*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[honestbharani]

@ comparing this run out to bodyline...

And @Spark - the point is simple. The crease is the batter's home and if they leave it when ball is in play, they are liable to be dismissed. No warnings, no nonsense of any sort.

I dont think its cheating if the non-striker backs up more than they should or goes outside the crease. Its a risk they are willing to take to gain a small advantage in getting a run, that is fine. The risk IS the fact that they can be dismissed doing so. I dont see any reason to call either anything unfair or against the spirit or whatever nonsense floats for the whingers.

If we want to introduce a rule that will mean the batsmen get a free hit if a bowler literally pretends to bowl in the hopes of getting a run-out, that is fine. Heck, I am even fine if we were to not allow them to bowl again in that innings, but its very hard to prove intent and if the bowler noticed the batter taking that start earlier and tried the run-out.

Ideally, if you want to use the free hit and free ball rule that I explained earlier, I am fine with that too. What I am against is the absolute drivel and tripe being spouted about how this dismissal is "unfair" "immoral" "against the etiquette" "against the spirit" or whatever nonsense it is. That **** is just pure unadulterated drivel and has no place in an actual discussion of how to improve this rule or facet of the game.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I think the change of laws literally did this and yet, here we are.

I mean, it was even a headline for a while on crapinfo before all this happened.

 

[Daemon]

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.

we’re certainly headed this way, but yeah such declarations would accelerate it

 

[mr_mister]

I'd be surprised to see a team ever saying "we're gonna mankad all series whenever we can".

 

[mr_mister]

@ comparing this run out to bodyline...

And @Spark - the point is simple. The crease is the batter's home and if they leave it when ball is in play, they are liable to be dismissed. No warnings, no nonsense of any sort.

I dont think its cheating if the non-striker backs up more than they should or goes outside the crease. Its a risk they are willing to take to gain a small advantage in getting a run, that is fine. The risk IS the fact that they can be dismissed doing so. I dont see any reason to call either anything unfair or against the spirit or whatever nonsense floats for the whingers.

If we want to introduce a rule that will mean the batsmen get a free hit if a bowler literally pretends to bowl in the hopes of getting a mankad, that is fine. Heck, I am even fine if we were to not allow them to bowl again in that innings, but its very hard to prove intent and if the bowler noticed the batter taking that start earlier and tried the mankad.

Ideally, if you want to use the free hit and free ball rule that I explained earlier, I am fine with that too. What I am against is the absolute drivel and tripe being spouted about how this dismissal is "unfair" "immoral" "against the etiquette" "against the spirit" or whatever nonsense it is. That **** is just pure unadulterated drivel and has no place in an actual discussion of how to improve this rule or facet of the game.

You speak about the ettiquette argument being nonsense like I'm some crackpot though. Have you not seen countless tweets from ex players giving a similar negative view of it to me?

 

[honestbharani]

You speak about the ettiquette argument being nonsense like I'm some crackpot though. Have you not seen countless tweets from ex players giving a similar negative view of it to me?

Do you also see even more countless tweets from ex and current players supporting it?

And just because others also share a wrong view, does not make it any more right.

 

[Xix2565]

You speak about the ettiquette argument being nonsense like I'm some crackpot though. Have you not seen countless tweets from ex players giving a similar negative view of it to me?

Do you seriously think appealing to the "authority" of ex-players who don't seem to know a lot about the laws is some sort of argument? People complain about something they dislike, big deal. Doesn't make them right or seem relatively intelligent.

 

[mr_mister]

Do you also see even more countless tweets from ex and current players supporting it?

And just because others also share a wrong view, does not make it any more right.

I've been hunting for pro-mankad tweets from pro players where there isn't a... Conflict of interest. I haven't found many. Maybe I'm not searching hard enough. On CW there's been plenty of takes for it, sure

 

[mr_mister]

Do you seriously think appealing to the "authority" of ex-players who don't seem to know a lot about the laws is some sort of argument? People complain about something they dislike, big deal. Doesn't make them right or seem relatively intelligent.

Okay yeah maybe we should move past the law part of this lol. I stated from the start I'm well aware it's in the laws. Obviously you can't have batsmen sprinting 3 quarters of the way down the pitch before the bowler has released the ball so there has to be a line drawn somewhere in the rulebook.

