Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => World Cricket => Topic started by: uknsaunders on February 02, 2016, 10:17:15 AM
-
Zim U19 need 3 to win, 6 balls left and 1 wicket. Great finish and then Mankad....
-
I don't understand why this is a big issue, the batsman at the non strikers end was deliberately (or not) flaunting the laws of the game and yet it is the bowler who is penalised on some "spirit of the game" technicality.
This is no different to a batsman missing a straight ball and being bowled.
what a lot of tosh gets written in this space.
-
Agreed, surely it's not in the spirit to leave your crease and gain an advantage without risk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I tell you what Buzz, you tell me if he could of bowled a legitimate delivery when he did the mankad - no way on earth could he have got into a delivery leap/stride and not no balled. The no striker was making no attempt whatsoever to pinch a yard, the bat was a matter of mm from not out. Spirit of the game went down the pan today.
Don't comment if you haven't seen it.
-
I tell you what Buzz, you tell me if he could of bowled a legitimate delivery when he did the mankad - no way on earth could he have got into a delivery leap/stride and not no balled. The no striker was making no attempt whatsoever to pinch a yard, the bat was a matter of mm from not out. Spirit of the game went down the pan today.
Don't comment if you haven't seen it.
I agree... Really surprised by Buzz's comment :o
The non striker was backing up and only out by an inch.. The bowler never had any intention of bowling that delivery. I am pretty sure he wouldnt have done it if there was 30 needed off the final over and not just 3..
-
(http://i1379.photobucket.com/albums/ah134/waikik/02mankadwide_zpsuwpuftca.jpg) (http://s1379.photobucket.com/user/waikik/media/02mankadwide_zpsuwpuftca.jpg.html)
-
I think it was a dead ball, no delivery was going to bowled and therefore play was not live.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
-
Should be a no ball he hit the wickets !!!!! Finn style
I have seen very poor sportsmanship and a poor poor way to win a game
-
Not even in his final delivery stride - no way could he not no ball!
-
To be given out it has to be done before entering the delivery stride... And whether it is given out or not out it isn't counted as a delivery
-
have the rules changed ? there is absolutely no way possible the bowler was in his delivery stride.........
-
At least he didn't bowl it underarm.
-
15. Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible
-
To be given out it has to be done before entering the delivery stride... And whether it is given out or not out it isn't counted as a delivery
Yes, but there was no attempt to bowl a delivery or get into a delivery stride. If in the normal course of events he tried to Mankad prior to the stride he would of been too far away from the stumps, therefore he was never going to bowl a delivery or if he did it would of been a no ball. The laws are stupid sometimes!
-
http://m.starsports.com/cricket/videos/its-out (http://m.starsports.com/cricket/videos/its-out)
-
So because the laws say the bowler doesn't have to attempt to bowl if he's going to mankad.
To play devils advocate: If the light is closing in, or it's starting to rain, could the bowler keep running up and mankad the batsman, even if he's not out. In doing so he kills enough time that the game has to be called off?
It appears that could be within the laws although outside the optional spirit of the game?
The reason why I think mankad is immoral: The bowler hasn't beaten the batsman through skill or ability.
If the batsman had set off blindly like the WC Courtney Walsh incident, when he gave a warning instead of breaking the stumps, then yes the batsman is trying to gain an advantage and with that comes a risk.
That is not what the Zimbabwe batsman was trying in this case.
-
Why cant the umpires simply step in and just tell everyone to grow up and calm down, tell the bowler to get back to his mark and batsman to stop trying to cheat by stealing a yard. Finish the game properly. Seems since video technology they have lost all power/authority and confidence to make any of their own calls on the field. What would Dickie Bird or David Shepherd do??
-
Even more, if you think about it, the bowler will have had to slow down in his final stages of his run up to effect the mankad, as this was such a close call (mm infact!) I would go further to say that if he had bowled at his normal speed at the time the ball was released the batsman would probably still have had his bat in the crease!
Basically the mankad made the batman become out of his crease I think.
-
What is concerning is that this happened at an Under 19 tournament, should the next generation of Test\ODI cricketers be encouraged win by these means?
In a similar way to the Indian lad getting over 1k runs I really hope the coach of the side feels rather sheepish to have been involved in the entire debacle.
-
The key thing is if he warned the player 1st, with the Somerset run out I know that a warning was issued previously which is the "sporting" thing to do. Basically a get back in your box type action where the batsmen is made aware of the fact the fielding team know hes trying to steal ground.
If this didnt happen as hes simply got him out without any prior warning then IMO is very unsportsmanlike as the batsmen was only marginally over the crease in the assumption that the bowler was going to deliver the ball and as all coaches encourage backing up accordingly.
The umpires will have asked the fielding side if they want to uphold the appeal as Batty was asked with Somerset. They are given the chance then to withdraw it should they opt to do so or uphold is as is the case here.
-
The key thing is if he warned the player 1st, with the Somerset run out I know that a warning was issued previously which is the "sporting" thing to do. Basically a get back in your box type action where the batsmen is made aware of the fact the fielding team know hes trying to steal ground.
If this didnt happen as hes simply got him out without any prior warning then IMO is very unsportsmanlike as the batsmen was only marginally over the crease in the assumption that the bowler was going to deliver the ball and as all coaches encourage backing up accordingly.
The umpires will have asked the fielding side if they want to uphold the appeal as Batty was asked with Somerset. They are given the chance then to withdraw it should they opt to do so or uphold is as is the case here.
This is the key point for me. I understand it's the laws of the game but I feel that the "right" thing to do is warn the batsman first and then if he continues trying to steal ground then he's fair game. It still wouldn't sit right with me and it's not something I'd do myself but I'd have more respect for the fielding side.
-
The key thing is if he warned the player 1st, with the Somerset run out I know that a warning was issued previously which is the "sporting" thing to do. Basically a get back in your box type action where the batsmen is made aware of the fact the fielding team know hes trying to steal ground.
If this didnt happen as hes simply got him out without any prior warning then IMO is very unsportsmanlike as the batsmen was only marginally over the crease in the assumption that the bowler was going to deliver the ball and as all coaches encourage backing up accordingly.
No warning
-
Interesting articles
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/604156.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/wctimeline/content/current/story/500463.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's a @*+#'s trick, the law is there to stop the non striker from buggering off 5yds down the pitch before the ball is released, not for someone who is legitimately backing up as all batsmen should do. As mentioned in this case if the bowler continues as normal he wouldn't have been out of his crease anyway.
-
Tend to agree with Tom here
although the laws state its ok its in the spirit to warn them first
I remember the surrey one and that was perfect as warning given but batsmen thought "he won't do it" so carried on and was run out but surrey were still booed off if remember
cricket is going the way of other sports now though so gentlmenly conduct will slowly phase out and it will become more like football, it already is with some of the sledging and behaviour
just sit back and remember the good old days
-
With the bat in your left hand, you can get atleast a metre outside the crease & atleast another metre or 2 after the ball is released (legitimately) - why try & be cheeky by taking advantage in the name of spirit ??
If anything unfair in the whole event, it's started by the non-striker by being greedy & you can't obviously expect the bowler to see the opposition taking undue advantage each time. Having said that,warning the batsman once makes total sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Cheeky as hell by the bowler, but according to the laws of the game he's done nothing wrong, it's out. Dozy by the batsman mind, he's watching the bowler all the way and not twigged. Don't see what delivery stride or not has to do with it.
