The Mankad

[Burgey]

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.



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.

Yeah it's very very good. I do love the Mrs Richards "Is this a piece of your brain?" insult from the still I posted earlier and rate it one of the best. It's certainly applicable to HB and ***** generally.

 

[vcs]

this is clearly the worst opinion of the thread, by far

Your face is the worst in this thread

3 likes vs. 1, suck it

 

[jimmy101]

*****'s face cops a lot of flak around here but I think he's been looking good ever since he grew that moustache.

 

[Starfighter]

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.

I always thought Ajmal's pause was really just the time his elbow took to come around for the chuck.

 

[jimmy101]

I always thought Ajmal's pause was really just the time his elbow took to come around for the chuck.

 

[cnerd123]

See now that's a reference I can understand

Take notes Burgey

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Check crapinfo's article on the same in 2014. The point is the umpire can make that call if he thinks the bowler is deliberately distracting the batsman and/or slowing the game down unnecessarily. Pausing to see if the batsman is looking to switch hit, for example, is still considered legal based on how I read it.

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.

I would love to go in circles again, but the point here is that everyone's interpretation of "the point where the bowler would be expected to deliver the ball" seems to be different.

 

[Daemon]

Totally fine with this ftr. No deception at all.

 

[jimmy101]

Interestingly had Noor actually bowled then it would have been a no ball.

 

[ankitj]

I am OK even if there is deception involved from the bowler.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Interestingly had Noor actually bowled then it would have been a no ball.

It would only be a no-ball if the non-striker was not out; if he is run out then the ball is considered not to count if delivered.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I feel the batsman should not even be allowed to back up before the ball is in play. Cricket is a game of centimetres; if we don't allow bowlers to overstep and if we don't allow fielders to stay out of the close infield (has this changed of late?) during a period of play, why let batsmen steal an advantage before the ball is even in motion?

 

[cnerd123]

The ball is considered in play from the moment the bowler starts his runup

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The ball is considered in play from the moment the bowler starts his runup

Kindly please cite this law.
Thank you,
SCC1.

 

[Red]

Kindly please cite this law.
Thank you,
SCC1.

Law 23 - Dead Ball

Specifically 23.5

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Law 23 - Dead Ball

Specifically 23.5

Thank you, you're a good man

 

[Burgey]

The ball is considered in play from the moment the bowler starts his runup

They should alter it so that if the bowler pauses a la Ajmal, it ceases to be in play, then becomes in play again when he restarts. It'll make some umpires' heads explode trying to police it, and that can only be a good thing.

 

[Burgey]

See now that's a reference I can understand

Take notes Burgey

If we had to limit ourselves to references you understand, we'd all be quoting nothing other than preschool fairy tales.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would love to go in circles again, but the point here is that everyone's interpretation of "the point where the bowler would be expected to deliver the ball" seems to be different.

It really shouldn't be. It's relatively unambiguous. Seems to me that a few people are just being deliberately thick/pretending not to understand because they don't want to admit that they're wrong.

 

[jimmy101]

Wouldn't "relatively unambiguous" in fact confirm what HB said that everyone's interpretation of the point where the bowler would be expected to deliver the ball seems to be different?