*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[Xix2565]

Please you're the one who headbutted the line with some of your name calling yesterday. If you can't have civil discourse you're the one staring down the barrell of a 7 day vacation

Hard to have a discourse when people want others to tell them that their feelings are right instead of the laws.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hard to have a discourse when people want others to tell them that their feelings are right instead of the laws.

Laws get changed because people "feel" they are wrong quite often

 

[Burgey]

Laws get changed because people "feel" they are wrong quite often

This'll end well.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just saying, if Xix was around back just before they gave women the right to vote he would be furious that people's feelings were considered "right" rather than the law

 

[Xix2565]

Just saying, if Xix was around back just before they gave women the right to vote he would be furious that people's feelings were considered "right" rather than the law

I'm not the one descending into farcical comparisons for no reason though? Sports laws/rules =/= Real life laws/rules. Don't know why you have to reach that far just to mock me, you can surely do better.

 

[Daemon]

Calm down xi jinping

You may be right but no need to carry on like a dick. Bit like the mankad in a way.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not the one descending into farcical comparisons for no reason though? Sports laws/rules =/= Real life laws/rules. Don't know why you have to reach that far just to mock me, you can surely do better.

I can't

 

[TheJediBrah]

Meanwhile, who knew the Women's Cricket thread would actually become interesting

 

[slippy888]

Really not worth it what the bowler did

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Meanwhile, who knew the Women's Cricket thread would actually become interesting

Surprised you showed up here, there's no under 15 tournament going on anywhere.

 

[ashley bach]

Meanwhile, who knew the Women's Cricket thread would actually become interesting

The game itself was interesting, backed India at 20/1 when England were about 15/0.....should get me through to Xmas.

 

[mr_mister]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.nine.com.au/article/7a1258ce-097d-4c6f-b054-9e72a8e4ef21


Ashwin calls for mankad to be credited to the bowler now

Jesus Christ imagine bringing up a five fer with it and holding the ball to the crowd like you've earned it

 

[mr_mister]

BCCI has gone mad with power. This is mob level stuff. The powers that be decided England winning that match 9 down was an unacceptable result and to avoid losing face the executive call was made to make sure it didn't happen.

It's like when WG grace got bowled one test, simply reached down for the bails, placed them back onto the stumps, looked the umpires in the eye and said "not out."

 

[cnerd123]

What I meant was we need a rule to stop them from trying it out every now and then just to try their luck. If you fail you get penalised somehow perhaps.

This actually happened in a game I played in recently where someone tried it unsuccessfully three times.

In Indoor cricket a failed non-striker runout becomes a no-ball. This would work for proper cricket too IMO.

Also In proper cricket If you break the stumps while running in to bowl in it is a no-ball, so this penalty would perfectly align with that. Break the stumps when trying to run-out the non striker, and if you've failed, it is a no-ball and the ball is immediately dead.

Concerns on time wasting aren't an issue - if your overrate falls behind because your bowlers keep wasting time doing this then there are already laws/penalties in place to address that.

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.

Actually it has been spelled out clearly, and the MCC has issued multiple clarifications on their stance on this dismissal. The Laws were even updated to where the wording on the non-striker runout was moved away from the 'Fair Play' section (where it was written down as a legal response to the unfair play of backing up before the ball was bowled) to the 'Run Outs' section, so that it was more intuitive and easier for any simpleton to find the wording of it.

At this point any person not aware of this Law and how it applies is just an idiot who needs to get with the times. If you never want to do it to a non striker that's fine, it's just like walking when given not out. Play cricket however you feel fit, just do not expect it from anyone else.

Players like Mohammad Amir and Stuart Broad having a moan about this is ****ing rich given the **** they've both pulled in their careers. Absolutely the last ***** to be talking about 'Spirit Of Cricket'.

 

[mr_mister]

cnerd has entered a debate over cricket rules and regulations

Cue stone cold Steve Austins theme music

 

[honestbharani]

If you agree with that, I don't know what disagree with. Surely it would be pretty clear if this happens or not.

edit: it's because I mentioned Ashwin isn't it? That's what this is all about you don't actually disagree with anything I've said you just got triggered because I used an India/Chennai player as an example

Its funny how much I seem to matter to you. Probably not healthy.

 

[honestbharani]

Steve's right in that Mankading requires basically no skill. The main problem is that gamewise there's a high reward for doing this low-skill play successfully and currently no downside if you get it wrong.

I am fine with attempted run-outs such as this when not successful should be penalized but the hand-wringing by mr mr, steve and ashley is stupid to say the least.

The non-striker should stay in their crease till the ball is released by the bowler or else face the risk of being run out. Its that simple. You don't need any skills to get a batsman hit wicket either. Doesn't mean its not a legitimate form of dismissal.

And all this, of course, ignores the fact that she has been doing this deliberately and consistently in the game. Deepti had just had enough and she is a champ for being brave enough to do this. Those who think she did something wrong or immoral can suck it as usual.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm the red arrows pointing at the batter's head for some reason.

Think its meant to show it was Dean. But its funny for sure.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Its funny how much I seem to matter to you. Probably not healthy.

brooo why do you project so hard

relax, we're on the same side here

 

[anil1405]

How simple it would be if these kind of run outs are taken out of the equation and the batting team is penalised with a run short for stepping out of the crease before the ball is delivered.