-
With the bat in your left hand, you can get atleast a metre outside the crease & atleast another metre or 2 after the ball is released (legitimately) - why try & be cheeky by taking advantage in the name of spirit ??
If anything unfair in the whole event, it's started by the non-striker by being greedy & you can't obviously expect the bowler to see the opposition taking undue advantage each time. Having said that,warning the batsman once makes total sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seriously?? ??? Have you watched the incident?? The bowler had no intention of bowling a legitimate delivery. The poor lad was out by less than an inch.. that isnt gaining an advantage because if you watch it you will see that if the bowler had bowled a legitimate delivery then the non striker would have only just left his crease.
Simples... ;)
-
Cheeky as hell by the bowler, but according to the laws of the game he's done nothing wrong, it's out. Dozy by the batsman mind, he's watching the bowler all the way and not twigged. Don't see what delivery stride or not has to do with it.
You have hit the nail on the head... The non striker did watch the bowler and set off when he expected the bowler to be in his delivery stride. Take another look and you will see the bowler had no intention of bowling a legitimate delivery. How can that be according to the rules of the game? Surely the rule is that on each ball you should endeavour to "bowl an overarm delivery" at the facing batsman... from behind the popping crease...
-
Damn !! My bad. Totally forgot to mention 'Mankad in general'.
Couldn't find the video on YouTube. Any help with the link ?? Havent quite seen it yet - jus the image posted on here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Agree that it's terrible sportsmanship, since on this occasion it wasn't as if the batsman was blatantly stealing a yard (I know there have been other incidents when that's not been the case) and he wasn't warned. The law seems like an ass on this one, since I think they do say that the bowler mustn't be into his action before taking the bails off, so it acts like an incentive to do what the bowler's done here, namely to run in with the sole intention of mankading him. As a few have said, if he'd run in as if to bowl, the bat would probably have been behind the line.
-
& my last post - more than In general had to do with a match last Sunday where I was fielding at short mid wicket & a thick skinned non striker tried his best in testing our patience. Had showed him & the umpire the whole routine which I typed in the post so was fresh.
& in the same match, while taking a second run in order to avoid the returning bowler,I slipped & fell and the opp captain ran me out [emoji29][emoji24]
Funnily, the keeper did not want to take the bails off but his captain snatched the ball off his gloves &
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
& my last post - more than In general had to do with a match last Sunday where I was fielding at short mid wicket & a thick skinned non striker tried his best in testing our patience. Had showed him & the umpire the whole routine which I typed in the post so was fresh.
& in the same match, while taking a second run in order to avoid the returning bowler,I slipped & fell and the opp captain ran me out [emoji29][emoji24]
Funnily, the keeper did not want to take the bails off but his captain snatched the ball off his gloves &
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry Gaurav... Your comments make sense now. Pretty sure when you see it in "real time" then you will understand where most people are coming from :)
With regards your recent match... that is a 50/50 for me. If i had genuinely seen you slip avoiding the bowler then I personally would not have run you out... however I still walk when i nick it....
-
Mankad is fair game. If you guys don't like batsmen getting out for being out of the crease, why be ok with stumpings? Maybe the keeper should give a warning on the first stumping chance!
And what about stumping cases where the batsman accidentally lifts his foot trying to hit the ball? Or just slides it forward an inch unintentionally? How are those stumping cases any different from a mankad?
-
Please note, I am not sticking up for either side, just stating the facts...
Worth a read gents,
http://www.cricketcountry.com/news/mcc-world-cricket-committee-refuses-to-change-mankading-law-159578 (http://www.cricketcountry.com/news/mcc-world-cricket-committee-refuses-to-change-mankading-law-159578)
-
lots of different opinions on this type of thing for and against,and that's how it should be on a forum, I just hope those who think this is acceptable on a cricket field without any sort of warning have no influence whatsoever or involvement in junior cricket or passing on your 'knowledge of the game' to anyone younger.
'spirit of the game' can only be upheld by those actually playing it.
:)
-
Mankad is fair game. If you guys don't like batsmen getting out for being out of the crease, why be ok with stumpings? Maybe the keeper should give a warning on the first stumping chance!
And what about stumping cases where the batsman accidentally lifts his foot trying to hit the ball? Or just slides it forward an inch unintentionally? How are those stumping cases any different from a mankad?
Have you watched the incident?? I dont see the relevance of your questions... Bottom line is that the bowler made no attempt to bowl a legitimate delivery. You are talking about a situation ( a stumping) where the ball has left the bowlers hand trying to bowl a legitimate delivery.
If you think his actions where acceptable then I suppose you wouldnt have a problem when a batting side needs 2 to win with fading light and all the bowler does for the next 20 mins is try and run the non striking batsman out until the game gets called off for bad light :)
-
lots of different opinions on this type of thing for and against,and that's how it should be on a forum, I just hope those who think this is acceptable on a cricket field without any sort of warning have no influence whatsoever or involvement in junior cricket or passing on your 'knowledge of the game' to anyone younger.
'spirit of the game' can only be upheld by those actually playing it.
:)
There will always be those who cheat to gain advantage or take advantage of a grey area in the law BUT if we let those people become the "norm" then the beautiful game of cricket goes the way of football... >:(
-
There will always be those who cheat to gain advantage or take advantage of a grey area in the law BUT if we let those people become the "norm" then the beautiful game of cricket goes the way of football... >:(
exactly right.
:)
-
exactly right.
:)
I saw the video...my question is, why can batsmen not stay in their crease till the ball is released??
Again, I bring the stumping analogy - a batsman swings hard, and just barely drags his foot out for a second, and that too by a few mm, such that his is ON the line, as opposed to behind it. He is not trying to pinch a run, yet the keeper whips the bails off and stumps him. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT??
I think its MORE unfair that batsmen get to leave the crease before the ball is released, because that increases their chances of making a quick single.
-
I have just been reading this with interest. What I find difficult to understand is the difference between pinching an inch and pinching a yard whilst backing up - you are either seeking to gain an unfair advantage or you are not.
However, I personally agree that there should always be a 'team' warning and then anything done after that is fair enough. Perhaps it would be more interesting if there were some forfeit for the bowler if he tried to execute a Mankad by removing the bails but the batsman is actually still in? A no ball is registered perhaps with a free hit to follow? This would make bowlers think more carefully if the batsman is genuinely just backing up as normal.
-
I saw the video...my question is, why can batsmen not stay in their crease till the ball is released??
With this (and how marginally out the crease the batsman was) a few have mentioned the batsman would have been well within the crease as the bowler bowled had the bowler not slowed down to break the stumps.
Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk
-
Time to ramp up the controversy and go Donald Trump on all you guys ;)
I will claim, that the "spirit of the game" has never really existed! WG Grace was a cheat and yet his portraits are everywhere, nobody ever walks consistently (yes, Gilly did it once), bowlers still appeal for LBW when they know the batsman has hit the ball, keepers wait//hope for batsmen to overbalance so they can whip the bails off, even "nice" teams (like NZ) engage in calculated "mental assaults" (like Stephen Flemming vs Graeme Smith in one of the world cups...I think), fast bowlers have often genuinely tried to hurt batsmen, etc etc.
