2016 Non-Crows AFL Discussion - Cont. in Part 2 (link in OP)

[baldandbroke]

Why is it a dick move?

I've never understood the hate for Mankadding. The rules require the non-striker to remain behind the crease, by not doing that he's trying to gain an advantage outside of the rules.

If you can't watch the ball out of the bowler's hand before you leave your crease, you deserve to be out.

This particular replay looks borderline and I think he might be a bit unlucky, but I don;t have a problem with it as a method of dismissal.

IMO it really isn't any different to being stumped.

But it is different to being stumped, it is completely different. It is not in the spirit of the game IMO. Just like bowling underarm when the opposition need six off the final ball - completely legal, but not something I would condone.

I also thought the rule had changed to the non-striker being allowed to leave his crease once the bowler entered his delivery stride? Or was I dreaming that?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What do we think of this ...

Wow... that's low. It's not as though the batter was getting any unfair advantage. Out by a millimetre if at all. If he was, fair game.

The carry on after the wicket was pretty embarrassing too.

It's like when the Kiwis ran Murali out when he went down the wicket to shake his partner's hand for bringing up a hundred. Technically "out" but a low act.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

But it is different to being stumped, it is completely different. It is not in the spirit of the game IMO. Just like bowling underarm when the opposition need six off the final ball - completely legal, but not something I would condone.

I also thought the rule had changed to the non-striker being allowed to leave his crease once the bowler entered his delivery stride? Or was I dreaming that?

Nah you're right. I'm sure you can leave the crease as soon as the bowler lands his back foot. Shouldn't have been given out!

 

[AmericanCrow]

Nah you're right. I'm sure you can leave the crease as soon as the bowler lands his back foot. Shouldn't have been given out!

As it is an U19 comp..perhaps juniors have different set of rules?

 

[Swooping Crow]

Holy crap - I had no idea Kochie was doing so well ...


But he's just a working class man giving his time to a working class club. No more handouts#

 

[Hank93]

Nah you're right. I'm sure you can leave the crease as soon as the bowler lands his back foot. Shouldn't have been given out!

 

[baldandbroke]

View attachment 211459

Yep - watching it again he never makes a delivery stride - he just runs through and takes off the bails.

 

[FR0GGY]

Nah you're right. I'm sure you can leave the crease as soon as the bowler lands his back foot. Shouldn't have been given out!

Didnt the non striker used to get a warning first before he was out?

 

[1970crow]

For me Geoffa it is still a query on the standards at GC and the Ablett issue. They have the talent, but has the tough love of Eade made changes at all yet? Ablett is not a leader and the continual double standards for him compared to others I think will still bite them in the arse. I'm waiting to see how they go in the NAB challenge, but I think they might get close to the eight but not make it because of culture issues still ongoing.

Couldn't agree more. As long as the rumours are true of the distinct groups within the list and the different set of rules for one G Ablett the 2nd, then they're a fair way away from developing a sound culture. I expect Eade to be chewed up and spat out in favour of a younger coach who understand generation 'screw you, I'm not doing that' a bit better.

 

[Hank93]

Yep - watching it again he never makes a delivery stride - he just runs through and takes off the bails.

I love that the laws of the game website has videos like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=VIpbU7fe65Q

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Didnt the non striker used to get a warning first before he was out?

Was never a rule, just an unwritten nicety

 

[Niximus]

But it is different to being stumped, it is completely different. It is not in the spirit of the game IMO. Just like bowling underarm when the opposition need six off the final ball - completely legal, but not something I would condone.

I also thought the rule had changed to the non-striker being allowed to leave his crease once the bowler entered his delivery stride? Or was I dreaming that?

It's not completely different.

Both are examples of a batsman being out of their crease at a time when they aren't permitted to, and therefore breaking the bails gets them out.

Bowling an underarm delivery is not legal unless agreed to before the match, and even then rolling the ball, or having the ball bounce more than twice is still illegal.

 

[rocket18]

What do we think of this ...

