2016 U-19 World Cup

[nobbyiscool]

Does it say this in the rules??

If so why was he given out??

Because he didn't go into his delivery stride ie. he didn't jump into his stride, roll his arm over and then take the bails. He ran up as normal, and took the bails before humping into his delivery stride.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

THAT is why it's an issue - because from what we've seen and read, the Zimbabweans hadn't been cynically taking off early. A bowler was opportunistic and took his chances with no idea whether the non-striker was actually out of his crease or not.

It doesn't matter that it was cynical - he left his crease!

Stay in your crease until the ball leaves the bowlers hand if you don't want to be run out (mankaded) - surely this concept is not that hard to understand?

 

[nobbyiscool]

It doesn't matter that it was cynical - he left his crease!

Stay in your crease until the ball leaves the bowlers hand if you don't want to be run out (mankaded) - surely this concept is not that hard to understand?

It's semantics at this point - but again, you don't have to wait til the ball leaves the bowlers hand.

People should brush up on the rules of cricket before trying to suggest they understand the spirit of cricket.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Because he didn't go into his delivery stride ie. he didn't jump into his stride, roll his arm over and then take the bails. He ran up as normal, and took the bails before humping into his delivery stride.

You could argue his back foot had been planted

Either way the batsmen had left his crease - this is indisputable

 

[nobbyiscool]

You could argue his back foot had been planted

Either way the batsmen had left his crease - this is indisputable

No one is arguing that - the argument is about the sportsmanship and the spirit of cricket.

You wouldn't see that at the local club on Saturday without the bowler and captain getting a bollocking from team mates.

You wouldn't see it with an Ashes series tied at 2-2.

You won't see it in the upcoming T20 World Cup.

So it has no place whatsoever in a junior tournament. I'll go back to my original comment that anyone arguing otherwise doesn't understand the spirit of cricket. It's not the black and white game that people like to think it is.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

It's semantics at this point - but again, you don't have to wait til the ball leaves the bowlers hand.

People should brush up on the rules of cricket before trying to suggest they understand the spirit of cricket.

Semantics?? No that is you losing this argument

The spirit of cricket went out the window years ago - rules are rules - yes you don't have to wait till the ball leaves the bowlers hand but you also risk being runout (mankaded) if you do ........ and I don't know if you noticed but the umpires who umpired the game .....and understand fully the rules of cricket ...... agree

Be smart - don't leave your crease until the bowler bowls the ball

 

[nobbyiscool]

Semantics?? No that is you losing this argument

The spirit of cricket went out the window years ago - rules are rules - yes you don't have to wait till the ball leaves the bowlers hand but you also risk being runout (mankaded) if you do ........ and I don't know if you noticed but the umpires who umpired the game .....and understand fully the rules of cricket ...... agree

Be smart - don't leave your crease until the bowler bowls the ball

Mate, don't try and merge different arguments to think you're making a point.

The semantics I referred to is the fact that he wasn't in his delivery stride, so the rule that you can leave the crease when the bowler goes into his stride is just that - semantic.

If you're waiting for the ball to leave his hand you're an idiot, and you're giving up a couple of yards.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

If you're waiting for the ball to leave his hand you're an idiot, and you're giving up a couple of yards.

And you an idiot if you don't think you can be run out (mankaded) in this instance

If you are going to try and nick a few yards before I bowl the ball then I am going to make you wish you hadn't ........ because I can do that just as you can try and nick a few yards

An eye for an eye - just don't call me a cheat when its in the rules of the game

As someone else mentioned - when the "spirit" of the game crops up usually the finger pointing is aimed at the bowler never the batsman

What's the saying the "Batsman should always get the benefit of the doubt" - Well not in this instance as the rules of the game say so

 

[nobbyiscool]

And you an idiot if you don't think you can be run out (mankaded) in this instance

*sigh*

Does it need to be explained to you again that you can leave the crease when the bowler is in his delivery stride, and that he can't Mankad you in that instance?

As someone else mentioned - when the "spirit" of the game crops up usually the finger pointing is aimed at the bowler never the batsman

"Never the batsman"? Haven't people argued for years that switch-hitting is outside the spirit of the game?

Didn't we just put up with 3 months of Channel 9 commentators talking about bat sizes?

