I have umpired more than 400 games and I have seen this type of thing in most of those games. The wicket keeper rarely hits the stumps so a dismissal is rarely given. Keepers are always throwing the ball at the stumps when standing back for the quick bowlers. I don’t see the fuss he was out of his cease, we all learn as kids to stay in your crease, so “Tell your story walking Pal”.
So the Poms want Stark’s catch to be not-out and Bairstow to also be not out you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Thank you for your response Brett. Over the years I have found that I agree with almost all of your articles and that I find them highly objective. I partially agree with your take on this issue. By inference you are saying that in League the scrum is a guarantee for the attacking team to retain possession after a deliberate knock-on. But in Rugby retaining possession is not guaranteed from a scrum therefore it should be a penalty. I still have a few problems with a penalty kick as a sanction for this. My solution therefore would be a Free-Kick to the attacking team which would guarantee possession to the attacking team. We already have too many indiscretions that have a penalty sanction in rugby. I don’t see why the ball in flight from a pass from an attacking player should be sacrosanct when in virtually every other context in rugby it is not. After-all rugby has always claimed to be a game where the ball is in contest. Plus I still don’t like the idea of rewarding poor skill i.e., a poorly executed pass in traffic. I dislike intensely cynical play especially in the red-zone (the All Blacks in the Richie McCaw era seemed to be the masters at this) and I don’t see League as being a beacon of great innovation. However the deliberate knock-on could be resolved with the Free-kick.

Thanks Brett for opening up the discussion about the deliberate knock-on. The apposite word here, I believe is “deliberate”. Our Rugby League cousins don’t have this discussion, because their thinking is “If you are silly enough to throw passes in traffic and it gets knocked down, tough. You took the risk and it didn’t pay-off so it’s a scrum for the knock-on. Cynicism doesn’t come into the argument. There is something to be said for this less-complicated approach. Arguments can be made about the distances between the attacking and defending players at the last feet at a ruck in Rugby and the play-the-ball in league. However I would argue that most deliberate knock-ons in Rugby occur in the backs where there is generally more space and not close to the break-down. “Deliberate” can be difficult word to take into consideration when you’re a referee and need to make a tough decision on the spot. If the attacking team has thrown a speculative and risky pass to try to create an attacking opportunity and you are desperate to defend it, knocking the ball down is hardly “Cynical”.

That loss still haunts me. It has possibly changed all of Australia’s captains attitude to enforcing the Follow On!!

I was at the game and we felt Berry managed it very well especially the Break-down, the Scrum, and Line-out. However we all thought that Sam Cane should have been given a yellow for his Karate chop on James Slipper’s neck. Berry said to both captains after the melee, words to the effect of “we’ve just had a red card so let’s settle down”. I thought this was a bit gutless of Berry not to give Cane a Yellow. I feel he lost a bit of control of the match at that point and could have made an example of Sam Cane and the ABs may have pulled their heads in. It was a difficult game to manage as the ABs were getting frustrated and going the biff due to the Wallabies not wobbling (as they did in game 2 & 3) at the break-down and in defence. Having said that I thought Koroibete & Barrett both deserved their respective YCs. The Barrett incident happened right in front of us and many people in that area of the ground saw it and reacted to it. If Berry had not have asked for TMO intervention it would make the point of having the availability of the TMO technology a bit of a farce.

Koroibete is fortunate to retain his spot after his shocker last week, apart from speed I can’t see too many qualities to warrant his selection. His kick is poor, he’s not great under the high ball, his defence is inconsistent, his positional play in defence is not always optimal and his balance on impact is poor. Compare him to Rieko Ioane or the the new boy Clark they tend to withstand defensive hits and keep their balance.

Speaking of Ben Mowen, I have been to nearly all of East Tigers games this year and Ben Mowen has been in outstanding form. Admittedly it is only Brisbane Premier grade, but he looks head and shoulders above every forward in every team.

I agree Pope that it was not a great LBW decision on Williamson. Before the days of DRS, that appeal would have resulted “not out” 90% or more of the time. In addition, the coat of varnish touching the leg stump doesn’t entirely convince me: a) that the technology is that accurate and b) that the bails may not have fallen with such a faint touch.

That sounds sadly similar to our former Wallabies’ coach.

Why am I not surprised to hear this about Warner. If Cricket Australia had more intestinal fortitude they would never have selected him after sandpaper gate. He has proved beyond any doubt that he is a toxic individual and doesn’t deserve to wear the baggy green. I heard from the horse’s mouth that it was Warner that was particularly nasty and went on and on for hours nonstop at De Kok (who is by all accounts a quiet individual), so it seems that Warner got what he deserved. In addition, the video footage of Warner screaming at De Kok looked like the classic “ Hold me back, hold me back or I’ll???”.

Peter I actually thought the second English try (the one dis-allowed for obstruction) should also have been awarded. Sam Whitelock had sufficient time and space to make a tackle on the ball-carrier. The thing is he was distracted by the dummy runner, in other words, there was no obstruction, yes a player ran partially behind another but that happens all the time it is a question of time and space preventing a tackle being made.

Thanks Geoff, this is a cracker of a sentence!!
“The local media are certainly on board; Joseph and Leitch entering the press conference to a hearty round of applause, something I’ve yet to see happen with Michael Cheika.”

And that is an achievement given Moody’s pre-meditated habit of binding on the shorts of the opposition tight-head and pulling him in to collapse the scrum.