So either we attack all of the above with equal fervor, or just lump Mankad in there and move on to splurging on new bats.
-
I don't understand why this is a big issue, the batsman at the non strikers end was deliberately (or not) flaunting the laws of the game and yet it is the bowler who is penalised on some "spirit of the game" technicality.
This is no different to a batsman missing a straight ball and being bowled.
what a lot of tosh gets written in this space.
Ha Buzz what a load of tosh
You must be kidding yourself if you think that's all above board, put yourself in that batsmens position. I reckon you'd soon change your mind
-
Time to ramp up the controversy and go Donald Trump on all you guys ;)
I will claim, that the "spirit of the game" has never really existed! WG Grace was a cheat and yet his portraits are everywhere, nobody ever walks consistently (yes, Gilly did it once), bowlers still appeal for LBW when they know the batsman has hit the ball, keepers wait//hope for batsmen to overbalance so they can whip the bails off, even "nice" teams (like NZ) engage in calculated "mental assaults" (like Stephen Flemming vs Graeme Smith in one of the world cups...I think), fast bowlers have often genuinely tried to hurt batsmen, etc etc.
So either we attack all of the above with equal fervor, or just lump Mankad in there and move on to splurging on new bats.
Agreed! Especially with the splurging on new bats part...
-
Time to ramp up the controversy and go Donald Trump on all you guys ;)
I will claim, that the "spirit of the game" has never really existed! WG Grace was a cheat and yet his portraits are everywhere, nobody ever walks consistently (yes, Gilly did it once), bowlers still appeal for LBW when they know the batsman has hit the ball, keepers wait//hope for batsmen to overbalance so they can whip the bails off, even "nice" teams (like NZ) engage in calculated "mental assaults" (like Stephen Flemming vs Graeme Smith in one of the world cups...I think), fast bowlers have often genuinely tried to hurt batsmen, etc etc.
So either we attack all of the above with equal fervor, or just lump Mankad in there and move on to splurging on new bats.
No one is saying how to play the game, walk/don't walk/sledge/don't sledge/clap an oppo ton or give them the finger. No one cares what you do just don't influence others,especially youngsters to follow you're lead.
And yes sledging and cheating has gone on for years and years. Back to W G Grace indeed
-
I saw the video...my question is, why can batsmen not stay in their crease till the ball is released??
Again, I bring the stumping analogy - a batsman swings hard, and just barely drags his foot out for a second, and that too by a few mm, such that his is ON the line, as opposed to behind it. He is not trying to pinch a run, yet the keeper whips the bails off and stumps him. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT??
I think its MORE unfair that batsmen get to leave the crease before the ball is released, because that increases their chances of making a quick single.
"HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?" (!)(!)
It is different because the bowler has bowled a legal delivery that has beaten the batsman, the batsman has lost his balance and the WK is A) good enough to take the ball and B) fast enough to beat the batsman. Two totally different scenarios. One is skill the other is just cheap. If a batsman is stealing yards then fair enough, this guy was backing up as all non strikers should, he actually wasnt even over the line, he was on it!!
So Im assuming youre also OK with appealing when the batsman picks the ball up (even if it isnt moving but still live) and passes it to a fielder. By your view on the above, that is exactly the same as Mankading.
-
Mankad is fair game. If you guys don't like batsmen getting out for being out of the crease, why be ok with stumpings? Maybe the keeper should give a warning on the first stumping chance!
And what about stumping cases where the batsman accidentally lifts his foot trying to hit the ball? Or just slides it forward an inch unintentionally? How are those stumping cases any different from a mankad?
I love this suggestion - you can't be out stumped without a warning - this is brilliant. :D
-
Time to ramp up the controversy and go Donald Trump on all you guys ;)
I will claim, that the "spirit of the game" has never really existed! WG Grace was a cheat and yet his portraits are everywhere, nobody ever walks consistently (yes, Gilly did it once), bowlers still appeal for LBW when they know the batsman has hit the ball, keepers wait//hope for batsmen to overbalance so they can whip the bails off, even "nice" teams (like NZ) engage in calculated "mental assaults" (like Stephen Flemming vs Graeme Smith in one of the world cups...I think), fast bowlers have often genuinely tried to hurt batsmen, etc etc.
So either we attack all of the above with equal fervor, or just lump Mankad in there and move on to splurging on new bats.
Agreed!
-
@brokenbat your mentions on being stumped and comparing the 2 arent in the slightest bit comparable.
Its like kicking the ball out for a throw in in football if a player is down injured, the sportmanlike and widely accepted thing to do upon restarting the game is to kick it back to the opposition who have put it out for a throw in. All hell breaks loose if a team doesn't obey this and goes onto score from it.
Having just seen a video where the Windies players celebrate like they've won the whole comp it clear they view winning far more importantly that their reputation as to how they got there.
Just look at the comments from Pro players on social media to see how its viewed by the cricket players.
-
ive scoured the net long and hard today and the only social media comment defending what happened is Tino Best from the West Indies and a loose cannon
-
by a Pro player I meant to add
-
"HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?" (!)(!)
It is different because the bowler has bowled a legal delivery that has beaten the batsman, the batsman has lost his balance and the WK is A) good enough to take the ball and B) fast enough to beat the batsman. Two totally different scenarios. One is skill the other is just cheap. If a batsman is stealing yards then fair enough, this guy was backing up as all non strikers should, he actually wasnt even over the line, he was on it!!
So Im assuming youre also OK with appealing when the batsman picks the ball up (even if it isnt moving but still live) and passes it to a fielder. By your view on the above, that is exactly the same as Mankading.
Ok...so "stealing yards" is too much, but stealing an inch is not? Where does one draw the line, especially given the fact that with today's technology an inch can make a huge difference (and yes, thats what she said too). Back in the day, close runout were given not out, but today...that extra inch is make or break. So...the batsman has to stay behind the line till the ball is released. Simple.
-
Ok...so "stealing yards" is too much, but stealing an inch is not? Where does one draw the line, especially given the fact that with today's technology an inch can make a huge difference (and yes, thats what she said too). Back in the day, close runout were given not out, but today...that extra inch is make or break. So...the batsman has to stay behind the line till the ball is released. Simple.
Your point fails on so many levels...
Firstly - you compared it to a stumping which most of my answer was based on, but i think you've realised your mistake and not mentioned it in this last post as they are nothing like each other
Secondly - The batsman may well have thought he was in the crease (bearing in mind he was on the line), if he was trying to steal the width of the white line, he has superhuman timing.
One draws the line on intent - there was clearly no intent to steal an unfair advantage - if the bowler was to run through his action at normal pace he would more than likely have still been in his crease (especially the with the tiny margins we are talking)
-
broken bat read this please............ If the bowler in the incident had gone thru his action at normal pace the batsman would of still been in his crease.........do you agree with this statement or would he still of been out of his crease?
:)
-
Gents, the rule is the rule! If you're dozy enough as a batsman to get caught out of your crease, then you haven't got anywhere to look but at yourself. Not to be applauded maybe, but don't get angry at a player for playing to the rules. That's what the rules are there for after all.
