• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

2016 Under 19 Cricket World Cup

9

91Jmay

International Coach
Ah right I didn't realise it was the start of the last over thought it was the last ball. I'm not a fan of that at all.
 
9

91Jmay

International Coach
Spirit of the game is largely bull****, but I am convinced they should make the bowler be in his delivery stride before they Mankad.
 
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
AndyZaltzHair said:
The non-striker wasn't trying to gain an advantage by taking a head start. The bat was on the line as the bails came off. ]
Click to expand...
these two sentences do not add up.

If he was out of his crease before the bowler is even into his delivery stride he's taking a head start and gaining an advantage.
 
Last edited:
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
91Jmay said:
Spirit of the game is largely bull****, but I am convinced they should make the bowler be in his delivery stride before they Mankad.
Click to expand...
no, that makes it worse.

It's better to be before the delivery stride as that way the bowler can't trick the batsman into leaving his crease. That's why it's illegal to Mankad someone once you've started actually delivering the ball.

In any case, if he's left his crease before the bowler is even in his delivery stride, how on earth can he complain?
 
Last edited:
9

91Jmay

International Coach
I don't mind Mankading in general (Buttler's for example was absolutely fair) but this one clearly was a last throw of the dice to try and win the game. The kid was a few mms outside of his crease so no way bowler knew he was gaining massive advantage.

I don't think Paul is a disgrace or anything, but that one is pretty clearly cheap.
 
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
For people saying it's fair enough as it is within rules, was under arm also fine as it was within rules at the time? Heh.
 
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Pratters said:
For people saying it's fair enough as it is within rules, was under arm also fine as it was within rules at the time? Heh.
Click to expand...
They don't really relate.

It's fair enough because it's not a loophole in the rules. It's there to prevent batsmen taking an advantage. An alternative would be umpires signalling one short every time a batsman does it but that would involve the cameraman checking the batsman on every single delivery.
A stumping is unintentional doofiness. Sure it sometimes involves skill on the bowlers part but not always.
A run out is always from a mistake by a batsman.

Bowling an underarm delivery means that 6 runs cannot be scored no matter how skilful the batsman or how poor the delivery. It involves no attempt at actual sport.

In this case if the batsman had just stayed in his crease until the bowler was in his delivery stride there still would have been a game on the line. He didn't.
 
AndyZaltzHair

AndyZaltzHair

Hall of Fame Member
Looked like the bowler made up his mind before doing that. He did it in a perfect disguised motion. Non striker's bat was wobbling at the line. A desperate attempt to win. I could be wrong but that's the impression I got.
 
9

91Jmay

International Coach
hendrix said:
They don't really relate.

It's fair enough because it's not a loophole in the rules. It's there to prevent batsmen taking an advantage. An alternative would be umpires signalling one short every time a batsman does it but that would involve the cameraman checking the batsman on every single delivery.
A stumping is unintentional doofiness. Sure it sometimes involves skill on the bowlers part but not always.
A run out is always from a mistake by a batsman.

Bowling an underarm delivery means that 6 runs cannot be scored no matter how skilful the batsman or how poor the delivery. It involves no attempt at actual sport.

In this case if the batsman had just stayed in his crease until the bowler was in his delivery stride there still would have been a game on the line. He didn't.
Click to expand...
Nope that is bollocks, the underarm was within the rules so it was totally equal to that Mankad
 
theegyptian

theegyptian

International Vice-Captain
So much optimism and excitement in both these teams and played out a compelling match (even with an unfortunate end) and then you realise that once the tournament is over there really is a very uncertain and complicated path ahead for both sets of players. This could be as good as it ever gets for a lot of these players. Even someone like Joseph will likely make a good living but how much of will be playing cricket for West Indies?
 
9

91Jmay

International Coach
I don't really see the relevance of what you wrote. The laws said that underarm bowling was fine, so if the laws are all that matter underarm bowling was fine.
 
hendrix

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
91Jmay said:
I don't really see the relevance of what you wrote. The laws said that underarm bowling was fine, so if the laws are all that matter underarm bowling was fine.
Click to expand...
Uh are you just choosing to ignore that they changed the law soon after that happened as it was deemed unsporting? Whereas Mankading first occured nearly 70 years ago and persists the laws because it is a fair rule.

Given that you've already said you agree with Mankading being legal I'm not exactly sure how you can hold the position you are: would you prefer under-arm bowling to be legalised? Or would you like to change your mind and criminalise Mankading?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top