*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[Socerer 01]

They may well have repeatedly warned her, but in what language is the question.

is it supposed to be in latin or shakespearean english?

 

[Spark]

And it's not like I haven't said exactly the same thing multiple times before. E.g.

You always need one or two players like that if only to remind everyone that the written rules actually matter at some level and force a level of consistency, plus it's by far the best way to draw attention to places where the rules are objectively ridiculous or inconsistent and get them fixed. But sport is just way, way, way too complicated, nuanced and inconsistent in a hard "game" sense (and, lbrh, doesn't actually matter enough) to not be super reliant on these sorts of unspoken, unwritten and wooly conventions that everyone agrees to be bound by in order to not make it a miserable mess dominated by rule sharks. That would be utterly hideous.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

that reminds me, what would Richard make of all this?

First chance average of every batsmen would be approximately 3.8.

 

[Xix2565]

First chance average of every batsmen would be approximately 3.8.

So high?

 

[honestbharani]

Thanks yeah, I can honestly say the only sustained animosity I've felt toward any posters here was against marc and lillianthomson when I first started posting, and I find them amusing now.

if it was the BCCI being a mob organisation jokes that pushed you to think how you did, just know I love drawing analogies between the mafia and any branch of power been watching too much Sopranos recently

Then just play mafia

 

[cnerd123]

Right. My view is that mankading needs to be part of the game because otherwise non-strikers take way too many liberties, but a sport full of mankads would be unwatchable tripe and I'd find something better to do with my time.

I don't understand why you think this would ever be a problem. There are enough pace of play rules/laws in place to prevent unnecessary attempts, and it is not hard to stay in your crease till the bowler has finished their action.

You're worried about a situation that has literally never happened, at the expense of a law that's in place to prevent unfair play that actually occurs all the time.

Also the nonces who think this rule doesn't fall under 'batting / bowling / fielding' probably don't approve of penalty runs for the ball hitting a helmet kept behind the keeper, the timed out dismissal, runs off deflections...

 

[mr_mister]

runs off deflections ruined a world cup


has there ever been an appeal for timed out in international cricket?

 

[mr_mister]

The third Test of the 2006–2007 series between India and South Africa was played at the Newlands Cricket Ground. In India's second innings, two batsmen were quickly dismissed. Sachin Tendulkar was listed as the fourth batsman. As he had been replaced as a fielder for eighteen minutes at the end of South Africa's innings, he was ineligible to bat in the India second innings until another eighteen minutes had expired from its commencement. After a six-minute delay, Sourav Ganguly came in as the next batsman. South African captain Graeme Smith did not appeal for a "timed out" dismissal of the incoming batsman.


See, this is what I'm talking about. This is the spirit of the cricket. He could have been given out after 3 minutes.

 

[cnerd123]

The third Test of the 2006–2007 series between India and South Africa was played at the Newlands Cricket Ground. In India's second innings, two batsmen were quickly dismissed. Sachin Tendulkar was listed as the fourth batsman. As he had been replaced as a fielder for eighteen minutes at the end of South Africa's innings, he was ineligible to bat in the India second innings until another eighteen minutes had expired from its commencement. After a six-minute delay, Sourav Ganguly came in as the next batsman. South African captain Graeme Smith did not appeal for a "timed out" dismissal of the incoming batsman.


See, this is what I'm talking about. This is the spirit of the cricket. He could have been given out after 3 minutes.

I think it's fine if anyone chooses not to appeal for a non striker runout. Doesn't mean it's wrong to do so, or that it is breaking the game in anyway

 

[mr_mister]

yeeeah but it's nice if everyone is on the same wavelength right? unspoken etiquette and all that

even those joke/half appeals for handled the ball you sometimes see when a batsman is very clearly trying to be helpful and pick up a ball to give back to the bowler irk me so, so much

"well it's in the rules so it's all good" can come across so... intentionally obtuse

 

[Xix2565]

Clearly the English women didn't have the same unspoken etiquette, maybe they should've warned the Indians first about any potential discrepancies before playing. In the spirit of cricket of course.

