Cricket Thread: Bring on the Kiwis

[maxlilly]

So how many times can a bowler 'deceive' a batsman by not releasing the ball in one over or an innings ?
Could it become a 'weapon' in a bowlers arsenal where they don't release the ball once or twice an over to 'deceive' the batsmen ?

 

[Vader]

If the batter is taking guard outside of their crease you are permitted (until October) to just throw the ball at the stumps and run them out.

I presume if you threw the ball at a batter/the stumps there'd be a good chance they would forget to get back in their crease in the confusion.

The ball is dead until the bowler starts their runup. It's just not practical for a bowler to stop mid-runup, and throw the ball at the stumps at the striker's end. There's a good reason why it's never happened - it's a manifestly stupid idea, with 0.000% chance of affecting a dismissal.

 

[Vader]

When does the ball become "live" under this intrepretation?

Laws of Cricket

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.

 

[maxlilly]

Its complicated but the bowler can throw the ball at the strikers end during the bowlers run up, but of course before delivery stride. So highly unlikely.

Laws were different back then but I reckon Hookesy tried it on Dean Jones in a 1 day game as Jones was literally walking at the bowler during his run up.

What happens if the batsman hits it for four ?

 

[knobby]

Its complicated but the bowler can throw the ball at the strikers end during the bowlers run up, but of course before delivery stride. So highly unlikely.

Laws were different back then but I reckon Hookesy tried it on Dean Jones in a 1 day game as Jones was literally walking at the bowler during his run up.

having said that the law will change and will be called dead ball now

 

[Scorpus]

There's always been a spirit of the game however. In fact the Laws of Cricket have a preamble:

"Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this Spirit causes injury to the game itself".

Which is pretty non-specific of course but there are multiple examples of things that occur (or don't occur) purely because they're not in the spirit of the game.

Things like the close in fielders or keeper calling runs "yes.... yes... run" as though they're the other batsmen for instance

A batsman gets hit in the chest and collapses on the pitch in pain. The fielders can run him out but don't

If a throw hits the batsmen and deflects into the outfield it is etiquette not to run for overthrows even though it says that you can in the rules.

If a shot is heading for runs but hits the square leg umpire and creates a run out it is etiquette not to appeal

Fielders 'faking' picking up the ball and throwing it in to trick the batters actually did get specifically written into the rules.

The 'dummy' mankad is along those lines imho

Whether these things matter to people...? Everyone's different I guess.

I disagree, the dummy mankad is in the act of bowling which is one of the areas in cricket where not only is deception allowed without warning, it's encouraged.

Most of the areas you're talking about are not taking advantage of accidents. However in this instance one team is trying to get a clear advantage in runs and the other team is using deception to counter that. Fair play in my eyes

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Its complicated but the bowler can throw the ball at the strikers end during the bowlers run up, but of course before delivery stride. So highly unlikely.

Laws were different back then but I reckon Hookesy tried it on Dean Jones in a 1 day game as Jones was literally walking at the bowler during his run up.

Was in a Shield game at Adelaide Oval

Hookesy got the bowler Andrew Zesers to bowl one full and wide outside of off stump. Hookes was fielding at first slip.

Jones went for the drive but it was too wide. Hookesy took the ball rather than the keeper and threw the stumps down. Jones out! Stumped Hookes I guess!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Imagine if we manked Kohli in the 3rd T20, to change the course of the game...

 

[knobby]

Was in a Shield game at Adelaide Oval

Hookesy got the bowler Andrew Zesers to bowl one full and wide outside of off stump. Hookes was fielding at first slip.

Jones went for the drive but it was too wide. Hookesy took the ball rather than the keeper and threw the stumps down. Jones out! Stumped Hookes I guess!

Yeah I remember that too, this was different again.

Hookes & Jones were always antagonizing each other.

I reckon what I am referring to was at the MCG, the umpires wouldnt allow it, so Hookes instructed his bowlers simply not bowl the ball if they saw Jones walking towards them, caused a stink at the time. I think at one time Jones took guard behind the stumps just to take the urine.

Another incident I remember when Hookes was batting with a tail ender deliberately running one short so he could retain the strike, they changed the law after that as well !

 

[Interloperer]

The ball is dead until the bowler starts their runup. It's just not practical for a bowler to stop mid-runup, and throw the ball at the stumps at the striker's end. There's a good reason why it's never happened - it's a manifestly stupid idea, with 0.000% chance of affecting a dismissal.

Which is why it's being removed from the laws. And the regular 'mankad' is being normalised as just a run out, rather than some special punishment permitted because the non-striker has been naughty.

 

[FR0GGY]

How, precisely, do you think it would be possible to run out a striker batting out of his crease? This makes no sense at all.

Stumping?

 

[Vader]

Stumping?

Not exactly what Interloperer was proposing.

 

[FR0GGY]

Could they stop the bowler doing it too often by awarding a run if the batsmen is safe, then you’ll only get it if the bowler is sure the non striker is blatantly cribbing.

 

[Interloperer]

Could they stop the bowler doing it too often by awarding a run if the batsmen is safe, then you’ll only get it if the bowler is sure the non striker is blatantly cribbing.

Vader is right that it's completely impractical in general. But it was permitted in the laws until now.

I believe the MCC believe that the harsher punishments for slow over-rates these days (Also strengthened in Limited Overs cricket in the new rule changes) will sufficiently discourage abuse.