Also, seriously what does him not going through his action have to do with it? If you see the bowler slowing down and not bowling, you don't head on off out of your crease, you stop. The bowler actually has to slow down and not go through his action in order to mankad, what else is he supposed to do?
-
I don't understand why this is a big issue, the batsman at the non strikers end was deliberately (or not) flaunting the laws of the game and yet it is the bowler who is penalised on some "spirit of the game" technicality.
This is no different to a batsman missing a straight ball and being bowled.
what a lot of tosh gets written in this space.
100% agree. Tbh, the new rules are too batsmen friendly anyway.. Simple rule should be don't leave your ground until the bowler actually bowls the ball..
This is a batsmen trying to steal yards at the end of the day so fair play bowler
-
Reading a lot of utter crap about how it's ok to 'back up'.. Sure back up but DONT leave your crease before the ball leaves the hand.. If you do, you are trying to steal a heard for the 'quick' single and so should pay the price.. Otherwise, there is no risk and batsmen will charge down headlong (we've all done it but it doesn't mean it's right).
Fair play to the bower IMO and as yiu all know I'm about as fair as they come on the field. I hate seeing the modern trend of backing up well out a crease so anything to stop it is good.
-
This one is totally different to the Somerset one tho as the bowler doesn't even get close or near to a delivery stride.
http://youtu.be/N-ySwfJOzOg (http://youtu.be/N-ySwfJOzOg)
The bowler had no intention of bowling the ball here and as such the batsmen was going through his usual routine.
I think it comes down to people's views on it, personally I'd never dream of doing it to a batsmen as a form of dismissal as that's not who I am as a person. As the captain I'd of withdrawn the appeal to avoid the awkward situation and the batsmen would have learnt his lesson.
Personally I think with the current state of WI cricket this does nothing to help!
-
This one is totally different to the Somerset one tho as the bowler doesn't even get close or near to a delivery stride.
[url]http://youtu.be/N-ySwfJOzOg[/url] ([url]http://youtu.be/N-ySwfJOzOg[/url])
The bowler had no intention of bowling the ball here and as such the batsmen was going through his usual routine.
I think it comes down to people's views on it, personally I'd never dream of doing it to a batsmen as a form of dismissal as that's not who I am as a person. As the captain I'd of withdrawn the appeal to avoid the awkward situation and the batsmen would have learnt his lesson.
Personally I think with the current state of WI cricket this does nothing to help!
I'm very nice and in no way generally engage in sledging etc, however, I would mankad someone and actively do IF I feel they leave their ground, even an inch. At the end of the day they are stealing distance which could make the difference so if you're willing to do that then you deserve to be run out. If the bowler hasn't seen it and I'm at mid on I'll tell him so that he trotts in and is knowingly going to stop.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like it but I dislike batters stealing yards more
-
(Not with respect to this incident)
Seriously, this 'non-striker should back-up' sounds so annoying !! Why should he when there's a law against it ?? & if the bowler stops the batsman from breaking a rule, he's termed a cheat ?! Really ?!
Those who support the batsman backing up before the ball is released, once just state why
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
(Not with respect to this incident)
Seriously, this 'non-striker should back-up' sounds so annoying !! Why should he when there's a law against it ?? & if the bowler stops the batsman from breaking a rule, he's termed a cheat ?! Really ?!
Those who support the batsman backing up before the ball is released, once just state why
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly! You're not supposed to leave the crease before the ball is released. Period. If you do, you gain an unfair advantage.
-
Just like the bowler has to have some part behind the crease, it's only fair that the batsman too has to.
This was a bizarre incident though & the third umpire should've checked the bowler's action properly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
People need to understand what backing up is!
Backing up is not "stealing yards" but getting on the move so you're ready to go if called through for a quick one.
The incident in question the guy was on the line, surely you don't think he was trying to "steal" 1cm, maybe 2cm?? This is a poor state of affairs. The rule needs to be there to stop batsman taking the p*ss, but this was just a extremely weak way of finishing the game.
I honestly cant see how people can condone todays incident. This is a great game, it doesn't need to be cheapened by such actions. The response by most of the pro's says it all. Well its within the rules etc etc its within the rules.... all I can think is there are a lot of Traffic wardens commenting on this particular thread! :D
-
People need to understand what backing up is!
Backing up is not "stealing yards" but getting on the move so you're ready to go if called through for a quick one.
The incident in question the guy was on the line, surely you don't think he was trying to "steal" 1cm, maybe 2cm?? This is a poor state of affairs. The rule needs to be there to stop batsman taking the p*ss, but this was just a extremely weak way of finishing the game.
I honestly cant see how people can condone todays incident. This is a great game, it doesn't need to be cheapened by such actions. The response by most of the pro's says it all. Well its within the rules etc etc its within the rules.... all I can think is there are a lot of Traffic wardens commenting on this particular thread! :D
Lets go with this.. If the guy were to go for a quick single and then be found "on the line" while trying to complete the run, would he be out? Yes, he would. In this day and age 1 or 2 cm can make all the difference between out and not out, and so stealing that extra cm DOES have a material impact. What you are referring to, was true in an age where umpires would only give someone out if he was well short of his crease, but that doesn't apply anymore.
I agree that this would be a heartbreaking way to lose, and if I were the guy getting out, I'd be gutted, BUT I wouldn't feel like the other team was cheating or breaking the spirit of the game.
-
presuming you cannot 'steal' anything by accident, the batsman here would of been in his crease had the bowler completed his bowling action, the fact that he didn't made the batsman out of time with the bowler and over the crease by about 1 CM.
the only way he could 'steal' advantage was by knowing the bowler was going to mankad him in advance and there fore change his movements to be over the line by 1 CM
some comments on here beggar belief
-
Well said @ppccopener
its all about intention...
The batsman was not trying to steal any ground (surely everyone agrees with that, infact you have to, if the bowler carried on through his action at full speed he would have been in his crease on the point of delivery so theres no argument there....surely(?)(!))
The bowler was looking for that, it wasn't a reactive measure. Now because the bowler was looking for it to end the game, to me, makes it a lot worse. If he was looking for it to warn him then fair enough, but there was an intention to finish the game in that way. And that to me and many many many others is just plain wrong.
-
Well said @ppccopener
its all about intention...
The batsman was not trying to steal any ground (surely everyone agrees with that, infact you have to, if the bowler carried on through his action at full speed he would have been in his crease on the point of delivery so theres no argument there....surely(?)(!))
The bowler was looking for that, it wasn't a reactive measure. Now because the bowler was looking for it to end the game, to me, makes it a lot worse. If he was looking for it to warn him then fair enough, but there was an intention to finish the game in that way. And that to me and many many many others is just plain wrong.
Trouble with intention is you can't prove it so yiu can't have that in the laws, needs to be black and white.
1cm is 1cm, stay in your crease . Of course the bowler was looking for it, and anyone doing it is. Batsmen need to react to each n in, not just assume it's going to be normal pace.
-
common sense should have prevailed and umpires stepped in to sort the situation
Unfortunately not, and it seems plenty on here also lack common sense.
-
I think the ICC need to sort this asap. My suggestion would be to abolish the rule that can leave such a sour taste in the mouth and leave it up to the umpires. If they feel the batsman is gaining an unfair advantage they will in first instance warn them and in second instance deduct the batting side 5 runs. Lets not forget that a batsman runs the risk of being run out after the facing batsman hits a straight drive and the bowler gets a finger nail on it (which we seem to see more and more of).
