*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[TheJediBrah]

The point is the law is pretty clear that you have to stay in your crease till the ball is released.

Unless I'm mistaken the law says something about "reasonably expecting the ball to be released" specifically to cover that no one should have to actually visually check themselves that the ball has been released before leaving the crease.

Maybe this has been changed, but I would be very surprised because it's completely impractical

 

[ashley bach]

Just checked it out on utube.
What a f...ing disgrace to the game we all love.
Like, who gives a f... as to the exact laws of the game, how can you feel good about winning a game like that?
Totally shameful from the individual, the team, and a treacherous insult to cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Law 41.16, which pertains to the "Non-striker leaving his/her ground early," states: "If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out."

This is specifically worded this way so that you aren't expected to actually watch the ball leave the bowlers hand. Imagine if that's Mitchell Starc bowling 155kph and you're watching him release the ball lol. Good luck seeing anything that happens.

This was why those Ashwin "mankads" caused a stir, because he stopped and waited for the batsman to leave then ran them out, even though by the time they left the crease they would have expected him to have released the ball. By the laws they should have been not out.

 

[Victor Ian]

Just checked it out on utube.
What a f...ing disgrace to the game we all love.
Like, who gives a f... as to the exact laws of the game, how can you feel good about winning a game like that?
Totally shameful from the individual, the team, and a treacherous insult to cricket.

Nah - come on. There is a line painted on the ground for a reason. I am not allowed to overstep when servig in tennis because that is what lines mean. No head start. It's really not hard to not try and cheat (I know, funny coming from an Aussie) but it's true. It's bloody easy to see if the ball has been released with your peripheral vision.

I think it is unsporting to let someone be out when their bat slips out of their hand and hit wicket. I mean come on, that is unsporting. Same as hit in the head and accidentally stumbling backwards. Unsporting.

OR, just follow the rules and never be out this way. Complaining about mankadding sounds like people being little bitches. They want a warning when they get caught cheating. Nah. **** off.

 

[Victor Ian]

Law 41.16, which pertains to the "Non-striker leaving his/her ground early," states: "If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be run out."

This is specifically worded this way so that you aren't expected to actually watch the ball leave the bowlers hand. Imagine if that's Mitchell Starc bowling 155kph and you're watching him release the ball lol. Good luck seeing anything that happens.

This was why those Ashwin "mankads" caused a stir, because he stopped and waited for the batsman to leave then ran them out, even though by the time they left the crease they would have expected him to have released the ball. By the laws they should have been not out.

When is the moment the ball comes into play. If the ball is in play BEFORE you would normally expect them to release the ball, It reads to me like 'you can be run out at anytime the bowler starts to run in'. You don't HAVE to watch the ball leave the hand because the ball is already in play. That is why the umpire needs to call it a dead ball, if you don't bowl it.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

how can you feel good about winning a game like that?

I'd feel pretty good op

 

[honestbharani]

The ball is in play once the bowler starts the run-up. You just need to play the game to know that.

And yes, the old law was needlessly ridiculously confusing and that is why it has been changed. And the change was advertised from mid of this year. So its silly either way for any batsman to think they can leave the crease before the ball leaves the bowler's hand.

Its cute that TJB continues to pretend he knows something that he doesn't. Suppose that is his entire MO in CC.

 

[Victor Ian]

The ball is in play once the bowler starts the run-up. You just need to play the game to know that.

And yes, the old law was needlessly ridiculously confusing and that is why it has been changed. And the change was advertised from mid of this year. So its silly either way for any batsman to think they can leave the crease before the ball leaves the bowler's hand.

Its cute that TJB continues to pretend he knows something that he doesn't. Suppose that is his entire MO in CC.

Yeah - I don't get his take on this one. I can only presume he likes to cheat when he plays cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

When is the moment the ball comes into play. If the ball is in play BEFORE you would normally expect them to release the ball, It reads to me like 'you can be run out at anytime the bowler starts to run in'. You don't HAVE to watch the ball leave the hand because the ball is already in play. That is why the umpire needs to call it a dead ball, if you don't bowl it.

Not really relevant in this scenario though is it? It's saying that you can't get run out by the bowler if they haven't released the ball at the point " would normally have been expected to release the ball".

It's there in the laws so the bowler can't pretend to bowl the ball then run the non-striker out

Its cute that TJB continues to pretend he knows something that he doesn't. Suppose that is his entire MO in CC.

