I wasn't referring to rules. I was referring to integrity.
Clearly Bairstow had thought it was the end of the over. He went back in his crease and he turned around to walk back towards Stokes as if it was end of over. Very innocent. That is extremely clear. That he didn't ground his bat is a dumb argument. And to taunt and celebrate that they had just done something great is childish.
There is even a hint that the umpires had started to move as if it was end of over. When the Australians appealed the umpires had no choice other than to give it out.
Can't legislate for integrity as every culture and every individual differs as to that definition. Check on this thread as an example. There can only be rules. What does it tell you if you say the Unpires had no choice?
Every cricketer from five year olds upwards, knows you have to ground your bat before doing anything while the ball is in action. Up until say more senior levels mistakes get made, but their training is always, ground your bat. If you don't know that then you lack basic cricket skills and knowledge. He knew it. He just forgot it. And of course, there are players that try to sneak distance when the bowler is about to bowl. If a bowler has the ball and play is on you gotta be behind your crease and if not, you risk the consequences.
This was a tight match for the Ashes. You play to win according to the rules. Sandpaper gate was cheating. This was not. And I expect if sandpaper gate had not happened then there may not be this furore. Aussies have made themselves the targets and the Brits, having been led to expect to win, are disappointed it's not panning out that way. Ripe for conflict.
I like the take from news.com.au
"While even the most ardent critic had to admit it was within the rules, the call soon became all about the “Spirit of Cricket”.
At the best of times, the “Spirit of Cricket” has become a wishy-washy term that is used in any controversial moment, even if it’s within the rules, as a way to justify getting fired up."