 

[Yoda_]

Sandra Sully moment here but so disappointed not to see the Aussies over there..

 

[YOTC]

You don't know the current rule, do you? As has been explained a number of times in this thread, you're allowed to leave the crease when the bowler is in his delivery stride. You can no longer fake a bowling action then run him out.

I also wonder how many people are commenting without seeing the vision. The non-striker isn't haring off trying to steal a run. He's backing up as normal and was less than an inch out of his crease. THAT is why it's an issue - because from what we've seen and read, the Zimbabweans hadn't been cynically taking off early. A bowler was opportunistic and took his chances with no idea whether the non-striker was actually out of his crease or not.

Wtf of course I know the rules that was the point. I was suggesting that the rule is far more leniant to the batsman than the original ruling and yet they still complain and want more.

I've seen the the vision. I'll break it down for you. Bowler runs up and past the umpire. Bowler takes off bails before entering delivery stride. Batsman was out of his crease. Batsman is out.

Backing up as normal... Less than an inch out...?
Why does this matter? He was out of his crease before the guy had even leapt up to enter his delivery stride. How much handholding do batsman need?

If it was up to me I would change the rule to say you have to remain in your crease until the ball is delivered or you can be run out. Simple. Fair.

 

[Roylion]

Bowler runs up and past the umpire. Bowler takes off bails before entering delivery stride. Batsman was out of his crease. Batsman is out.

Don't see what the fuss is about. As has already been pointed out wicketkeepers don't give batsmen warnings before they try for an attempted stumping. Bowler didn't enter delivery stride. Batsman went out of his crease before he went into his delivery stride, he was effectively "stumped" by the bowler. Run out. Good lesson for the batsman. He won't do it again. I didn't.

 

[ioppolo]

Quickly became the Mankad debate thread.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Quickly became the Mankad debate thread.

"He was out" vs "NOT THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME "

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You could argue his back foot had been planted

Either way the batsmen had left his crease - this is indisputable

His back foot had landed so he was entitled to leave the crease

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I've seen the the vision. I'll break it down for you. Bowler runs up and past the umpire. Bowler takes off bails before entering delivery stride. Batsman was out of his crease. Batsman is out.

He'd entered his delivery stride.

If it was up to me I would change the rule to say you have to remain in your crease until the ball is delivered or you can be run out. Simple. Fair.

That was the old rule but you'd see the ridiculous situation where a bowler would 'fake' bowling the ball, hang on to it then remove the bails as the unsuspecting batter tried to legally back up.

The current rule is absolutely crystal clear. A batsman can only leave his crease once the bowler's back foot has landed. If he leaves the crease prior to that he can be run out (mankaded).

The problem here was that the 3rd umpire doesn't know the rules.

 

[strewthcobber]

He'd entered his delivery stride.

That was the old rule but you'd see the ridiculous situation where a bowler would 'fake' bowling the ball, hang on to it then remove the bails as the unsuspecting batter tried to legally back up.

The current rule is absolutely crystal clear. A batsman can only leave his crease once the bowler's back foot has landed. If he leaves the crease prior to that he can be run out (mankaded).

The problem here was that the 3rd umpire doesn't know the rules.

Delivery stride is the stride during which the delivery swing is made, whether the ball is released or not.

Can't be a delivery stride if there's no delivery swing made. So by definition he had not in fact entered his delivery stride.

 

[Roylion]

That was the old rule but you'd see the ridiculous situation where a bowler would 'fake' bowling the ball, hang on to it then remove the bails as the unsuspecting batter tried to legally back up.

I don't know why the previous situation was "ridiculous" in the first place. My old coach used to tell me to never leave the crease up the non-strikers end until you saw the ball leave the bowler's hand. It was drilled into you that up the non-strikers end the batter should start well behind the crease, walk in with the bowler and watch his bowling hand, before attempting to back-up. Being 'mankaded' in a cricket match only happened to me once. When it did, it was my own bloody fault. I didn't make the same mistake twice.

The problem here was that the 3rd umpire doesn't know the rules.

So it's not a "spirit of the game" issue, but an umpiring mistake.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Can't be a delivery stride if there's no delivery swing made. So by definition he had not in fact entered his delivery stride.