I dont think the reaction of the WI team has helped the situation either. It's a spineless way of winning a game of cricket.
-
common sense should have prevailed and umpires stepped in to sort the situation
Unfortunately not, and it seems plenty on here also lack common sense.
Where is the common sense to not walk when you nick it?
Claim a catch when you know it's not?
Appeal for a lbw 'just in case'
Appeal for an lbw 'you never know'
Appeal for an lbw from fully when you have no idea if it's close ?
Sledging ?
Leaving your crease before the ball is bowled?
Intentionally getting between ball and stumps when running ? (Yes there is now a law but we all know no one applies it 99.9% of the time)
All acts that are against the spirit of the game so when I see most of the people moaning about this stop doing this I'll support no mankadi g
-
I think the ICC need to sort this asap. My suggestion would be to abolish the rule that can leave such a sour taste in the mouth and leave it up to the umpires. If they feel the batsman is gaining an unfair advantage they will in first instance warn them and in second instance deduct the batting side 5 runs. Lets not forget that a batsman runs the risk of being run out after the facing batsman hits a straight drive and the bowler gets a finger nail on it (which we seem to see more and more of).
I dont think the reaction of the WI team has helped the situation either. It's a spineless way of winning a game of cricket.
No more spineless than sledging ?
No more spineless than stealing runs through the game to win?
All acts are spineless unless you believe it's acceptable (like people believe sledging is, or appealing every time it hits pads, or not walking. When nicking it etc)
-
Can you honestly tell me you would be happy if your team went through to a final like that?
Infact, would you do it? would you be the guy who mankad-ed someone? if not, surely youre being hypocritical?
-
Where is the common sense to not walk when you nick it?
Claim a catch when you know it's not?
Appeal for a lbw 'just in case'
Appeal for an lbw 'you never know'
Appeal for an lbw from fully when you have no idea if it's close ?
Sledging ?
Leaving your crease before the ball is bowled?
Intentionally getting between ball and stumps when running ? (Yes there is now a law but we all know no one applies it 99.9% of the time)
All acts that are against the spirit of the game so when I see most of the people moaning about this stop doing this I'll support no mankadi g
people need to respond this point raised by @ProCricketer1982 or stop talking about the issue. I would fully support someone who complains about all of the above AND mankadding, but people here seem to be perfectly fine with everything else. which, is inconsistent.
-
Can you honestly tell me you would be happy if your team went through to a final like that?
Infact, would you do it? would you be the guy who mankad-ed someone? if not, surely youre being hypocritical?
Have I ever done it? No
Have I warned someone? Yes
Do I watch the batsmen and tell the bowlers if they leave their ground?? Yes, because it could be the difference in a run out or all through the game and the team gains 20/30 runs maybe..
Would I be happy mankading?? Yes if they leave their ground they are stealing runs. Umpires as well intentioned as they are, are useless and we all know they do nothing to stop sledging, stealing mm,cm or m's.. So there is no point crying about how they should control things etc. It needs a law and that law needs to be black and white..
Aka, do not leave your ground until the ball has left the hand. Anything else and you are in fact cheating
-
people need to respond this point raised by @ProCricketer1982 or stop talking about the issue. I would fully support someone who complains about all of the above AND mankadding, but people here seem to be perfectly fine with everything else. which, is inconsistent.
Who are you the forum police? pro can say and respond to whatever he likes,so can the rest of us within forum rules-and no rules have been broken
Ill tell you and everyone else the worst thing about this...this will harm west indies cricket when its on its knees already...
They will look back and regret this.
Remember paul collingwood and the collision run out in the one dayers with elliot? The umps asked him 5 times to withdraw the appeal.i was screaming at the telly to cancel it.he didnt..
-
people need to respond this point raised by @ProCricketer1982 or stop talking about the issue. I would fully support someone who complains about all of the above AND mankadding, but people here seem to be perfectly fine with everything else. which, is inconsistent.
"Or stop talking about the issue" of mankadding in a thread titled 'mankad strikes again'........ brilliant! haha. That theory certainly explains some of your arguments.
You're assuming, Im happy with all the other points, which I'm not.
If someone nicks it and doesnt walk its wrong in my opinion
Noone should claim a catch when you know its not out - thats cheating.
With regards to all of the appeals.... thats what you pay umpires for.
Sledging - so long as its not personal and/or brings the game into disrepute a funny comment here or there can be shared by both teams- but if you give it, you have to be prepared to get a load back
Leaving your crease before the ball is bowled is what this entire thread is about - if youre doing it INTENTIONALLY to gain an unfair advantage then its wrong
The law will get much more strict as time goes on re: getting in the way of an incoming throw.
Right now I have answered all of your questions Mr Brokenbat man, am I/the rest of the thread allowed to continue to express my/our views on mankadding on a thread titled Mankad strikes again.
Best regards
-
Have I ever done it? No
Have I warned someone? Yes
Do I watch the batsmen and tell the bowlers if they leave their ground?? Yes, because it could be the difference in a run out or all through the game and the team gains 20/30 runs maybe..
Would I be happy mankading?? Yes if they leave their ground they are stealing runs. Umpires as well intentioned as they are, are useless and we all know they do nothing to stop sledging, stealing mm,cm or m's.. So there is no point crying about how they should control things etc. It needs a law and that law needs to be black and white..
Aka, do not leave your ground until the ball has left the hand. Anything else and you are in fact cheating
So why did you warn them first? - surely "its in the rules!" So by that admission you must agree that today was wrong....or you didnt feel the gain the batsman "stole" when you were bowling wasnt enough, but todays was....all 1cm of it.
-
I think the ICC need to sort this asap. My suggestion would be to abolish the rule that can leave such a sour taste in the mouth and leave it up to the umpires. If they feel the batsman is gaining an unfair advantage they will in first instance warn them and in second instance deduct the batting side 5 runs.
Ha! You think the umpires would ever do that? Balls get changed because the 'condition of the ball has changed unnaturally' all the time, how often do the 5 penalty runs get used for that? The last time I can think of caused a forfeited test's worth of controversy! The rule works as it is, people just get whiny about it when it gets used.
-
Remember paul collingwood and the collision run out in the one dayers with elliot? The umps asked him 5 times to withdraw the appeal.i was screaming at the telly to cancel it.he didnt..
Everyone can have an opinion, hopefully we don't all agree or it would be very boring :)
Anyway, England didn't suffer.. Giles Clarke still lords it.. Kp is still apparently not the right kind of good lad and buttler is still the saviour.. Oh no, is that hales?? Oh wait.. Stokes is the next kallis reincarnated ..
-
OK, laugh at my suggestion but offer none of your own - cracking contribution
'The rule works as it is' - that would be the suggestion, calm and read carefully ;) I don't see any problem with the current rule, it's entirely the batsman's problem.
-
Clearly the rule doesnt work otherwise there wouldnt be such an uproar about it.
The rule maybe clear, and not often called upon, that doesnt mean it works.
-
'The rule works as it is' - that would be the suggestion, calm and read carefully ;) I don't see any problem with the current rule, it's entirely the batsman's problem.