But using context we can see Dean was doing the standard type of backing up we see from batsmen every game in these situations. All the "she did it 72 times that game alone!" proof being brought up to me is like... Missing the forest for the trees as far as my argument is concerned

 

[honestbharani]

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this mate. To me, if you are not in your crease, you can be run out when the ball is in play. End of.

 

[Daemon]

Dean should be punished severely for cheating 72 times tbh. 1 year ban imo.

 

[Xix2565]

Yeah, people back up all the time and generally go unpunished. So what? It's no basis for basically shitting on a legitimate dismissal that doesn't happen often for various reasons. The argument against is basically just "It made me upset, so do something about it." which is a natural argument for upset children, not for generally reasonable adults. Hard to agree with such things.

 

[mr_mister]

Okay, well yeah. It was a complete non issue, as in 99.9% of people were happy with the unspoken ettiquette situation for the last however many decades of cricket had happened mankadding free. The backing up didn't ruin games. There wasn't a section of cricket fans demanding the law be changed til the initial blowup after the first Ashwin incident. Now suddenly it's an issue and there's been a rush to quickly correct the "broken" law.

Well see if we get mankad and balking attempts happening too frequently or not. Wel see if batsmen adjust or if it's not as simple as it sounds

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah, people back up all the time and generally go unpunished. So what? It's no basis for basically ****ting on a legitimate dismissal that doesn't happen often for various reasons. The argument against is basically just "It made me upset, so do something about it." which is a natural argument for upset children, not for generally reasonable adults. Hard to agree with such things.

This forum has a vibe dude. Get on board with it. Nobody proudly calls themself a reasonable adult here

 

[Socerer 01]

I'd be surprised to see a team ever saying "we're gonna mankad all series whenever we can".

Not a team per se but Ashwin did say something along these lines and gave a fair visible warning next time someone overstepped the crease in the ipl. Can’t remember who it was though

 

[Cruxdude]

Okay, well yeah. It was a complete non issue, as in 99.9% of people were happy with the unspoken ettiquette situation for the last however many decades of cricket had happened mankadding free. The backing up didn't ruin games. There wasn't a section of cricket fans demanding the law be changed til the initial blowup after the first Ashwin incident. Now suddenly it's an issue and there's been a rush to quickly correct the "broken" law.

Well see if we get mankad and balking attempts happening too frequently or not. Wel see if batsmen adjust or if it's not as simple as it sounds

I don't agree that it doesn't ruin games. It absolutely does for the bowling team, you could clearly see it in the expression of the Indian captain, just before the run out, how frustrating it was to see Dean take such a big start pretty much every ball. She was regularly backing up between 1-2ft and was backing up more on deliveries after quick singles were denied. It does ruin close games like the last one, when one team is taking undue advantage and the other can't take any action to stop it because the so-called protectors of the "spirit of the game" will come crashing down upon them.

The only reason it was an unspoken rule was because of the huge blowback that each such dismissal inevitably causes and not many people are fine with being called a cheat and other digs being taken at them. It is a shame that so many ex-cricketers come out to castigate Deepti for taking an action after watching Dean not respecting the crease for so long.

 

[Neil Young]

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this mate. To me, if you are not in your crease, you can be run out when the ball is in play. End of.

I'd be surprised if anyone was arguing otherwise.

 

[honestbharani]

I'd be surprised if anyone was arguing otherwise.

But that is what has been argued here by quite a few, including mr mr, ashley bach and stevenz to an extent.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

As someone else pointed out, if cricketers are so comfortable with this mode of dismissal a) why don't we see it more often? It's an almost guaranteed wicket, and; b) why did Deepti look so goddamn sheepish after she'd done it?

Just ban it. Job done.

Are you just going to ignore the fact that the batter repeatedly kept leaving her crease before the ball was delivered?

She did it 72 times in a low scoring game, does that seem fair?

 

[Neil Young]

Are you just going to ignore the fact that the batter repeatedly kept leaving her crease before the ball was delivered?

She did it 72 times in a low scoring game, does that seem fair?

What are the relevant figures for all the other players?

Anyway, as I said earlier, if Dean was repeatedly warned about it then she has only herself to blame. But, who knows if she was or not.

Still a rubbish way to take a wicket, for mine.