Of course you can

If what you say is right, there was no reason to change the rule. A 'fake' delivery where you hang on to the ball after swinging your arm mustn't include a "delivery stride" because you had no intention of bowling it...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I don't know why the previous situation was "ridiculous" in the first place. My old coach used to tell me to never leave the crease up the non-strikers end until you saw the ball leave the bowler's hand. It was drilled into you that up the non-strikers end the batter should start well behind the crease, walk in with the bowler and watch his bowling hand, before attempting to back-up. Being 'mankaded' in a cricket match only happened to me once. When it did, it was my own bloody fault. I didn't make the same mistake twice.

Did your coach tell you to hang on to the ball to trick the batsman into leaving his crease?

So it's not a "spirit of the game" issue, but an umpiring mistake.

Yes

I have no problem if a bowler mankads a cheating batsman. Serves them right.

I don't think the batter left his crease early.

 

[Roylion]

Did your coach tell you to hang on to the ball to trick the batsman into leaving his crease?

Yes. If it was clear that a particular batsman was leaving his crease before the ball was bowled, then it was a tactic to either make him wait longer or to get him out. As far as he was concerned, the batsman was trying to get an advantage by backing up as much as he could get away with. A spin bowler tries to trick the batsman into leaving his crease so he can be stumped by the keeper. I don't see much of a difference.

Bottom line is to watch the ball leave the bowler's hand and then leave the crease to back up.

I have no problem if a bowler mankads a cheating batsman. Serves them right.

Go back to the old rule. A bowler can "fake" bowling the ball as often as he likes, but it will make no difference to anything if the batsman still has his bat or part of his foot behind the crease at that time.

I don't think the batter left his crease early.

He was out of his crease when the wicket was broken with the ball. Whether he was in his delivery stride or not is a matter for the umpire. He gave it out. It's out.

 

[strewthcobber]

Of course you can

If what you say is right, there was no reason to change the rule. A 'fake' delivery where you hang on to the ball after swinging your arm mustn't include a "delivery stride" because you had no intention of bowling it...

No, because the "delivery swing" starts before the ball is delivered.

The delivery stride is not defined as starting by the feet, its defined by what the arms do.

Just because his right foot lands near the stumps doesn't mean he has entered his delivery stride. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to ever get close enough to remove the bails.

http://rcc.nsw.cricket.com.au/pageitem.aspx?id=90597&id2=1&eID=15548&entityID=

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

No, because the "delivery swing" starts before the ball is delivered.

The delivery stride is not defined as starting by the feet, its defined by what the arms do.

Just because his right foot lands near the stumps doesn't mean he has entered his delivery stride. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to ever get close enough to remove the bails.

http://rcc.nsw.cricket.com.au/pageitem.aspx?id=90597&id2=1&eID=15548&entityID=

Did you actually read the article you quoted?

Law 42.15 permits the bowler to attempt to run out the non-striker, but only before entering his delivery stride which starts when the bowler's back foot lands for that stride and ends when the front foot lands in the same stride.

You're allowed to underarm the ball at the stumps during your run up

You're also allowed to take the bails off prior to back foot landing

 

[strewthcobber]

Did you actually read the article you quoted?



You're allowed to underarm the ball at the stumps during your run up

You're also allowed to take the bails off prior to back foot landing

Keep reading....

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yes. If it was clear that a particular batsman was leaving his crease before the ball was bowled, then it was a tactic to either make him wait longer or to get him out. As far as he was concerned, the batsman was trying to get an advantage by backing up as much as he could get away with. A spin bowler tries to trick the batsman into leaving his crease so he can be stumped by the keeper. I don't see much of a difference.

If a batter is leaving his crease early, fine.

If a batter is not leaving his crease early (ie is obeying the rules with no intention to break them) then trying to trick them into moving out of the crease by holding onto the ball is extremely low. It's like running a batter out after he's been hit in the head and is staggering around. Technically allowed, but a low act.

Bottom line is to watch the ball leave the bowler's hand and then leave the crease to back up.

Go back to the old rule. A bowler can "fake" bowling the ball as often as he likes, but it will make no difference to anything if the batsman still has his bat or part of his foot behind the crease at that time.

That's what the game is all about!

He was out of his crease when the wicket was broken with the ball. Whether he was in his delivery stride or not is a matter for the umpire. He gave it out. It's out.[/QUOTE]
I know he's out. The question is whether he should have been given out.