The Mankad

[Burgey]

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.

Tis a strange game which was once very widely popular here but now seems especially the preserve of that very crowd.

 

[cnerd123]

Burgey and HB are having the dumbest ****ing argument

 

[Burgey]

***** exhibiting signs of fever here.

 

[jimmy101]

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.

Guess that's what happens when you're perennially getting kept down in the U10's squad.

 

[TheJediBrah]

wut

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

That's where the discussion has been since half way through page 1, you (and others) just completely missed it over and over

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.

You joke about it but it's clearly necessary because this very thread is full of said dumb ****s posting irrelevant drivel because they don't understand what's going on

 

[honestbharani]

Burgey and HB are having the dumbest ****ing argument

You have to be more specific.

 

[jimmy101]

You joke about it but it's clearly necessary because this very thread is full of said dumb ****s posting irrelevant drivel because they don't understand what's going on

Oh, so this thread IS about Mick Foley. My bad, I don't fully understand what's going on.

 

[Victor Ian]

So... Reading the rule... The non striker can be run out whenever the ball is in play.
The ball is in play from the run up, until the point of release. If the bowler does not bowl the ball, it is then a dead ball so no mankad can be effected.
Faking the non striker out creates a dead ball.
At best, the bowler, should be penalised for bowling underarm in the wrong direction and no balled if he manages to do it in one smooth action. Otherwise the ball is dead before it hits the stumps.
Ashwin like mankads are illegal and result from bad umpiring, much as ***** said.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So... Reading the rule... The non striker can be run out whenever the ball is in play.
The ball is in play from the run up, until the point of release. If the bowler does not bowl the ball, it is then a dead ball so no mankad can be effected.
Faking the non striker out creates a dead ball.
At best, the bowler, should be penalised for bowling underarm in the wrong direction and no balled if he manages to do it in one smooth action. Otherwise the ball is dead before it hits the stumps.
Ashwin like mankads are illegal and result from bad umpiring, much as ***** said.

This is all correct and I don't believe anyone has disagreed with any of it during the course of this thread

 

[Victor Ian]

This is all correct and I don't believe anyone has disagreed with any of it during the course of this thread

Yeah, i know. Just wanted to join in on the arguement against people agreeing with me.

But, also, i think the whole problem goes away if they make a point of highlighting when the ball become dead. That is what some people seem to be missing when they adjudicate on whether fake-out mankads should be a thing.

 

[cnerd123]

When the ball becomes dead is a grey area too

 

[honestbharani]

Its just much easier to ask the non-striker to remain in the crease till the ball is released than all these "definitions" really.

Also, the ball is in play the moment the delivery stride is hit, and if the bowler is effecting a run out at his end, the ball is still in play. It is only a dead ball if he is holding the pose (after going through his action) and waiting for the non-striker to move out. If he deliberately slows down during his run up or pauses at delivery stride, the bowler is well within his rights to do all that, as it is today. Its the point Victor Ian is missing.

 

[cnerd123]

actually it's against the laws for a bowler to pause in their delivery stride now IIRC. The tricks Ajmal used to do where he'd pause for a few seconds to watch the batsman's movement before delivering the ball is now illegal. But i'll need to check that.

 

[honestbharani]

I see a link that says it is legal from 2014.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/jgt1u/technical_question_bowling_with_a_pause/

 

[jimmy101]

I see a link that says it is legal from 2014.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/jgt1u/technical_question_bowling_with_a_pause/

I see the thread beneath that one is "Indian team loves Southee".

At least someone does.

 

[Victor Ian]

I see a link that says it is legal from 2014.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/jgt1u/technical_question_bowling_with_a_pause/

How do you conclude that? My reading of the rules in the link you posted says that it is not a legal ball. It is, in fact, a dead ball. The only part of that link that indicates the ball is legal is someone's opinion called froogler, who seems to be giving opinion that is in complete disregard of the actual rule posted above it. Opinion does not define the rule. The rule defines the rule.

Umpires could declare it a dead ball under 23.4.b - especially if it was considered a deliberate tactic to distract the batsman:

(vi) the striker is distracted by any noise or movement or in any other way while he is preparing to receive, or receiving a delivery. This shall apply whether the source of the distraction is within the game or outside it. Note also (vii) below.

The ball shall not count as one of the over.

(vii) there is an instance of a deliberate attempt to distract under either of Laws 42.4 (Deliberate attempt to distract striker) or 42.5 (Deliberate distraction or obstruction of batsman). The ball shall not count as one of the over.

If the bowler stopped completely (and regularly), then the umpire is permitted to cite the bowler under Law 42.9.a:

 

[Red]

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

I personally think yes, the bowler should be allowed to "fake out the batsman". Because the onus is on the batsman to be in his crease until he judges it safe not to be. I don't see it as a rule change, because I don't think we agree on interpretation at all. At any point, beginning with him commencing his run up, the bowler can run the non striker out. Simple.

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.

I always thought the German's episode was a bit overrated in the whole series, but the fire drill scene remains possibly the greatest bit of sitcom writing and acting ever.

 

[Red]

 

[Red]

 

[TheJediBrah]

I personally think yes, the bowler should be allowed to "fake out the batsman". Because the onus is on the batsman to be in his crease until he judges it safe not to be. I don't see it as a rule change, because I don't think we agree on interpretation at all. At any point, beginning with him commencing his run up, the bowler can run the non striker out. Simple.

It is. If you disagree then you interpret it wrong. See: *****'s posts on the matter.

The law is worded ("the point where the bowler would be expected to deliver the ball") specifically so that the non-striker doesn't have to stop and watch the ball right out of the bowler's hand, which could be potentially dangerous, and change the whole practice of "backing up" as it exists today.