Thats why I deleted it , I missed the part which is why I deleted it,calm and ensure the post is still there when replying ;) .
-
So why did you warn them first? - surely "its in the rules!" So by that admission you must agree that today was wrong....or you didnt feel the gain the batsman "stole" when you were bowling wasnt enough, but todays was....all 1cm of it.
I warn them cause I'm a good egg BUt I don't think you have too.. No one warns me when they appeal for lbw when I've hit it.. Or appeal lbw every time it hits the pads even though it's not out (although board umpires give them because they get pressurised), no one warns me when they shy at my stumps when I'm in it and it hits me.. No, because to accepted for some reason as 'part of the game'.. Hell, no one warns me when they start abusing me non stop and even when you point it out to an umpire it's ignored. (Considering I don't say a word to the Oppos so there is no excuse to sledge me - not that it works but I don't like the practise )
When all these aspects are challenged then I'll agree . Again, don't leave your ground until you are sure the ball has been bowled.. If you take the risk by not concentrating then you deserve to be run out
-
it was a (No Swearing Please) trick plain and simple and the way they went about celebrating was a piss take.
If you cant play fair (No Swearing Please) off
dogshit cricket at the highest order agree with you my Boatman mate
I play to win but that was crap
-
I warn them cause I'm a good egg BUt I don't think you have too.. No one warns me when they appeal for lbw when I've hit it.. Or appeal lbw every time it hits the pads even though it's not out (although board umpires give them because they get pressurised), no one warns me when they shy at my stumps when I'm in it and it hits me.. No, because to accepted for some reason as 'part of the game'.. Hell, no one warns me when they start abusing me non stop and even when you point it out to an umpire it's ignored.
When all these aspects are challenged then I'll agree . Again, don't leave your ground until you are sure the ball has been bowled.. If you take the risk by not concentrating then you deserve to be run out
I find it very hard to believe that someone would abuse you... :o
-
I find it very hard to believe that someone would abuse you... :o
Course they do, and I never speak to opposition players so they have no reason other than going. Against the spirit of th game.
Again, anyone saying they are against this has to also be against the other spirit of cricket practises or they are being inconsistent
-
it was a (No Swearing Please) trick plain and simple and the way they went about celebrating was a piss take.
If you cant play fair (No Swearing Please) off
dogshit cricket at the highest order agree with you my Boatman mate
I play to win but that was crap
You can play to win just as hard and competitive without mankading, stealing even a mm, sledging, appealing when you know it's not out, walking for nicks/run outs (99% of people know when they are run out if they are honest) etc
Alas, we all know that people will cheat or play against the spirit to suit their own ends
-
I would refuse to play for that team again the way they celebrated with a joke.
They will reap what they saw very poor.
I do not walk never have and if somebody gives me a word he will receive it back.
This though is (No Swearing Please) it the way they went about celebrating.
-
I would refuse to play for that team again the way they celebrated with a joke.
They will reap what they saw very poor.
I do not walk never have and if somebody gives me a word he will receive it back.
This though is (No Swearing Please) it the way they went about celebrating.
There in lays the problem, on a personal level you regard mankading as poor sportsmanship but are willing not to walk even thigh you know you are out. To me, you can't on the one hand protest but with the other sneak the system.
'We' as a game either play fair or you don't, there is no middle ground because that non walk could ruin someone's game, could change a game etc
-
I must be a soft touch. I walk if I've hit it, would never dream of claiming a catch that had bounced, can't see the need in sledging and think Mankading is totally out of order. But at the same time if the oppo don't walk etc. I don't whinge or complain, it's their decision if they want to play in those morally grey areas but I won't confront them over it. I always play to win but first and foremost I play because I enjoy it, don't need the aggro, it's only a game of cricket for us amateurs.
That being said, pros set an example to young uns and it doesn't sit well with me when things like this happen.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
-
I must be a soft touch. I walk if I've hit it, would never dream of claiming a catch that had bounced, can't see the need in sledging and think Mankading is totally out of order. But at the same time if the oppo don't walk etc. I don't whinge or complain, it's their decision if they want to play in those morally grey areas but I won't confront them over it. I always play to win but first and foremost I play because I enjoy it, don't need the aggro, it's only a game of cricket for us amateurs.
That being said, pros set an example to young uns and it doesn't sit well with me when things like this happen.
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Totally respect this. You are the first person here to be totally consistent about the "spirit" of the game.
-
Totally respect this. You are the first person here to be totally consistent about the "spirit" of the game.
I've found my fault, mankading.. It's the only thing I think is acceptable out of all the 'gamesmanship'
-
I've found my fault, mankading.. It's the only thing I think is acceptable out of all the 'gamesmanship'
huh? to be clear, I'm on your side :)
-
huh? to be clear, I'm on your side :)
Sorry, I was just saying that I don't sledge, I walk, I don't appeal for lbw unless it's plumb (and I don't join in in the field as I can't see) and I don't speak to Oppos because, well, I have no interest in them.
Mankading was the one difference in all that, I was just saying it to show I doubt many at all play 'fair'.
99% want others to play fair but want to be dodgy themselves when it suits.. All to win
-
If an umpire is there, it's his job to make the decision not my job to walk, he's paid to make decisions, I'm there for my enjoyment. And if the keeper or anyone fancies saying something, then so be it! I'll get over it!
Mankadding is wrong whatever way you look at it
-
The worst part was the west indies team celebrating and acting like prats. The legends must be embarrassed!
They should have the warning in the rules and get rid of these grey areas in cricket. Buttler got run out like that in a ODI a couple of years ago and I had no problems with it. He got warned and continued taking the piss by backing up way too far and stealing runs!
-
If an umpire is there, it's his job to make the decision not my job to walk, he's paid to make decisions, I'm there for my enjoyment. And if the keeper or anyone fancies saying something, then so be it! I'll get over it!
Mankadding is wrong whatever way you look at it
Exactly this is why mankading is perfectly valid. If he wasn't stealing yards by leaving his crease he'd be not out.. He was out his ground so he's out.m
As or your enjoyment, that's the problem with the game. If we all do that the game will be poorer as you probably ruin other peoples games with abuse, appealing and not walking. Personally if I know I was out then it doesn't feel like I deserve it, some as you show don't care and winning st all costs matters most
-
The worst part was the west indies team celebrating and acting like prats. The legends must be embarrassed!
They should have the warning in the rules and get rid of these grey areas in cricket. Buttler got run out like that in a ODI a couple of years ago and I had no problems with it. He got warned and continued taking the piss by backing up way too far and stealing runs!
Why do they deserve a warning ?? Do I get a warning that the non walkers won't walk?
-
I'm just depressed that this topic has reached 7 pages, sad times :(
-
I'm just depressed that this topic has reached 7 pages, sad times :(
It's only 7pages as procricket19823344444 has replied to everyone personally that dares to disagree with him.
-
I'm just depressed that this topic has reached 7 pages, sad times :(
I don't have a problem with a discussion racing to 7 pages if it's constructive, but the fact this has been almost exclusively "I'm right because my opinion is more valid than yours" is the depressing bit...
