cricket can be found in early 1981, when Australian bowler Trevor Chappell bowled the final delivery of an ODI underarm to New Zealand batsman Brian McKechnie, who needed a six to tie the match.

Rolling the ball on the ground was not against the rules and it made hitting a six impossible and the reception it received showed it was clearly against the spirit of the game. The Chappells — Trevor’s brother Greg, the skipper, had instructed him to bowl like that — were criticised by some of their own teammates and Australian supporters in general. Underarm shenanigans have since been outlawed.

I saw some video footage, taken from a camera along the square leg line, showing Bairstow’s behaviour to leaving other dismissals.

In all cases he makes an action suggesting he’s grounding his foot before moving out his crease. But grounding one’s bat or foot doesn’t make a ball dead.

The laws of cricket state that the ball becomes dead when “it is finally settled in the hands of the wicketkeeper or of the bowler” and also that “the ball shall be considered to be dead when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batters at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play”.

And that’s the issue right there.

Carey threw the ball at the stumps immediately after pouching it, and his swift action therefore determined that the ball was not dead, irrespective of Bairstow’s footwork. Bairstow had no idea where the ball was — it could have been running for four after being misfielded, for all he knew. The batsman is supposed to know where the ball is. 

The English cricket boffs should think back to 2012, when Matt Prior ran out Morne Morkel at Lord’s after the South African, having been safely in his crease, placed his front foot out the crease and then marginally lifted his back foot.

Prior waited for that back foot to lift before knocking the bails off; had he done it sooner Morkel would have been not out. Morkel hadn’t been drawn out of his crease by the delivery, but simply made an honest mistake and was punished for it.

How is the Bairstow incident any different?

I’d like to think that every cricket-playing schoolkid knows to remain grounded in his or her crease until the ball is dead.

Bairstow was either too arrogant or too stupid to know the rules well enough and how they apply to him; he’s not bigger than the game of cricket.

But what’s worse is how he’s being backed up, right up to prime minister Rishi Sunak. For heaven’s sake.

Bairstow should have been admonished by every English player for possibly costing his team the match and maybe the series, and he should have apologised for it. He should have owned up to his error of being slap gat when it comes to the rules. 

The only lesson that any aspiring cricketer should take from this hullabaloo is: don’t be Bairstow.