The Mankad

[Burgey]

No. Look, you watch someone bowling, you see their release point. It might vary fractionally, but it's going to be around the same point in their action. It's not going to be around their waist after their arm has come over the perpendicular, as an example. If you watch someone bowl from side on, their release points for various deliveries aren't going to vary like the hands on a clock throughout the day. they're all going to be around the same point. To try to make something of this is being deliberately obtuse. Not saying that's you btw, but it's definitely HB and others who simply don't want to admit they've made an appalling, catastrophic error in their posting in this thread (among others).

 

[jimmy101]

Nah it's all good I totally see what you're saying. Release points for any bowler will all occur within a certain range. I think "relatively unambiguous" just threw me off a bit.

 

[the big bambino]

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.

It was a thing but all sorts played it, good and bad - at cricket and blokes in general. Anyway I think indoor's attitude to the mankad coloured my own. We all went in there thinking it a legit form of dismissal and no hard feelings but plenty of ribbing if a mankad was effected.

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.

Hb's comment about micro seconds is suitable for this post. You are talking about no time at all which is consequential to the batsman, who would be a fool to subjectively anticipate the expected delivery point only to be possibly contradicted by an umpire, when he could wait an inconsequential length of time and see the bloody thing actually leave the bowler's hand. The law isn't there for the non striker's benefit. It is a reference point to enable an umpire make a decision.

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?

But there is a risk, if not an actual penalty for the batsman for over stepping. The risk of losing his wicket so fair enough imo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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?

Well sure. If there was a kid in class that thought that 2 + 2 = 5 then you could say his "interpretation" is different, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

Hb's comment about micro seconds is suitable for this post. You are talking about no time at all which is consequential to the batsman, who would be a fool to subjectively anticipate the expected delivery point only to be possibly contradicted by an umpire, when he could wait an inconsequential length of time and see the bloody thing actually leave the bowler's hand.

not this again. Sure we could change the law it to make batsmen do that. The ramifications would make the game of cricket a **** load worse though. I'm genuinely surprised by the number of people here who fail to see that.

The law isn't there for the non striker's benefit. It is a reference point to enable an umpire make a decision.

It can be both

 

[jimmy101]

Well sure. If there was a kid in class that thought that 2 + 2 = 5 then you could say his "interpretation" is different, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

I see what you meant brother. Just was unable to wrap my head around what it was initially.

 

[the big bambino]

not this again.

*Bloke dredges up an issue*

*Gets response*

*Bloke goes "not this again"

'kinell ...

 

[DriveClub]

Ramifications for the game? Kind of stuff that ticks me off from sports fans. It's just a game, overpaid players will get in line whatever ridiculous rules you put in place as long as they get paid in millions.

 

[jimmy101]

Or in the case of Zimbabwean cricketers, a back-dated payment of $20.45.

 

[TheJediBrah]

*Bloke dredges up an issue*

*Gets response*

*Bloke goes "not this again"

'kinell ...

lol fair

kind of figured you'd understand eventually if I simplified it sufficiently though

Ramifications for the game? Kind of stuff that ticks me off from sports fans. It's just a game, overpaid players will get in line whatever ridiculous rules you put in place as long as they get paid in millions.

It's the viewers that would suffer, not just the players

 

[Daemon]

Ramifications for the game? Kind of stuff that ticks me off from sports fans. It's just a game, overpaid players will get in line whatever ridiculous rules you put in place as long as they get paid in millions.

I’m paying $6.36 per run scored every season, ****ed if I’m going to have to watch the ball out the hand and have my weekend ruined by a mankad

 

[the big bambino]

lol fair

kind of figured you'd understand eventually if I simplified it sufficiently though

I/QUOTE]

I know. We understand ...

 

[DriveClub]

Yeah sure there will be a lot of suffering all right

 

[Victor Ian]

The law isn't there for the non striker's benefit. It is a reference point to enable an umpire make a decision.

It is there for everyone's benefit, so they know how to play the game.

There is a reason the word 'expected' is included. Expected is a zone of uncertainty and it is less than 90 degrees. Certainly not 180.

Maybe it's wise to wait and see the ball leave the hand, or perhaps it's better to gain a step down the pitch assuming the umpire wont rule wrongly.

 

[jimmy101]

Or just keep your bat grounded behind the crease until you actually take off for a run.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I don't mind the bats getting longer...so batsmen can be halfway down the wicket while their bat is still grounded at the non-striker's end.

There's always a solution.

 

[Victor Ian]

Or just keep your bat grounded behind the crease until you actually take off for a run.

Totally. But you can begin that run as soon as the expected delivery occurs. If the bowler holds it past that, it should be a dead ball.

 

[jimmy101]

100% brother.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Do you always type they when you mean "you"? Your entire post here was idiotic. DO you even bowl?

 

[honestbharani]

No. Look, you watch someone bowling, you see their release point. It might vary fractionally, but it's going to be around the same point in their action. It's not going to be around their waist after their arm has come over the perpendicular, as an example. If you watch someone bowl from side on, their release points for various deliveries aren't going to vary like the hands on a clock throughout the day. they're all going to be around the same point. To try to make something of this is being deliberately obtuse. Not saying that's you btw, but it's definitely HB and others who simply don't want to admit they've made an appalling, catastrophic error in their posting in this thread (among others).

I am assuming you do realize run outs can happen over micro-second delays in grounding the bat. And the fact that only TJB has been toeing your line should tell you whose posting here has been appalling and catastrophically bad.

Totally. But you can begin that run as soon as the expected delivery occurs. If the bowler holds it past that, it should be a dead ball.

Again, "expected delivery" is ambiguous. Saying you can begin the run after the ball has left the bowlers' hands is unamibiguous. And simple. And yet, for some reason 3 of you do not want a grey area rule modified to black-and-white.

 

[cnerd123]

The MCC and ICC are moving away from allowing the fielding side to deceive a batsman out, so they're not going to modify the wording of the Mankad law to the point where it encourages bowlers to lure a non-striker out of their crease in order to fake them out.

The custodians of the game don't deem this as appropriate cricket.

However, any coach worth his salt is going to be teaching junior kids in this day and age to only leave their crease once the ball has been delivered.