 

[mr_mister]

The unspoken ettiquette about not mankadding has been around since the first mankad

You just assume someone won't stoop that low. You trust them

 

[cnerd123]

yeeeah but it's nice if everyone is on the same wavelength right? unspoken etiquette and all that

even those joke/half appeals for handled the ball you sometimes see when a batsman is very clearly trying to be helpful and pick up a ball to give back to the bowler irk me so, so much

"well it's in the rules so it's all good" can come across so... intentionally obtuse

I don't support walking in professional cricket -the umpire is there to make decisions- but I'm fine if others feel different.

Morale policing other people is the worst, and is why we have written laws and playing conditions in black and white for everyone to follow.

 

[Xix2565]

The unspoken ettiquette about not mankadding has been around since the first mankad

You just assume someone won't stoop that low. You trust them

The spoken etiquette then was that it was literally fine to the players and the only person in the wrong was the idiot outside of the crease. I guess apparently words matter less than imaginary feelings.

 

[mr_mister]

I don't support walking in professional cricket -the umpire is there to make decisions- but I'm fine if others feel different.

Morale policing other people is the worst, and is why we have written laws and playing conditions in black and white for everyone to follow.

What you call moral policing I just call ettiquette. I expected walking to come up eventually - it's no longer an issue with DRS. The ettiquette around it was essentially consistent across the whole sport, it feels like Gilchrist was the only person who ever really did it and it was only ever to his own detriment.

 

[mr_mister]

The spoken etiquette then was that it was literally fine to the players and the only person in the wrong was the idiot outside of the crease. I guess apparently words matter less than imaginary feelings.

We're not getting anywhere here are we. I think there's some roads you shouldn't go down, regardless of the written law in place. You disagree.

 

[Xix2565]

We're not getting anywhere here are we. I think there's some roads you shouldn't go down, regardless of the written law in place. You disagree.

The road was literally paved a long, long time ago. It being seen as a bad thing to do wasn't some ancient decree that had to be followed. Again, I fail to see how and why hurt feelings & useless worrying over a potential future should cause this much of an issue.

 

[mr_mister]

The road was literally paved a long, long time ago. It being seen as a bad thing to do wasn't some ancient decree that had to be followed. Again, I fail to see how and why hurt feelings & useless worrying over a potential future should cause this much of an issue.

What is your candid opinion on the Bodyline series? (Not a trick question or intended gotcha moment)

 

[Xix2565]

What is your candid opinion on the Bodyline series? (Not a trick question or intended gotcha moment)

It's historic? Hard to feel anything beyond some sympathy for people getting hurt since it's cricket history and has had such a massive impact on the game that watchers of the modern game can find it difficult to understand how outside the norm it was. So yeah, it doesn't evoke much for me.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Some team should just say before a series "yeah we're gonna Mankad whenever we can deal with it binch". Pretty soon everyone else will follow then maybe they'll actually draw up some proper rules about it.

I wonder if this (but unironically) is actually the answer. As Spark says, there's a disconnect in this area at the moment between the laws and how the game is actually played in practice. 99+% of cricketers play according to 'how the game has traditionally been played as they know it' (where a little ground gained backing up isn't seen as a big deal and a mankad is) rather than the laws as written (mankad is no different to any other run out, no disincentive not to try for it).

The rarity of the dismissal -especially compared with how often the opportunity to mankad someone is there if people wanted to take it- is a big reason why it's seen as taboo by many and feels like an exploit when it's used. If a team just publicly made it known that they are going to merrily mankad whenever the opportunity presents then it might end up forcing a change, either in the general culture of the sport (people get much more careful with their backing up) and/or prompt further rule change (to disincentivise frequent/speculative mankading). At the very least, it'd stop a situation like this where one side believed there was an unspoken etiquette regarding the mankad and were clearly taken aback that the other side didn't share it.