-
Why should I walk when an umpire is paid to make a decision, if I nicked it to second slip then I would walk, but if there was half a doubt in my mind then I'm gonna stand my ground! I don't have someone come and do my job as a hobby, when me as the paid person isn't helping by not making decisions! That's the role of an umpire
Winning does matter, winning is why we play sport to show that competitive edge that we all have. I don't turn up to play sport and think you know what I think it would be good to lose today!
-
Just for those who haven't seen the video, which I noticed some people hadn't I posted the video link on page 1
-
Those who are agreeing with the act would no doubt be the first to cause havoc if it happened to them or a teammate.
I still say if there was an extra frame in between the two frames shown in replay he might've still been in. The first frame the bails were on, the frame after the bat was on the line and the bails were quite well dislodged if that makes sense. A frame in between would've showed him in anyway I reckon, that's how close he was, stealing that gnat's eyelash for a run.
-
This is part 2 of my Donald Trump statement:
How about we amend the law, such that....wait for it....if the non striker has left the crease before the ball is delivered (i.e. is "stealing" at inch, a yard, whatever it may be), the fielding team can appeal, and the third umpire can deem the non striker out, even if the bowler did not break the bails. This would certainly stop people from abusing the "backing up" argument, and the bowler can just focus on bowling.
-
It wasn't a good look, he didn't appear to be bolting off for a head start so it seems a pretty low act. I agree with B3 about the celebration, was quite sickening. One self righteous poster is so far off mark it's almost funny, no wonder he seems to move around clubs a bit.
-
Where is the common sense to not walk when you nick it?
Claim a catch when you know it's not?
Appeal for a lbw 'just in case'
Appeal for an lbw 'you never know'
Appeal for an lbw from fully when you have no idea if it's close ?
Sledging ?
Leaving your crease before the ball is bowled?
Intentionally getting between ball and stumps when running ? (Yes there is now a law but we all know no one applies it 99.9% of the time)
All acts that are against the spirit of the game so when I see most of the people moaning about this stop doing this I'll support no mankadi g
You're just splitting hairs now and as usual talking (No Swearing Please)
-
So Adrian you said about going up when just in case mate.
So what your saying is only the keeper and bowler go up then because nobody else knows
So have you ever gone up in your life fielding ??? I bet you have but you don't know by your logic
Because let's be honest only the bowler and keeper know by your logic
-
If it's in the laws of cricket then it's in the spirit of the game as far as I'm concerned... Why would the MCC create a rule that's not in the spirit of the game? Doesn't seem logical to me.
If it's not in YOUR spirit of the game then you don't have to attempt it do you
-
Out or not out, WI could have contained their celebrations. They were celebrating as if they pulled a great run out or something ...
-
So Adrian you said about going up when just in case mate.
So what your saying is only the keeper and bowler go up then because nobody else knows
So have you ever gone up in your life fielding ??? I bet you have but you don't know by your logic
Because let's be honest only the bowler and keeper know by your logic
He won't be bothered in the field anyway, he's just there to build up his average with the bat
-
Just watched it and read through all the posts! I got a first ball duck on the W/E and asked if they'd be sports and remember the backyard rule, you can't get out on 1St ball......! Not that I've played for my country but there's a fair bit riding on the result and I'd suggest the issue lay with the batsmen.
As for the under arm delivery, GC's decision did more for cricket in NZ then any of the Black Caps performances or a decade of promoting the game, finally moving it to the back pages ahead of Rugby and League for a time. :)
-
Why should I walk when an umpire is paid to make a decision, if I nicked it to second slip then I would walk, but if there was half a doubt in my mind then I'm gonna stand my ground! I don't have someone come and do my job as a hobby, when me as the paid person isn't helping by not making decisions! That's the role of an umpire
Winning does matter, winning is why we play sport to show that competitive edge that we all have. I don't turn up to play sport and think you know what I think it would be good to lose today!
But what do you do when the umpires are not paid and are team mates, who might not be that experienced at umpiring.
-
But what do you do when the umpires are not paid and are team mates, who might not be that experienced at umpiring.
Let them make the decision, respect it (whether you agree it not) and buy them a pint after the game as a thank you for doing it.
-
Let them make the decision, respect it (whether you agree it not) and buy them a pint after the game as a thank you for doing it.
well said young man
-
In my opinion after watching the video and the their celebrations afterwards, its clear that the Windies were always intending to affect that dismissal as opposed to delivering the ball. I have no problem with Mankanding as long as you can see that the batsman is deliberately legging it to the other end. This act by the Windies U-19 has left a sour taste in my mouth not because of the act, but because of the intent to affect the dismissal and their crass celebration afterwards.
-
Afraid I can't help but see some of the arguments defending it as stupid.
Do people expect the umpire to enforce the batsman doesn't leave the crease until the ball is bowled?
You'd need eyes like Ozil to make sure the bowler doesn't overstep and the batsman doesn't leave the crease at the same time
My personal thought: change the law that if a bowler wants to do it, he must complete his action and not release the ball before breaking the stumps.
Unless I've missed it, I've noticed that anyone defending this mankad hasn't replied to the hypothetical situation:
The batting side need to 5 runs in 10 overs, but light is drawing in. The bowler keeps running up but attempting to mankad before entering his delivery stride for the next 15 minutes until the light gets bad and the game is called a draw.
At amateur level this would be within the laws so perfectly acceptable right? @brokenbat
Only thing I could thing against it would be over rate, which we don't have in our league.
The Windies didn't do this because the batsman was trying to steal a quick single. They did this because they had accepted they had lost the game of skill & ability vs skill & ability and found the lowest winning means available. I don't doubt for a second if the batsman blocked one in that over and picked the ball up and gave it to a fielder WI would've appealed for handled ball.
-
In that case then the umpire would follow the law and award the batting side 5 penalty runs because of the bowler's timewasting?
-
Exactly. Time wasting, unlike running someone out, is against the law. Over rates are even enforced here in the US! So not sure how that "attempted mankad" strategy to waste time would ever work.
I think here is a great summary of all the arguments for, and against. A good read.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-under-19-world-cup-2016/content/story/968649.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-under-19-world-cup-2016/content/story/968649.html)
-
So Adrian you said about going up when just in case mate.
So what your saying is only the keeper and bowler go up then because nobody else knows
So have you ever gone up in your life fielding ??? I bet you have but you don't know by your logic
Because let's be honest only the bowler and keeper know by your logic
You only go up when you think it's out, otherwise your appealing for no reason (or to deliberately put pressure on a umpire). Anyway, I don't believe I've ever appealed for an lbw when fielding because I don't wk so have no idea if it's hitting or not, and as someone said.p, I only care about batting and an average apparently.
Meh, I suspect like most things half will go one way, half the other. You guys believe you're correct and won't entertain the thought you aren't fair players and others will be exactly the same in the opposite direction.
End of the day, everyone here is crap so I suppose to comes down to whether your enjoyment comes from the game or from winning at all costs, unfortunatley you won't find many who play fair and to win at all costs as they don't go hand in hand. It's a moral decision on whether you are willing to bend the spirit in order to think 'yes, I'm better than him' or whether you want to do it by skill as someone said in the u19 wc thread, or if you even give a crap about Oppos or levels and play for enjoyment.
-
"Everyone here is crap"
Are you including yourself in that? You certainly post enough of it at any rate.
I suppose you're the bloke who, after you've given yourself out LBW for a single figure score, tells all your teammates how easy it is and how crap the opposition are...