 

[adelaidecrows]

This is the problem with mankad. To me it's a hypocritical law. The whole point of cricket is for a contest between bat and ball. Nothing wrong with deceiving the batter using spin. It's a skill game. Mankad was in the game to stop the following; batters batting out of their crease and runners starting half way down the pitch.

The deceiving a non striker out of their ground is to me, not within the concept of cricket as a sport. It's the equivalent of being allowed to throw the ball through for a goal in AFL or punching the soccer ball through for a goal, it doesn't fit. It defeats the entire purpose of the game and the skills.

Mankad needs to be removed from the game. But the issue of runners getting an unfair advantage should be umpired as no runs. Bowlers bowl. That's it. Take the deception out of the game. It's rubbish and makes cricket a laughing stock. As I've said many times. All the tough guys arguing about being in your crease and no issues, will not have the guts to do it in amateur cricket. Because I'm telling you now, they will get a bat to the head.

ICC needs to get ahead of this and just let the umpires rule.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[adelaidecrows]

Vader is right that it's completely impractical in general. But it was permitted in the laws until now.

I believe the MCC believe that the harsher punishments for slow over-rates these days (Also strengthened in Limited Overs cricket in the new rule changes) will sufficiently discourage abuse.

What constitutes abuse though. This is the grey area. Keep it easy and just don't have it. Just rule no run and the game will still move.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Vader]

This is the problem with mankad. To me it's a hypocritical law. The whole point of cricket is for a contest between bat and ball. Nothing wrong with deceiving the batter using spin. It's a skill game. Mankad was in the game to stop the following; batters batting out of their crease and runners starting half way down the pitch.

The deceiving a non striker out of their ground is to me, not within the concept of cricket as a sport. It's the equivalent of being allowed to throw the ball through for a goal in AFL or punching the soccer ball through for a goal, it doesn't fit. It defeats the entire purpose of the game and the skills.

Mankad needs to be removed from the game. But the issue of runners getting an unfair advantage should be umpired as no runs. Bowlers bowl. That's it. Take the deception out of the game. It's rubbish and makes cricket a laughing stock. As I've said many times. All the tough guys arguing about being in your crease and no issues, will not have the guts to do it in amateur cricket. Because I'm telling you now, they will get a bat to the head.

ICC needs to get ahead of this and just let the umpires rule.

There's no problem with Mankad being a "deception" issue now. Batsmen can't be Mankadded if they don't leave the crease until after they would normally expect the ball to be released. If they choose to leave before the ball's normal point of release, then being runout in this manner is 100% fair IMO.

What is 'Mankading' in cricket - the law, rules and changes

What do the current laws say?
The provision to run the non-striker out is clearly laid out in the Laws of Cricket. The 'Mankad' is a thoroughly fair, legal act, as even Don Bradman, who was captain of that Australian team in 1947, insisted back then. Law 41.16, which pertains to the "Non-striker leaving his/her ground early," states: "If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out."

If the bowler fakes bowling a delivery, and the batsmen leaves the crease after the ball would normally be delivered, then the batsman cannot be given out.

 

[Brown_DOG68]

The ball is live when the bowler starts his run up, but in this situation the ball never leaves the bowlers hand and batsman never gets a play and it.

Seems a strange contradiction in a game of bat versus ball.

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Vader]

The ball is live when the bowler starts his run up, but in this situation the ball never leaves the bowlers hand and batsman never gets a play and it.

Seems a strange contradiction in a game of bat versus ball.

It's somewhat unique, in that it's an attempt to dismiss the non-striker, rather than the striker.

 

[adelaidecrows]

It's somewhat unique, in that it's an attempt to dismiss the non-striker, rather than the striker.

Should just be an umpire decision to award runs or not.

 

[Vader]

Should just be an umpire decision to award runs or not.

Half the world's batsmen would never score a run, if runs were disallowed every time the non-striker left the crease early.

If the non-striker chooses to leave the crease early, and are subsequently runout, then that's their problem. I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. Cry me a river. You chose to try and gain an unfair advantage, you pay the penalty for being caught in the act.

 

[spenze]

Would be funny if we ManKad the first five bats in the next series against India, I'm sure the fans won't burn any effigys over it

 

[adelaidecrows]

Half the world's batsmen would never score a run, if runs were disallowed every time the non-striker left the crease early.

If the non-striker chooses to leave the crease early, and are subsequently runout, then that's their problem. I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. Cry me a river. You chose to try and gain an unfair advantage, you pay the penalty for being caught in the act.

it works fine now. mankad is just insane

 

[FR0GGY]

it works fine now. mankad is just insane

I don’t get why you want to give the non striker an advantage.
Hell the batsmen has to make sure he’s in his crease so he’s not stumped and he has far more to worry about that the non striker.
The non striker is purely cheating ground, you want to do that, fine, but take the risk like the batter.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I don’t get why you want to give the non striker an advantage.
Hell the batsmen has to make sure he’s in his crease so he’s not stumped and he has far more to worry about that the non striker.
The non striker is purely cheating ground, you want to do that, fine, but take the risk like the batter.

the english batter had no advantage other than her bat left the crease as she expected the ball to be bowled. that has no place in cricket. nothing wrong with how the game is played now. allowing mankad in this fashion is ridiculous.