Another Mankading

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Who did I call a sociopath? You'll find the answer is no-one.

No, just implied.

Yet again, not what I said.

No, just implied.

 

[neville cardus]

No, just implied.

No, just implied.

That you've inferred something doesn't necessarily mean that I've implied it. It may also mean, for example, that you're paranoid and easily offended.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Haha oh no, how do I react? If I address your statement it's self-fulfilling!

 

[neville cardus]

Anyone still interested in discussing the incident this thread is supposed to be about? Or shall I just leave you to whimper about how beastly I've been, and how hurt your feelings are?

 

[GIMH]

That you've inferred something doesn't necessarily mean that I've implied it. It may also mean, for example, that you're paranoid and easily offended.

Speaking generally, if the majority of an audience infer or take implication from something at differs from the writer or speaker's intention, the writer/speaker bears at least some responsibility for that.

 

[neville cardus]

Speaking generally, if the majority

I'd quibble with the suggestion that the majority of my readership thinks what you attribute to it.

of an audience infer or take implication from something at differs from the writer or speaker's intention, the writer/speaker bears at least some responsibility for that.

Not when the writer or speaker has repeatedly, and explicitly, and in exhaustive detail, clarified his position.

Now, could we move on to something more interesting? You know, like the matter at hand...

 

[sledger]

This thread is ****.

 

[GIMH]

I'd quibble with the suggestion that the majority of my readership thinks what you attribute to it.

Not when the writer or speaker has repeatedly, and explicitly, and in exhaustive detail, clarified his position.

I said generally speaking.

 

[neville cardus]

I said generally speaking.

And I wanted to illustrate why the general terms are inapplicable to this specific case. That's all. :-)

But sledger is right: This thread is very ****. Unless something interesting gets raised, I'm calling it a day.

 

[sledger]

And I wanted to illustrate why the general terms are inapplicable to this specific case. That's all. :-)

But sledger is right: This thread is very ****. Unless something interesting gets raised, I'm calling it a day.

He says, after clogging up the thread with several pages of nonsense posts...

 

[Dan]

That's enough.

 

[Attitude]

The thing about Mankading is that some things are not in the rules, but by way of custom you are still required to do or not do something.

I know there is nothing in the rules that says the batsman must be warned first, but a custom of doing so has developed over the years, and not following the custom around Mankading is not in the spirit of the game.

A Guard of honor is generally given to great players when they walk into bat for their final innings. There is no rule that says it must be done, but its done by way of custom. If a great player was not given a guard of honor, it would be a shame, and the team couldn't take the defence of - but we didn't break the rules of the game.

Another example is batsmen not running overthrows when a throw deflects off their bat and goes into the gap. There is no rule that says batsmen mustn't run. Now if a team broke that custom, ran overthrows to win the match after a deflection off the bat, it would still be against the spirit of the game, even though they broke no rule or law of the game.

On the same ground, Mankading without a warning to the batsmen goes against the spirit of the game. Spirit of the game > Rules of the game.

 

[honestbharani]

The batsman who is trying to gain an advantage by taking a start from his crease as the bowler runs in is soiling the spirit of cricket just as much as the bowler who slows down just before his delivery stride in the hopes of catching the non-striker almost having left the crease as his back is turned to the bowler. In the earlier Eng-SL series, the Mankad was well deserved. In this instance, it seems more like a desperate ploy by the bowler which just happened to come off due to the missing frame which may have shown the non-striker's bat was in.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Is there a clear definition of "delivery stride"? Is it when the bowler (e.g. right armer) plants his left foot first to jump? Or is it when the bowler gets airborne first? Or when the bowler lands his back foot?

 

[Attitude]

The batsman who is trying to gain an advantage by taking a start from his crease as the bowler runs in is soiling the spirit of cricket just as much as the bowler who slows down just before his delivery stride in the hopes of catching the non-striker almost having left the crease as his back is turned to the bowler. In the earlier Eng-SL series, the Mankad was well deserved. In this instance, it seems more like a desperate ploy by the bowler which just happened to come off due to the missing frame which may have shown the non-striker's bat was in.

Um since when did taking a quick single become against the spirit of the law. If the bowler doesnt like how far a batsman is backing up he can negate that simply by not bowling the delivery and warning the non-striker that he is backing up too far.

If the non-striker still does it, then Mankad him by all means. The point is not that there shouldn't be Mankading but that there should have been a warning before Mankading, as is customarily done.

However warning a non striker is a custom that has developed and must be honored.

If not then start running overthrows for throws that deflect off the bat cos I guess there is nothing the rules that bars it. And stop giving guard of honor to batsmen retiring, as there is nothing in the rules that require a guard of honor be given.

 

[Attitude]

Is there a clear definition of "delivery stride"? Is it when the bowler (e.g. right armer) plants his left foot first to jump? Or is it when the bowler gets airborne first? Or when the bowler lands his back foot?

I dont think there is a definition, but can I ask, why you want to know this, and its relevance to the Mankading discussion.

 

[zaremba]

The "spirit of cricket" means nothing more or less than "sportsmanship." [...] To cite the laws of cricket, in a discussion about sportsmanship, is to miss the point. When we're talking about the spirit of a law, it doesn't help in the slightest to invoke its letter. If you haven't grasped this by now, you never will.

All fair points, well made. One wrinkle to this, though, is that the Preamble to the Laws does set out examples of what the SOTG entails and requires. So we're in a curious legislative halfway house between what is defined and what isn't.

There is also a rather more important point which is that, on various matters, Mankading and walking being among them, reasonable people may passionately disagree about what the SOTG requires.

I tend to agree that Mankading is pretty poor behaviour - particularly in the calculating and premeditated way it was done the other day. But I would like the Laws to be clearer about what is and what isn't expected.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I dont think there is a definition, but can I ask, why you want to know this, and its relevance to the Mankading discussion.

ICC Law 42.5

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.

 

[neville cardus]

The thing about Mankading is that some things are not in the rules, but by way of custom you are still required to do or not do something.

I know there is nothing in the rules that says the batsman must be warned first, but a custom of doing so has developed over the years, and not following the custom around Mankading is not in the spirit of the game.

That's a good argument, from a different direction. Wish I'd made it myself.

 

[Athlai]

Look, darling. It's an analogy, not an equation. Analogies are thought experiments; equations are claims of parity. Either you don't know that, in which case I'm not going to waste any further time arguing with you, or you do, in which case you're being wilfully stupid. Either way, this performance doesn't redound much to your credit.

The sarcasm makes it even worse. Don't you think it's time you attempted one of the higher forms of irony?

Get ****ed.