-
You really are a wilf aren't you?
I play for enjoyment of the game, but there is no point in playing if your not trying to win! It's absolutely pointless to play a sport when you are not aiming to win.
For the amount of LBW I get turned down, I'm still gonna keep appealing even if I'm not 100% it's out, I'm not gonna retract my appeal as I know the opposition wouldn't!
-
I play to win, I play hard, I play because I enjoy the game of cricket... Because I play to win doesn't mean I want to win at all costs, doesn't mean I want to cheat to win, if you haven't noticed the game is actually more enjoyable if you are winning or even if you give it your best to try to win. So your theory of playing for enjoyment or playing to win at all cost is a load of bloody hogwash... Enjoyment of playing and playing to win go hand in hand.
As for appealing in the field it is about supporting your team mates, working as one, as a team.
I suspect you are disillusioned by the game of cricket and maybe it's time to look for an activity where you can find enjoyment again... Knitting or crocheting maybe?
-
For anyone defending this mankad because it's allowed under the laws of cricket. I remember a certain underarm delivery that was within the laws at that time, anyone want to defend that one?
-
It was legal at the time so why not... It was made illegal after that match... Whether it was right or wrong is another argument.
What's the difference with that and body line bowling or as it was called back in the day "leg theory"... Plenty of people still argue to this day that there is/was nothing wrong with it... Including some forum members
-
Another good article on this issue. In particular, I like the great Don's quote: ""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?"
And also a great observation by the (slightly less) great Atherton: "any inch gained, deliberately or not, in a tight run chase is an inch lost to the fielding side and therefore he is fair game. Mankading cannot happen if a batsman is in his ground."
Full article below:
February 7, 2016
Is mankading any worse than sledging? TONY COZIER
Ian Bishop's first reaction when Keemo Paul whipped off the bails with Zimbabwe's No. 11, Richard Ngarva, backing up in last Sunday's decisive Under-19 World Cup match in Bangladesh was: "Oh no!"
As TV umpire Tim Robinson checked the video replay on whether or not the last man's bat was out of his ground, the former West Indies fast bowler, now a globetrotting commentator, added: "It's sad if it ends that way." It did, as Ngarva's bat was shown to be on but not within the crease.
After watching a fascinating, fluctuating match on the other side of the planet, my sentiments corresponded with Bishop's. West Indies required one wicket and Zimbabwe three runs to win for one or the other to move into the quarter-finals.
As Paul started his run, presumably to bowl the first ball of the last over, I found myself mumbling a silent plea that he would end it by knocking back the middle stump of the facing batsman, Kundai Matigimu, much as Alzarri Joseph had spectacularly done with his 140kph pace twice earlier in the innings. Instead, Ngarva offered an easier option and Paul took it.
In a post-match discussion, Bishop's fellow commentators Dominic Cork, Pommie Mbangwa and Alan Wilkins were adamant Paul had breached the spirit of cricket. They would not be persuaded by Bishop's view that Paul's actions hadn't done so any more than sledging did.
Nothing in the game has fuelled an outbreak of strong, contentious views more than chucking and mankading, a term derived from the great Indian allrounder's run-out of Australia's Bill Brown as he backed up in the 1947-48 Test in Sydney. Technology that precisely measures the permitted degree of flex in a bowler's delivery elbow has largely eliminated argument over the former. But no formula has yet been devised to deal with mankading; what comes closest is the suggestion for one mandatory warning to the transgressing batsman.
Inevitably and immediately, Paul's intervention filled the internet and the social, print and broadcast media, with contrasting views, many from past and present players. As with chucking, most of the outraged comments referred to the spirit of cricket preamble to the Laws that are exclusively authored by the MCC.
Among them was former New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming, who condemned the West Indies tactic as "absolutely disgraceful". He apparently forgot his role in an earlier case that challenged the spirit of cricket declaration. In 2006, as Sri Lanka's last man Muttiah Muralitharan strolled down the pitch to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara who had just reached his hundred in the Christchurch Test, he was run out by wicketkeeper Brendon McCullum. I was on the television commentary panel and recall Fleming stating that "the game doesn't stop when a player gets hundred".
"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?" DON BRADMAN
The spirit of cricket preface to the Laws reads: "Cricket is a game that owes much of its appeal to the fact that it should be played not only with the Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains."
The "fact" is that it has been used by teams and players, from WG Grace to the present time, only when expedient, prompting the ICC to introduce its own code of conduct.
The MCC stated its position on the present case in unambiguous language. "It's clear to us. If he's out of his ground, he's out," their spokesman said. "If the batsman had not been out of his crease, there would have been no issue about the spirit of cricket. Obviously this is as small a margin as it gets but that makes no difference. If you're out, you're out. This is not a spirit of cricket issue, it's a laws issue."
It echoed Don Bradman's take on Brown's original mankading. "The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered," he wrote in his autobiography. "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."
A captain of more recent vintage was also strong on the interpretation of the spirit of cricket.
Mike Atherton maintained that "any inch gained, deliberately or not, in a tight run chase is an inch lost to the fielding side and therefore he is fair game. Mankading cannot happen if a batsman is in his ground."
Writing in the Times, he was also scathing of "the nonsensical preamble known as the Spirit of Cricket". He called it "well-meaning guff… that should be scrapped".
"Test cricket is one of the greatest games known to man, but cricket itself is not special because of any moral superiority over other sports, nor should it pretend to be," he added. "Anything that can be invoked as contrary to the game's spirit, when a player is abiding by the laws, must be nonsense. Play to the laws, and you will be playing in the right spirit."
Whether or not the bowler issues a warning to the batsman boils down to personal preference. The most prominent case of a West Indian making such a choice was Courtney Walsh in the final over against Pakistan in Lahore in the 1987 World Cup.
Pakistan needed 14 for victory with the last pair, Abdul Qadir and Saleem Jaffar, remaining. They got to within two runs when Walsh spurned the chance of clinching victory off the last ball by declining to run out non-striker Jaffar, who was a long way down the pitch. Qadir then duly got the required two to third man.
Walsh is presently one of the West Indies selectors. It can only be speculated what he would have told his young charges had he been their coach in Bangladesh.
There can be no question over what Charlie Griffith's response would have been in such circumstances. A fierce, no-nonsense competitor, he had no compassion for dozy batsmen.
He despatched Trinidad and Tobago left-hander Alvin Corneal in a regional match in 1964, and Australia's Ian Redpath in the Adelaide Test of 1968-69. As Australia sought quick runs pursuing 360, Redpath absent-mindedly went walkabout down the pitch when Griffith cut him short. Australia ended 21 short of their goal with nine wickets down.
Predictably, the incident set off a heated debate in the press box, where I was a peripheral participant. Bill O'Reilly, Australia's leading spinner in the 1930s, then writer for the Sydney Morning Herald, supported Griffith. It was put to him that he might have used the tactic at some time in his long career. "Ah, when I was bowling they weren't so anxious to get to the other end," he shot back.
The same could not be said for Paul, although, at 18, he appears to have Griffth's mindset.
Tony Cozier has written about and commentated on cricket in the Caribbean for over 50 years
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
-
That's a serious post for a font done on a phone!
One I'll add to the "don't read later" column.