So, Peter, where does that leave us with who ought to be in our backline. My selection would be the following, despite some new combinations:
9) White
10) Toomua
11) Koroibete
12) O’Connor
13) Kuridrani
14) Hodge
15) DHP
Bench: Kerevi, Genia, CLL

Langer is a strange mixture, he is obviously a very passionate Australian and has done a great job to create the much-needed change in the culture of the team. However, he has odd behavioral qualities and can come across as a bit of a tosser. We all have our idiosyncrasies and some of the most focussed and diligent players/coaches can be border-line on the spectrum. This can be a good thing for a discipline instilling coach and I do like the use of meditation. (as so much of cricket is a mental discipline) I am not convinced however as to his tactical/selection nous. In this last Test I couldn’t believe Langer still had Warner, Harris, Marsh and Siddle in the XI, and he made a contribution to the decision to send England in. Plus, Head certainly deserved another go. And why wasn’t Burns in the squad instead of Marsh in the first place. Siddle was the only one of that four that had any credence with selection. Marsh certainly shouldn’t have even been in the squad, and his selection after very poor returns over a substantial amount of time does smell of WA bais. Langer as the coach does have a say in the squad selection process. Admittedly Marsh did bowl with swing in the first innings but who is to say that Pattinson (who has better batting and bowling averages) and Starc couldn’t have knocked England over quicker. Warner should have been dropped after the third Test, Harris after the fourth and Khawaja and Burns at least been opening for the last Test if not the last two. Smith and Cummins were the backbone of the team and its success with great contributions by Labuschagne Wade and Hazlewood. But Pattinson only played two tests and Starc one???

Dear Ken
I like this idea, but perhaps a measurable distance rather than daylight. For example, half a metre and the end result would be daylight. I also would like a Free Kick for the ball not in straight at the Line-Out and a Free Kock for a Knock-On and of course the scrum option is always there. I love a great scrum contest but I think most of us dislike the lottery that is scrum penalties.

We can’t blame an umpire, LBWs are difficult to give at the best of times. Why are there only two wrong reviews allowed? We have a situation now where millions of people around the world can all see the batsman is out, but nothing can be done and the wrong decision must stand!! Ludicrous!!!
I can’t see why each team can’t have 10 wrong reviews one for each wicket.

Both myself and my Kiwi mate agreed that the Scott Barrett incident deserved a card and given the current laws the referee had little choice but red. But I question whether a red card should leave a team a man down for the remainder of the match. A better option would be 10 minutes with a man down and then the culprit not being able to return to the field of play but a bench player to take his/her place.

Thank you Glen,
Smith’s numbers are indeed looking Bradmanesque, but the absence of Jimmy Anderson was certainly a factor in making life easier in this test. The irony is that a coach would never teach anyone to bat like Steve Smith, his technique is so unique. And yes I know that when the bat makes contact with the ball his head is still and he plays very straight but before that moment there is awful lot of moving parts. Simon Katich was another with the moving parts and also very successful. What does this say about orthodoxy v natural talent. I still believe that orthodoxy can help less talented kids to keep out the good balls and score more runs.

Thank you Rohan. Selectors are usually reluctant to make changes when a team wins by such a margin. Whilst the first innings batting was a worry, and despite the fact that I would have picked Harris instead of Bancroft, it would be unfair to drop Bancroft now. He has scored a lot of runs in England and I presume that’s why he got the nod. I thought Pattinson bowled really well as did Siddle so surely they can’t be dropped unless they have an injury.

Thanks Dem, for those thought-provoking predictions. I don’t entirley agree with your assessment of Bancroft. I am happy to proven wrong but I noted his technical flaws (slicing across the line from outside to in) when he came into the test side after great success at shield level. He did seem to have worked on that by the time he got to South Africa and this showed he had the nous to realise that Test cricket required a higher level of technical skill. I would leave Harris to open as his technique is more conventional overall.

Thank you Glen, and your selections are well justified as usual. My only concern is Bancroft, he used to have an odd back-lift and tended to play out-in slicing across the line of the ball. He seemed to have improved on this by the time he got to South Africa. Despite his runs in county cricket I think Harris has a more sound technique and in the heat of the test matches in English conditions I like Harris’ more conventional technique. As for the bowlers, if Pattinson stays fit he could become the leading wicket taker in the series as he naturally bowls a fuller length than Cummins, as a fuller length has always given better results in England. (i.e., Bob Massie)

Perhaps another bench player you missed is Darrly Van der Velde. He played for Souths in Brisbane and represented Qld on one occasion. In 1977 he was selected in a Brisbane team which came up to Rockhampton and played Central Queensland. The game was on a Friday night. My cousin Forrester Grayson (second row Redcliffe) was also in that team and on the Saturday morning most of the Brisbane team lobbed up at our place in Rockhampton and my dad made sandwiches and they drank beer all day there. I was only a kid but it was a great memory and Darryl Van der Velde struck me as a terrific guy!

I agree Peter that White passed very well, I thought he was very fast at clearing form the back of the rucks. I don’t think Micahel Hooper is a forward he would have been better as an Outside Centre. He’s fast and makes ground in the wider channels and a good tackler, but he virtually never pilfers nor gets over the gain-line, in fact if he runs in tight he generally gets hammered.

Peter, Thank you for an excellent read! This is the most sensible article on selection I have read since Cheika became coach. It seems so obvious to have different game plans and different selections depending on the opposition and the venue. Cheika’s game plan or lack there of, and his selections are rather like bashing your head against a brick wall and trying to make a dent in the wall. I was hoping to see an end to Bernard Foley with the new selection panel?