-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread
- Thread starter V Reddy
- Start date
I'd like to think in that instance, I would have said to the batsman and umpires, look they're gaining an advantage by jumping out of the non-strikers before I've bowled. If it keeps happening, I'm going to stop, and not take the bails off just to show the crowd etc you're doing it. If you still do it, then I'm going to have to do the unthinkable - and you'll be out, you'll lose the game, and we'll all look silly and the crowd will hate it.
Having had a little bit more of a thought about it, however, I think it's important that the onus is taken away from the players having to still make that moral call on it. It needs to be much more black and white as to the procedure, and the public needs to know as well. You will still get personalities - without naming names, but one did it twice - who have no interest in any other bigger picture or strong moral compass to point them away from doing it.
Honestly, though? I don't feel like it is as big an issue as it would need to be to necessitate Mankad-ing. That batsman didn't leave the crease by that much. I can't remember a game in my life where a close run, probably stolen by the non-striker, decided a game (although I will concede that isn't scientific). Dependent on that Indian bowler's personality, she may have woken up the next day and decided that wasn't worth it. And some might say it's a professional game, it isn't about people's emotions or feeling, the players have the single obligation to win the game. Which Trevor Chappell said in 1981, too. As I said above, that's why we need more stronger guidance from the rule makers to take the moral code out of it, because this thread shows in crystal clear terms that it still exists in people's minds.
You know we are adults with whom you can have a reasoned, well considered and respectful discussion with, right?
Both are written into the rule book, of course you're right. But you sense there's a difference in their application, don't you?
If the rule is that the batsman can't leave until the bowler lets go of the ball, sweet. Is that the rule? My issue is the awareness of it, and how it's applied. There are no grey areas with the run out law. There clearly are with the backing up one because we keep having these discussions.
I just want it to be spelled out for us all so we can get on with the game and not have to analyse the intent and moral compass of all involved. And I know it hasn't been, because *this thread*. I remember a club game in Melbourne where it decided the match, and the guys who did it got banned (for their reaction afterwards, but the Mankad was still widely met with derision.)
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/02...ntroversy-mars-victorian-grade-cricket-match/
For those who hadn't seen it.
The point is pretty clear though, as already clarified by the MCC and others. So this handwringing about how it hurt people's feelings is childish. Rule is clear, at the very least have something grounded behind the crease to avoid this risk. Not much reasonable discussion to be had unless you want me to comfort you about how players can do such unspeakably 'cruel and unsportsmanlike' acts just to win.
Last edited:
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The rule should be this:
Ball is live once the bowler begins their run up. At that point anything goes, batsman can start their run and the bowler can run them out. If the bowler does try to run them out then it's a no-ball because the delivery is illegal.
"Mankads" should be accepted as a normal way to dismiss the batsman, the only reason it's not at the moment is because of aesthetics.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Agreed
I haven’t watched the game so can’t tell you whether the non striker was getting head starts regularly but her actions on the delivery in question were absolutely normal
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Okay Douglas Jardine
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bodyline was also good
OK, so then the batsman can leave once the bowler has released the ball. Fair enough, I'm happy to move ahead with that. It's very clear-cut.
I think the issue, incidentally, is not 'aesthetics'. It's skill. There is skill basically in every dismissal apart from Mankads (and an intentional run out at the bowler's end, which you could argue would be cleared up by a clearer law). That's the issue, for me anyway. It's to deal with sneakiness either on the bowler or batsman's behalf, which feels rotten. So yeah, I am all in favour of your law, as long as the bowler pretending to let it go then spinning around doesn't become a wrinkle.
Situational awareness is a skill.
With all due respect, it isn't clear. Look at the responses on the link I posted. Look at them on here, in general public, the reaction at the ground the other day etc.
No one, incidentally, or certainly not me, said anything about feelings. It isn't about that. It's about perception of how the law is applied, which again, you can tell me is clear, but the only thing clear is that people have a different take on it.
If I was to be unkind, I'd say there's reasonable discussion going on all around you. It can exist with you, as well, if you care to join it. Just remember that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and sometimes the stench of one's own might be masked by the familiarity with it.
A tenuous one.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
She was situationally aware that if this last wicket stand got the job done against all odds it'd be highly embarrassing. You wouldn't see it done if the target was 40 off 6
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'd argue the game should allow for "sneakiness" as long as the consequences for getting it wrong are appropriate enough that you'd rarely try to do it.
You don't have to say it for the implicit meaning to be clear. The law is clear about this, and the umpires didn't find anything wrong with it. So unless you're suggesting the people who need to know the handbook for their jobs are clueless about this I see no fuss beyond people being upset a team lost when they did since people like things "going down to the last over" and other similar situations.
I mean it's a bit rich to try to snidely preach about opinions when you haven't actually given anything worthwhile either.
Right, which is why something like Smith calling for a no ball due to the field being wrongly setup is callous.
Do you really expect players to always consistently give chances to their opposition just for the sake of entertainment/embarrassment? They wanted to win and didn't need sandpaper, mints or sledging to do so.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The umpires have no choice once an appeal has been made
Guarantee that not every umpire would be thrilled at being forced into making the decision
Not everything in a job can be fun, but they still have to do it to the best of their ability. And from that situation I didn't really see them making an egregious mistake like say messing up a DRS for a catch or incorrectly giving out/not out decisions for LBW.