Why are you like this? You haven't been like this much lately. Is it because you think I'm having a crack at this Indian team? Because I'm 100% on their side, the run out was fine.

 

[honestbharani]

Its literally there coz of the next part of the law states the bowler can run you out without letting the ball go from their hand, no other reason.

 

[Victor Ian]

Not really relevant in this scenario though is it? It's saying that you can't get run out by the bowler if they haven't released the ball at the point " would normally have been expected to release the ball".

It's there in the laws so the bowler can't pretend to bowl the ball then run the non-striker out

Why are you like this? You haven't been like this much lately. Is it because you think I'm having a crack at this Indian team? Because I'm 100% on their side, the run out was fine.

I think you are highlighting part of a whole sentence and this is confusing your comprehension. The ball is in play from A to B and you can be run out anytime between A and B. Highlighting B like A doesn't exist doesn't gel with your big brain. Sure, the rule would be clearest if they pointed out that you can also be run out between B and C, but they probably didn't write that as everyone knows from B to C that you can be run out. It's just cheats, who have to have it highlighted about A to B.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think you are highlighting part of a whole sentence and this is confusing your comprehension. The ball is in play from A to B and you can be run out anytime between A and B. Highlighting B like A doesn't exist doesn't gel with your big brain. Sure, the rule would be clearest if they pointed out that you can also be run out between B and C, but they probably didn't write that as everyone knows from B to C that you can be run out. It's just cheats, who have to have it highlighted about A to B.

Maybe I'm not understanding it. If what you're saying is true than why would that line "would normally have been expected to release the ball" exist in the laws at all, if not for specifically for the reasons I've stated?

 

[ashley bach]

There shouldn't even be any discussion about what the actual law is, who really cares.
If it's blatantly obvious someones trying to get an advantage cheating that way, politely give them a warning and after that anything goes.
But to randomly pretend to bowl then produce this tripe when a player was playing the game in good spirit, totally takes the micky out of the game.
When I saw the smile on Deepti's face not too long after the filthy deed, it made me feel like vomiting.

 

[Victor Ian]

Maybe I'm not understanding it. If what you're saying is true than why would that line "would normally have been expected to release the ball" exist in the laws at all, if not for specifically for the reasons I've stated?

I'm only going by what you posted, but there is a front bit to that sentence which seems to imply the ball is in play from before the release. I could be wrong.

 

[Shady Slim]

if i did not want to get mankaded i would simply wait until the ball has been released before leaving the safety and warmth of the crease

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm only going by what you posted, but there is a front bit to that sentence which seems to imply the ball is in play from before the release. I could be wrong.

No I get that. I can see why it would be confusing, but it's pretty clear that the stipulation is there specifically because it's impractical for the non-striker to literally watch the ball out of the bowlers hand all the time. That's never going to become a regular thing, especially with fast bowlers operating.

It shouldn't be hard.

If you're the batter, don't cheat by backing-up before the bowler bowls/should bowl.
If you're the bowler, don't try to trick the batter into leaving the crease and run them out unless they are trying to cheat.

 

[anil1405]

Charlie Dean fakes a run out, while bowling, less than 24 hours after being dismissed that way.

Can't wait for more players to try this in international games and then the rule getting banished ASAP.

 

[Victor Ian]

No I get that. I can see why it would be confusing, but it's pretty clear that the stipulation is there specifically because it's impractical for the non-striker to literally watch the ball out of the bowlers hand all the time. That's never going to become a regular thing, especially with fast bowlers operating.

It shouldn't be hard.

If you're the batter, don't cheat by backing-up before the bowler bowls/should bowl.
If you're the bowler, don't try to trick the batter into leaving the crease and run them out unless they are trying to cheat.

I didn't see the incident. If the bowler faked the bowling that is douchey, and should have been called a dead ball. So now I see where you are coming from.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I didn't see the incident. If the bowler faked the bowling that is douchey, and should have been called a dead ball. So now I see where you are coming from.

No I'm talking purely hypotheticals. I never said I thought there was anything wrong with this incident. The batter was cheating, she got run out, end of story.

There have been incidents in the past where bowlers have faked the bowling then ran the batsmen out which is the only thing I would have an issue with.

 

[honestbharani]

When I saw the smile on Deepti's face not too long after the filthy deed, it made me feel like vomiting.

You should read and watch the clips and pics posted here before deciding to assume so many falsehoods.