******Cricket Thread******

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I would be fuming if a bowler did that to me. Bit of a cunts trick. The tactic is to stop bowling and show the ball to stop the batter encroaching and even then its not really on, but all accept point made and move on.

Next time we play India, we should do it repeatedly. Once TV companies moan about how long the game is taking, the law would be soon changed.

 

[normskih]

I‘d have been fuming if I were Dean. I wouldn’t have shaken their hands, that’s for sure.

It was bad sportsmanship. The IND bowler made no real attempt to bowl the ball and wasn’t looking at the batting end when she checked her stride to catch Dean out and Dean hadn’t left the crease at that time. Proper unsporting and I’d have told them to kiss my backside or words to that effect, when leaving the pitch.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It was bad sportsmanship. The IND bowler made no real attempt to bowl the ball and wasn’t looking at the batting end when she checked her stride to catch Dean out and Dean hadn’t left the crease at that time. Proper unsporting and I’d have told them to kiss my backside or words to that effect, when leaving the pitch.

The crazy thing is that they had won the series already. There was no need to do what she did. The Indian captain should have cancelled any appeal they put in.

I guess it’s got lots of people talking about them, which they could perceive as a positive, but not many people will agree with what they did.

 

[Mancityus]

Next time we play India, we should do it repeatedly. Once TV companies moan about how long the game is taking, the law would be soon changed.

Why not just canvas to change the rules if the rule is so objectionable?

Is there not an advantage being taken by getting a head-start as a batter, already the game is tilted towards batting side over bowling, now allowing batters to start running before ball is played is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[normskih]

The crazy thing is that they had won the series already. There was no need to do what she did. The Indian captain should have cancelled any appeal they put in.

I guess it’s got lots of people talking about them, which they could perceive as a positive, but not many people will agree with what they did.

Yes they had and it was probable they going to win this match too although it was in bit touch and go and I guess that’s why the bowler decided to go with doing what she did, only she will know but I agree with you about the IND captain, she should have scrubbed it. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth that’s for certain.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Why not just canvas to change the rules if the rule is so objectionable?

Is there not an advantage being taken by getting a head-start as a batter, already the game is tilted towards batting side over bowling, now allowing batters to start running before ball is played is ridiculous in my opinion.

But it would stop if the first run didn’t count if the non-striking batter was out of their crease when the ball was bowled.

It‘s been a rule talked about more than most others. I think instances such as today will bring it sharply back into focus and potentially see it being changed.

It hinges on when you deem the ball “live”. An umpire declares it dead, but never live.

 

[Mancityus]

I’ll agree it doesn’t really look or feel right. But there’s no logic to why it shouldn’t happen really, if the batter doesn’t stay in the crease until after the ball is released. You could argue that’s a form of cheating in itself.

The traditionalist in me is saying they should give a warning first. But then I’m thinking what sense does it make for it to be totally acceptable to try and knock a batters head off with the ball but unsporting to execute a totally legitimate dismissal?

Why a warning on valid rule, next someone would say if batter hits ball which can be caught the fielder should not catch but advise batter that if they catch it batter will get out and give them a second chance.

What if it was extended to football. In last match Liv would argue James Milner should be explained catching football is not allowed and penalty waived, only allow it if he repeats it.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Why a warning on valid rule, next someone would say if batter hits ball which can be caught the fielder should not catch but advise batter that if they catch it batter will get out and give them a second chance.

What if it was extended to football. In last match Liv would argue James Milner should be explained catching football is not allowed and penalty waived, only allow it if he repeats it.

You are missing the point of the ball not being in play, similar to a foul before a corner is taken in football.

The Milner comparison is silly.

 

[Mancityus]

But it would stop if the first run didn’t count if the non-striking batter was out of their crease when the ball was bowled.

It‘s been a rule talked about more than most others. I think instances such as today will bring it sharply back into focus and potentially see it being changed.

It hinges on when you deem the ball “live”. An umpire declares it dead, but never live.

Are you saying ball is live or not is debatable in this case and umpires got it wrong. I think there is no question about what the rule is and it was applied correctly.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Are you saying ball is live or not is debatable in this case and umpires got it wrong. I think there is no question about what the rule is and it was applied correctly.

Ugh, you’re arguing different things. It was out today because the laws were followed. It goes against the spirit of the game though.

What I, and a fair chunk of cricket supporters, think, is that it shouldn’t be a form of dismissal as the ball isn’t live.

 

[Mancityus]

You are missing the point of the ball not being in play, similar to a foul before a corner is taken in football.

The Milner comparison is silly.

Yes it is silly debating an existing rule, I get it you do not like it like many others so maybe it should be removed, just do not know how you will stop batters run to half the pitch before ball is played.

 

[Corky]

It used to be they got a warning first, but the game has moved on, keep your bat down if in doubt and don't blubber if you get caught out. There was no need to set off early with 21 balls left to get 17.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Ugh, you’re arguing different things. It was out today because the laws were followed. It goes against the spirit of the game though.

