*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread

[Cruxdude]

Maybe a way to get over this issue is having the third umpire checking the non-striker every ball and whenever he/she is out of the crease before the ball is delivered make it a dot ball or a wicket if one falls regardless of what happens on the other end.

 

[honestbharani]

Maybe a way to get over this issue is having the third umpire checking the non-striker every ball and whenever he/she is out of the crease before the ball is delivered make it a dot ball regardless of what happens on the other end.

Its what Ash suggested. A no-run like a no-ball, including a corresponding version of a free-hit, the free-ball, where you can be dismissed but cant score any runs.

 

[mr_mister]

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

Not can, should.

"They were so preoccupied over whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should "

 

[SteveNZ]

The problem with the last 24 hours or so of posting is the absolute refusal of a couple of posters to be involved in anything resembling a reasoned debate and instead attacking and belittling anyone with a countering view.

No one's opinion is right or wrong, despite what you'd read here.

 

[honestbharani]

No one's opinion is right or wrong, despite what you'd read here.

I am sure it is right to equate that dismissal to bodyline, for example.

 

[SteveNZ]

I am sure it is right to equate that dismissal to bodyline, for example.

Seems over the top, I didn't see that. But I'd be willing to listen to why someone said it

 

[Cruxdude]

There was also this weird argument about Mankad requiring no skill. Lots of things in cricket happen with no skill. Leg-byes require no skill. French cuts and edges to the boundaries require no skill. Mankad on the other hand is punishing the absence of the skill to play by the rules.

 

[Neil Young]

Seems over the top, I didn't see that. But I'd be willing to listen to why someone said it

I'm guessing the point was England were doing nothing illegal. But was it really within the spirit of the game.

 

[honestbharani]

Seems over the top, I didn't see that. But I'd be willing to listen to why someone said it

Read mr mr's posts. Also, this is my position here.

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.

 

[Neil Young]

The problem with the last 24 hours or so of posting is the absolute refusal of a couple of posters to be involved in anything resembling a reasoned debate and instead attacking and belittling anyone with a countering view.

No one's opinion is right or wrong, despite what you'd read here.

Hmmm...just who are you referring to here...

 

[Cruxdude]

Not can, should.

"They were so preoccupied over whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should "

Man these sort of holier than thou statements grate so much

 

[mr_mister]

Man these sort of holier than thou statements grate so much

Haha, whenever I'm quoting a movie it's a bit tongue in cheek.

 

[SteveNZ]

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

No, I never said someone couldn't be run out. I know the law says they can. I said it's not been clearly enough communicated enough because we still have myriad tweets, pages of threads, and tons of reaction to this dismissal. I can't think of a law in any sport that even when followed, creates so much controversy. That's why I say the law needs to be revisited and given extra weight to be sure we can proceed without - as Ed said - blocking up a women's thread with opinion that doesn't particularly relate to it.

 

[honestbharani]

No, I never said someone couldn't be run out. I know the law says they can. I said it's not been clearly enough communicated enough because we still have myriad tweets, pages of threads, and tons of reaction to this dismissal. I can't think of a law in any sport that even when followed, creates so much controversy. That's why I say the law needs to be revisited and given extra weight to be sure we can proceed without - as Ed said - blocking up a women's thread with opinion that doesn't particularly relate to it.

I dont think it is lack of comprehension that is the issue. It is just a lack of acceptance of the fact that it is, in fact, the law.

 

[Neil Young]

Read mr mr's posts. Also, this is my position here.

But it's not drivel. The very reason Mankads don't appear in every game (which they probably could) is because it's a pretty dubious way to conduct yourself on the cricket field, and cricketers are aware of that. See Deepti's sheepish reaction to Dean's dismissal as Exhibit A.

 

[honestbharani]

But it's not drivel. The very reason Mankads don't appear in every game (which they probably could) is because it's a pretty dubious way to conduct yourself on the cricket field, and cricketers are aware of that. See Deepti's sheepish reaction to Dean's dismissal as Exhibit A.

We can go around in circles but sorry, this is drivel. And sheepish as in how bowlers look when they get wickets with full tosses and longhops?

 

[SteveNZ]

Read mr mr's posts. Also, this is my position here.

But see, even you saying that I find condescending. I'd be one of the ones you'd accuse of that. I said I wouldn't have done it,I said 99% of cricketers wouldn't, and don't. What's that based on? Emotion, and some sort of moral code. It exists whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

That's why I want a revisit of the rules, to eliminate spirit of the cricket game coming up. And the move from one section of the law book to another didn't do that.

 

[Neil Young]

We can go around in circles but sorry, this is drivel. And sheepish as in how bowlers look when they get wickets with full tosses and longhops?

OK. In your very humble opinion, why are Mankads not commonplace in cricket?

 

[SteveNZ]

We can go around in circles but sorry, this is drivel. And sheepish as in how bowlers look when they get wickets with full tosses and longhops?

This is the last thing I'll say...it isn't drivel.

It's an opinion in countenance to your own.

 

[honestbharani]

,I said 99% of cricketers wouldn't, and don't.

That is just not true.. maybe amongst the ones you know, at best.

And yes, the law is pretty clear right now. Like I said, it is a refusal to accept that it is the law that is the issue, not any difficulty in comprehending something as basic as stay in the crease till the bowler lets go of the ball, which MCC has clarified again today.