mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Uhh... okay.
-
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.
*Official* IPL 2019
- Thread starter slippy888
- Start date
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What Buttler did everyone already does almost every ball. He was just backing up normally, not doing anything outrageous. I'm not convinced that a lot of the people defending Ashwin here have actually even seen the footage.
Buttler wasn't backing up excessively, Ashwin pretended to be bowling it but instead stopped and waited for buttler to walk out then ran him out. I'm all for stopping batsmen sneaking an advantage between the wickets but this was not an example of that.
Buttler wasn't backing up excessively, Ashwin pretended to be bowling it but instead stopped and waited for buttler to walk out then ran him out. I'm all for stopping batsmen sneaking an advantage between the wickets but this was not an example of that.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
These words 'normal' 'excessive' are meaningless. He must be out if he's even one centimeter away from the crease. When an umpire calls a no-ball for overstepping, the bowler can't say 'o this was just normal overstepping; this was not excessive overstepping; i was not trying to gain unfair advantage.' Do you think any overstepping no-balls are bowled with the specific aim of gaining a few inches unfair advantage? The intention does not matter, the action does. If you over-step when bowling the ball, it's a no-ball. If you leave the crease before the ball is bowled, willingly or unwillingly, you can get out. The law does not talk about 'will'.
I have seen the footage before posting here. Yes Ashwin had to pretend bowling and stop - those are key ingredients of Mankading, and there's nothing wrong with waiting. You don't mind wicketkeeper waiting before stumping the batsman out do you?
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Irrelevant, if what Daemon posted is accurate then he wasn't actually out by any margin per the rules. The more we discuss this the more it just looks like straight up cheating and very poor umpiring.
If the wicket keeper waits for the batsman to assume the ball is dead, then stumps him, then yes most people would mind.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
So now, Buttler assumed the ball was dead? lol. Is that why he was looking to run?
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Cheating, no. Poor umpiring, yes.
Buttler may have been eligible for a Mankadding on other deliveries before that, but he shouldn't have been given out there.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Buttler could fairly assume the ball to have left Ashwin's hand by then.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Have come to the conclusion that Ashwin did nothing wrong. It was merely an umpiring error.
Buttler was stealing runs before that and so he sought to mankad him. Fair enough no?
However he chose to do it in an instance where Buttler was in the crease the moment where Ashwin would have been expected to release the ball. According to law 41.16, that’s not out.
The little pause is irrelevant because had the laws been applied correctly, he would have been not out. If he was out of his crease when the ball would’ve been expected to be released, he would have been out, pause or not. The pause is irrelevant.
Buttler was stealing runs before that and so he sought to mankad him. Fair enough no?
However he chose to do it in an instance where Buttler was in the crease the moment where Ashwin would have been expected to release the ball. According to law 41.16, that’s not out.
The little pause is irrelevant because had the laws been applied correctly, he would have been not out. If he was out of his crease when the ball would’ve been expected to be released, he would have been out, pause or not. The pause is irrelevant.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Why does he need to assume anything? Is he blind?
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
How can so many be defending Ashwin here?
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I still wouldn't say Ashwin "did nothing wrong". Maybe he didn't knowingly & deliberately break any rules but then neither did Greg Chappell or Douglas Jardine, and I think most people would say they did something wrong.
Definitely was poor umpiring though. You'd think in what was clearly going to be a controversial circumstance like that you'd make sure beyond any doubt that giving it out was the right call.
ffs give it up. Have you never played or watch cricket before? The non striker doesn't watch the ball right out of the bowler's hand, like, ever.
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
https://www.wisden.com/stories/your-game/one-less-way-can-get-out-dismissal
“The message to the non-striker is very clear – if you do not want to risk being run out, stay within your ground until the bowler has released the ball.”
Did the bowler release the ball? No. Did the non-striker leave the crease? Yes. Is there an umpire error? ****ing no. Is this rocket science? No. I don't know what Daemon is smoking.
“The message to the non-striker is very clear – if you do not want to risk being run out, stay within your ground until the bowler has released the ball.”
Did the bowler release the ball? No. Did the non-striker leave the crease? Yes. Is there an umpire error? ****ing no. Is this rocket science? No. I don't know what Daemon is smoking.
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
touche
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
a revolution of logic and rationality
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
I'd say the question is what is, "the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball"?
The way I interpreted this rule was that it would prevent a bowler from retaining the ball after going through the bowling action and running somebody out. I believe that this is what Mankad did when he ran Brown out in 1947.
From this, the way I have interpreted it is that it relates to the position of the arm and hand, and I began watching the hand of the bowler whilst non-striker, something which is not that difficult to do, and one can follow the ball from the hand to the bat/pad/down the leg side and into the field to decide on whether to run and back up as one does so.
All this fuss seems to be over the position of the feet, which can be varied over the depth of the creases and even with respect to the arm [although that's generally between bowlers]
The way I interpreted this rule was that it would prevent a bowler from retaining the ball after going through the bowling action and running somebody out. I believe that this is what Mankad did when he ran Brown out in 1947.
From this, the way I have interpreted it is that it relates to the position of the arm and hand, and I began watching the hand of the bowler whilst non-striker, something which is not that difficult to do, and one can follow the ball from the hand to the bat/pad/down the leg side and into the field to decide on whether to run and back up as one does so.
All this fuss seems to be over the position of the feet, which can be varied over the depth of the creases and even with respect to the arm [although that's generally between bowlers]
Borges
International Regular
Yes. Can't get any simpler than that.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well Mankading is usually because the batsman is breaking the rules. Your two examples were merely done to unfairly nullify any opposition advantage.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't see how what Mankading usually is is particularly relevant tbh