What I, and a fair chunk of cricket supporters, think, is that it shouldn’t be a form of dismissal as the ball isn’t live.

As a point of order:
20.5 Ball ceases to be dead
The ball ceases to be dead – that is, it comes into play – when the bowler starts his/her run-up or, if there is no run-up, starts his/her bowling action.

So by law, it is live.
Obviously that could be amended if needed.

 

[Stephen230]

Because I think it’s a silly rule. The ball is dead until it has been bowled.

Using your logic there, no law could ever be changed if there was a perfectly acceptable one in place. Seems a bit folly to me.

Well there clearly isn’t any need to change a law if an acceptable one is in place. The discussion here is, is it an acceptable rule? Your suggestion would work fine in matches with a video umpire. But 99% of cricket matches don’t have one and you’d be asking an umpire to simultaneously judge if the bowler has overstepped on one side and when exactly the batter left the crease on his other side. Not possible I don’t think. It’ll all be forgotten about tomorrow until next time it happens in a few years anyway.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

As a point of order:
20.5 Ball ceases to be dead
The ball ceases to be dead – that is, it comes into play – when the bowler starts his/her run-up or, if there is no run-up, starts his/her bowling action.

So by law, it is live.
Obviously that could be amended if needed.

So, technically, if a batter withdraws because they see movement behind the side screen, the bowler could still bowl the ball and request the batter be given out?

That never happens, so why should the run out be an option when the bowler doesn't go through with their delivery?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Well there clearly isn’t any need to change a law if an acceptable one is in place. The discussion here is, is it an acceptable rule? Your suggestion would work fine in matches with a video umpire. But 99% of cricket matches don’t have one and you’d be asking an umpire to simultaneously judge if the bowler has overstepped on one side and when exactly the batter left the crease on his other side. Not possible I don’t think. It’ll all be forgotten about tomorrow until next time it happens in a few years anyway.

Hmm, how did the death penalty ever get reversed?

How did the rule on a new batter having to face the next ball, following a wicket, whether they would have been on strike or not, be introduced from October?

The rule, only comes into play when a bad sports”person” decides to use it. Generally when a batter is taking the piss, which Dean clearly wasn’t.

If there was no video system, the umpire probably wouldn’t give the batter out as they couldn’t be sure, as you suggested above.

 

[Stephen230]

As a point of order:
20.5 Ball ceases to be dead
The ball ceases to be dead – that is, it comes into play – when the bowler starts his/her run-up or, if there is no run-up, starts his/her bowling action.

So by law, it is live.
Obviously that could be amended if needed.

So if you had someone like Patrick Patterson starting his run up about a yard inside the ropes, the batters could run a bye as he was running in?

 

[Stephen230]

So, technically, if a batter withdraws because they see movement behind the side screen, the bowler could still bowl the ball and request the batter be given out?

That never happens, so why should the run out be an option when the bowler doesn't go through with their delivery?

I have seen that actually. Can’t remember who it was now but the batsman pulled away at the last minute and the bowler carried on and clean bowled him. The umpire didn’t do the dead ball signal in time and had no option but to give him out once they appealed.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I have seen that actually. Can’t remember who it was now but the batsman pulled away at the last minute and the bowler carried on and clean bowled him. The umpire didn’t do the dead ball signal in time and had no option but to give him out once they appealed.

Wow, another arse of a cricketer!

I get the win at all costs attitude, but it does make you come across as a bit of a Mourinho.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

So, technically, if a batter withdraws because they see movement behind the side screen, the bowler could still bowl the ball and request the batter be given out?

That never happens, so why should the run out be an option when the bowler doesn't go through with their delivery?

I think this is an unhelpful sidetracking and off the point, but as you ask:
20.4.2 Either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball when
...
20.4.2.5 the striker is not ready for the delivery of the ball and, if the ball is delivered, makes no attempt to play it. Provided the umpire is satisfied that the striker had adequate reason for not being ready, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
20.4.2.6 the striker is distracted by any noise or movement or in any other way while preparing to receive, or receiving a delivery. This shall apply whether the source of the distraction is within the match or outside it.

It's already at the umpire's discretion.

**
The point is currently, the ball is live, and it is viewed by many as being unsporting to mankad the batter.
I suspect it's part of why bowlers now get warned if they accidentally knock the bails off in the delivery stride. as Wood (?) used to do repeatedly.

Warnings are not mandatory, and Mankad himself warned the batsman on the first instance (in a different match to the first wicket). The next one, he didn't.
How many warnings would/should be given? Why is the batsman allowed a free go?

I don't have an answer to this, but it's very rare and that suggests that it's fine as it is.

List of Mankading incidents in cricket - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think I'd take this bloke's opinion though!
"For the life of me, I can't understand why [the press] questioned his sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage."
Sir Don Bradman.