Peter Nevill's stumping was entirely within the spirit of cricket

To be honest if you need to right an article to justify the ruling then chances are it wasnt within the spirit of the game. All on here seem to be saying "its legal" "the ball wasnt dead" but that is not what the article is about. They are sepperate issues even in today's win at all costs world of professional sport

What is this mythical Spirit of the game you speak of? Joel its a thing that almost all other countries players seem to have but they dont make it in Aus so you probably havnt seen it before

Agree with James, one bad call doesn't justify another, but also the rules around hit wicket are different to stumpings. The Hit Wicket law specifies that you hit the wicket either in the action of playing your shot or while taking off for the first run. If you've finished your shot completely, are fully balanced (ie the following movement isn't due to being unbalanced after playing a shot) and then you just take a step back onto your stumps, then that' actually doesn't come under the realm of hit wicket. I remember the incident happening, but not clearly enough to be able to remember if it fit all the criteria for hit wicket or not, so I'm not going to make a judgement on whether Waugh should have been out or not, just stating the details of the law. In the case of calling this a dead ball, if the ball is with a fielder, in this case the keeper, who's clearly still looking to make some sort of play, not just looking to throw the ball back to the bowler, then the umpire is completely right to not consider the ball dead. If a batsman has one foot in the crease, isn't entirely balanced and the keeper holds the ball to the stumps going "is he going to lift his foot...?" he could hold it there for some time potentially with the ball still considered live. Eventually, if the batsman didn't lift his foot and nothing more was happening the umpires would have to say the ball is dead and get onto the next ball, but really, this is all just pretty standard stuff from Nevill. He's just done what keepers are always trying to do, but he's just been one of the few who's managed to get the timing dead on to affect the stumping.

Every single keeper looks for any opportunity to see a batsman's foot lift and try to whip off the bails. Very rarely do they manage to time it perfectly and get the wicket, but they do it all the time. Any time a batsman leaves his crease after a ball is bowled they should always make absolutely sure the ball is dead, and generally do. The occasions they don't they deserve what's coming to them. I find it amazing how people talk like "what would we be saying if this happened to one of our batsmen"? Well, if you've been on sights like this for long you'd know that probably what would be said is most people would be having a go at the batsman for doing something stupid and maybe the odd person would comment about it being against the spirit of the game. Because it's not. It's part of the game, always has been. Keepers always look for every chance to get a stumping and he pulled off a great one.

Rubbish. Every wicket keeper in world cricket, when keeping up to the spinners immediately looks down at the batsmen's feet when taking the ball and if they think they spot movement that might result in the foot lifting they whip the bails off. It just so happens that it's very rare they manage to time it perfectly to get the batsman out. Usually the foot goes up, they see it and take the bails off but the foot just makes it down in time.

What is this mythical Spirit of the game you speak of? It's a lazy argument to use when you don't like something but you can't win the argument without it. As far as the stumping goes, it was a batsman caught with his foot in the air while the ball is still in play. It is the umpire that decided the ball was still in play, not the keeper or the batsman. If it is within the rules and the umpire says that it's out, how can it be against this "spirit of cricket" you speak of?

I remember that happening and at the time I wanted to believe it was not out. Looking at the footage now, Waugh absolutely should have been given out. He had not yet settled in his crease and moved toward the stumps in the act of regaining his balance. The ball should have been deemed live at the time. One bad call doesn't justify another tho. In this instance Karunaratne was shifting his weight forward as a consequence of playing the shot; he was not yet stable in his crease, and in my view that should be a clear indicator to the umpire that the ball was still live.

Oh you pot stirrer...

Cricket batting 101- Never leave your crease until the ball is deemed dead

Great work by Neville. No problems with it -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.

This reminds me of an adelaide match when Mark Waugh lazily hit his stumps against south africa and was given not out with Australia about 8 down. The decision decided a whole series. 1998 from memory. Back then every (australian) man and his dog argued he was not out because he wasnt attempting a run when he hit the wicket and so it was dead ball. Well hitting wicket is a lot lazier then this. I dont think we can have it both ways it clearly should have been a dead ball. At least this time it wont decide a series

Yeah it was a legitimate stumping but it was still sneaky. Not within the spirit of the game for me, kind of like playing on after someone has gotten injured in soccer, making a challenge on the yellow jersey along the champs elysees, unpausing an online game when someone says 'brb door'.

I'm an Australian and it's the Australian way to quickly find a way to justify even the most morally questionable behaviour as long as the outcome suits us. Well done on that stumping. A golf clap for you.

Jes li cky it wasn't Bmac otherwise this site would have exploded and Ronan would have spontaneously combusted. He's clearly out, it's a completely commercialised and professional sport, this 'spirit of the game' needs to be replaced by rules. If it's out, it's out.

I think the only reason it causes controversy is because the batsman is not attempting to make a run and because for a lot of people sneaky = dishonest. I have no problem with it. Know the rules and you won't get stung by them.

Its annoying but as a batsman you will never get out that way twice - I myself was given out run out from slip after playing a few practice shots. On that occasion the ball had been through the keepers gloves and passed on so I was sure it was dead, but as it says in the law book umpires are the sole judges and if a batter is going to go moving out of their crease before the ball is out of range of the stumps, well.... bad luck mate, on your bike.

Only if the bookies wanted him to.

I know exactly what you're saying and it was a smart dismissal. I think arguing about it being in the bounds of the spirit of cricket is a stretch. To me, in that situation where the ball has gone through to the keeper, the batsman clearly wasn't looking to run, hadn't even stepped out of the crease, but there was a tiny lift of the foot. To me that's a dead ball situation between deliveries. That particular play had ended for mine.

If this forum did do that, I'd be applauding the Sri Lankans for a smart piece of cricket. I'd be filthy about getting out in that way, but at myself for my not maintaining the concentration to avoid the dismissal.

And Smith should have.