Good on him, why is it OK for the batsman to "creep" and get a headstart? Surely that's not in the spirit of the game.

 

[Tex200]

I don't mind it. Cricket has changed at the elite level and rules are rules.

The reality is batsman are creeping forward always pushing and on the look out for a quick run. F...them I say. They've already got half a tree now that passes as a bat, ropes inside the proper boundary and roads for pitches.

If they are out of their crease when they shouldn't be then they carry the risk and if caught then accept the consequence. Just observe the rule and stay in your crease.

End rant

 

[1970crow]

Was never a rule, just an unwritten nicety

Like masturbating on a plane.

 

[beartoo]

Like masturbating on a plane.

Always sit in the rearmost seat.

 

[PrideOf]

Like masturbating on a plane.

Please tell me there's not a video review of that.

 

[Pdub]

 

[Contested Marx]

Holy crap - I had no idea Kochie was doing so well ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/are-62-people-as-wealthy-as-bottom-50-per-cent-oxfam/7114666

View attachment 211439

You do realise that's not the same Koch right?

 

[Deaneus!]

Why is it a dick move?

I've never understood the hate for Mankadding. The rules require the non-striker to remain behind the crease, by not doing that he's trying to gain an advantage outside of the rules.

If you can't watch the ball out of the bowler's hand before you leave your crease, you deserve to be out.

This particular replay looks borderline and I think he might be a bit unlucky, but I don;t have a problem with it as a method of dismissal.

IMO it really isn't any different to being stumped.

Yup, any time the batsman decides to go walkies, i whip that out. They always look so angry... as the umpire raises his finger.

It is not in the spirit of the game IMO.

But leaving the crease before the delivery, to get a headstart for a run, is?


Mankad:
The non-striker will be given out "Mankad" if they leave their crease prior to the delivery of the ball and the bowler completes a delivery action then breaks the stumps with the hand holding the ball.
i. A mankad attempt does not have to be in one continuous motion but the ball must remain in the bowler's delivery hand throughout the mankad attempt.
ii. The bowler must have the ball at the commencement of their delivery stride.
iii. A legitimate mankad dismissal or unsuccessful attempt does not count as part of the over.
iv. If a bowler, whilst attempting a mankad, releases the ball during the delivery action towards the non-striker's stumps, the umpire will call "No Ball, Dead Ball". This delivery will not count as part of the over and incurs the "No Ball" penalty. The umpire must call "Play" to re-commence the game.
v. When a bowler makes more than 2 unsuccessful mankad attempts in any one over, the third unsuccessful attempt will be called "No Ball, Dead Ball". The ball will not be counted as part of the over and 2 runs will be credited to the batting team's score.
vi. Any mankad attempt where the bails are not removed is still considered an unsuccessful mankad attempt.
vii. Where an umpire considers the bowler is wasting time rather than attempting a legitimate mankad, the bowler may be warned for time wasting and subsequently penalised 5 runs for misconduct if the action is repeated.
viii. If the mankad attempt is successful, the ball does not count as part of the over and does not affect the score off the previous or following delivery

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You do realise that's not the same Koch right?

Wow

 

[rocket18]

Wow

That's Bill for you.

 

[Iron]

Rowey on 5AA yesterday: Is Obi Wan Kenobi in the new Star Wars film?

Polec: I don't know him.

Polec making Rowey sound smart. We can always rely on the Tealsters for that.

How does someone not even 24 not know who Obi Wan is? There are two types of people: people who like star wars, and people who do not. There is no "I don't know what that is".

This only reinforces my belief that he spent his first 20 years as a dead body, and just suddenly awoke one day to play for the Lions.

 

[hey shorty]

As much as I love Ports misfortune I really do hate seeing players injured. It brings me to a matter that I've always though, an injury prone player is always going to be an injury prone player regardless of changing clubs.

Very few players significantly inprove their records in that sense when they change clubs. Its why I am very cautious in my appraisal of Troy Menzel.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Brad Crouch too

Edit - not injured, just worry that he's destined to be injury prone like Dixon