The Mankad

[jimmy101]

wut

i've skipped all the posts since my last one. Is that where the discussion is now?

I thought we were talking about Mick Foley, but then I realised I slightly misread the title of the thread.

 

[honestbharani]

Glad you said it. I was going to post something very similar to this yesterday. Usually it's just ***** who will come in at stage 5 of a discussion, fail to understand the topic and post an essay summarising stage 1 of said discussion as if it's a revelation, but in this thread everyone's doing it

So you think the bowler should be able to pretend to bowl and fake out the batsman? And that the rule should be changed to allow it? Because that is what we're discussing here

wut

i've skipped all the posts since my last one. Is that where the discussion is now?

The irony of the earlier post and the one you responded to being from the same poster is hilarious. Even more coz its TJB.

 

[cnerd123]

You want the sport to devolve to the point where a batsman has to presume a bowler is going to pretend to the bowl the ball instead of delivering it in a normal fashion, a l the. Last any Ashwin cheating incident. Leave me out of it.

Post reported for trolling

 

[Burgey]

Post reported for trolling

 

[cnerd123]

mate i know you're 75 but you've gotta use more current references if you want to get to me

 

[Burgey]

Well, even forgetting the rest of the absolute untrue BS drivel that was your post, who here has even suggested the bolded part?

You, among others. How the **** are you supposed to ensure the ball has left the bowler's hand unless you see it has left the bowler's hand? Which in turn means.....

[obvious to anyone else but drum roll for the perennial strugglers, yourself foremost among them]

...you're watching it after it's left the bowler's hand.

Edit: sorry, insert laughing or tongue-poke emoji here.

 

[jimmy101]

Fawlty Towers, or Fawtly Trollers?

 

[Burgey]

It's timeless when it comes to the likes of ***** and hb. Could post it in reply to anything they say.

And indeed for Red Hill in this particular instance, whose decline has been rapid and unfortunate.

 

[jimmy101]

Guess that'd have to make TJB the Manuel of the situation.

 

[Burgey]

It's a Siberian hamster.

 

[honestbharani]

You, among others. How the **** are you supposed to ensure the ball has left the bowler's hand unless you see it has left the bowler's hand? Which in turn means.....

[obvious to anyone else but drum roll for the perennial strugglers, yourself foremost among them]

...you're watching it after it's left the bowler's hand.

Edit: sorry, insert laughing or tongue-poke emoji here.

You really do not see how stupid your post is? FWIW, "after it leaves the bowlers' hand" covers a rather large area of the time spectrum even within the limits of it being one ball. And for someone who has gone after people with the brilliant "you must have not played any level of cricket coz you don't agree with my idiotic view", surely you can understand that it is perfectly possible to move away from watching the ball as soon as it leaves the bowlers' hand, meaning the "after" you are talking about is micro-seconds at best.


EDIT:

 

[cnerd123]

There’s so much repetition going on here. I see two main arguments:

a. whether batsmen should be watching the ball right out of the hand until it’s been released and is almost halfway down the pitch; and
b. do the rules currently allow for deception (e.g. oman/ashwin)

My views are no for both. However instead of what ***** has been taught, I’d much rather the ICC tell umpires to be more strict and use their judgement in cases where the bowler is delaying or faking a run out. Just set the threshold for what’s considered faking lower than what it is now.

Once a few high profile fake mankad attempts are blocked, the momentum that this tactic seems to be gaining will fall.

I mean, that is basically what is taught now.

The high profile faked Mankads were all umpiring errors. We are taught that, and that's the reason why the wording was changed recently. To make it super clear that a bowler can't finish his action, fake the batsman, and then run him out.

 

[Daemon]

You really do not see how stupid your post is? FWIW, "after it leaves the bowlers' hand" covers a rather large area of the time spectrum even within the limits of it being one ball. And for someone who has gone after people with the brilliant "you must have not played any level of cricket coz you don't agree with my idiotic view", surely you can understand that it is perfectly possible to move away from watching the ball as soon as it leaves the bowlers' hand, meaning the "after" you are talking about is micro-seconds at best.


EDIT:

It’s obvious what Burgey meant. He was talking about watching it leave the hand, which you and others are suggesting.

But in any case if you’re watching it leave the hand then obviously you’d just continue watching it till it hits the bat. But that’s irrelevant.

 

[Daemon]

I mean, that is basically what is taught now.

The high profile faked Mankads were all umpiring errors. We are taught that, and that's the reason why the wording was changed recently. To make it super clear that a bowler can't finish his action, fake the batsman, and then run him out.

Good. I don’t even think they should need to finish their action. If they get their hand up and just wait for the batsman to leave the crease then **** them. Need a very low bar for whats considered faking.

 

[Burgey]

I mean, that is basically what is taught now.

The high profile faked Mankads were all umpiring errors. We are taught that, and that's the reason why the wording was changed recently. To make it super clear that a bowler can't finish his action, fake the batsman, and then run him out.

This is perhaps a matter for physical therapy for the bowler tbh.

 

[Burgey]

It’s obvious what Burgey meant. He was talking about watching it leave the hand, which you and others are suggesting.

But in any case if you’re watching it leave the hand then obviously you’d just continue watching it till it hits the bat. But that’s irrelevant.

A rare instance of CW really needing daemon, right here

 

[honestbharani]

It’s obvious what Burgey meant. He was talking about watching it leave the hand, which you and others are suggesting.

But in any case if you’re watching it leave the hand then obviously you’d just continue watching it till it hits the bat. But that’s irrelevant.

No you won't, as any sort of rule. Its upto the individuals. That is just a shockingly silly assumption. I know myself and almost everyone whom I played with, we used to stay in and ensure the ball was delivered and then quickly was looking at the striker and depending on the stroke, the ball or the striker (front of square - batsman's call, behind square - runner's call etc.).

And Burgey's point was irrelevant coz he made it seem like the non-striker has to watch the ball all the time when essentially it is a matter of a micro second that you have to watch the ball leave the bowler's hand and then you do whatever is your routine, either follow the ball or just shift your sight to the striker's end. Its simple, its not diffcult and it is what many batsmen do anyways.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah, it certainly was when I was playing. I'd hate that to become the norm. Indoor cricket has that niggly no holds barred sort of mentality, they can keep it their way.

lol yeah and why is that? I've been playing indoor for like 20 years but I've never understood why there's this weird aggro-bro culture around it, when it's pretty much the least serious and important cricket I could possibly be playing.

 

[jimmy101]

Sooner or later TJB is gonna pop up again & tell us what's being discussed here.

 

[Adders]

Sooner or later TJB is gonna pop up again & tell us what's being discussed here.

And it's very fortunate and to all of our benefits that he "the most intelligent person on any team he's every played in" should take the time to explain everything to the rest of us dumb ****s.

Thank you Brah.