Mankads

[mr_mister]

One can very easily time 'getting one's momentum up' to arrive at the crease at release or slightly after. Doing it in a manner (as some do) so one is consistently well down the wicket means it is reasonable to infer additional reasons.


Considering the earliest definitely known such dismissal was in 1843, batsmen have had plenty of forewarning.

This was published in a well known instructional book in 1845:

View attachment 33080

I would suggest that batsmen would do well to heed the advice.

So there's a reason it fell out of favour right? People universally decided it was too prickly a law, felt like a cheap dismissal and kind of missed the big picture of the battle between bat and ball

 

[mr_mister]

I would liken it to the second amendment

 

[Lillian Thomson]

My method mirrored that of Ian Botham. Don't waste energy unless it's established that there's a run on.

 

[Starfighter]

So there's a reason it fell out of favour right? People universally decided it was too prickly a law, felt like a cheap dismissal and kind of missed the big picture of the battle between bat and ball

You're massively over thinking it to belabour your otherwise weak point there. There doesn't seem to have been much of it until newspapers post-war really made some noise, and even then the earliest well-known incident where it seems to have been considered an unpardonable sin was in 1978.

The only concern about the battle between bat and bat you generally find up to the mid fifties was concern too many runs were being scored.

 

[mr_mister]

You're massively over thinking it to belabour your otherwise weak point there. There doesn't seem to have been much of it until newspapers post-war really made some noise, and even then the earliest well-known incident where it seems to have been considered an unpardonable sin was in 1978.

Trust me, I'm barely thinking at all

 

[cnerd123]

social getting absolutely anihilated in this thread

 

[Neil Young]

http://instagr.am/p/CjHgCX6KCIT/

That article pretty much sums up the Indian view as read on here.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

My method mirrored that of Ian Botham. Don't waste energy unless it's established that there's a run on.



View attachment 33081

Ahhhh the Duncan Fernley ????

 

[SteveNZ]

It’s pretty simple

If the “spirit of cricket” is no longer a criteria then unlimited bouncers should be allowed irrespective of a batters’ skill

Do away with fielding restrictions as well

You can have 9 fielders behind square on the off so why not leg?

Same with having to nominate which arm that you are going to bowl with & negative lines

All those rules exist because they are considered to contravene the spirit of cricket

I would much prefer to watch 90 overs of Bodyline than 1 Mankad attempt

Yeah I can't add much more than others have, but none of those even remotely exist because of spirit of cricket. They exist for player safety (bouncers) and quality of the product (bouncers, restrictions, fielders behind square.)

What happens when a bowling team is looking to go negative to force a draw or generally hold the opposition back in a Test/FC game? They do basically all you're saying. They bowl short with as many people back as possible. They spread the field far and wide. They bowl 'negative lines' either wide of off stump or on the body/outside leg. Is it entertaining? **** no, it isn't. Why can't you have 9 behind leg but you can on the off side? Because bowling a foot outside off stump, a batsman can hit it to basically any area on the ground. Bowling anywhere from on the pads, they can't. So if you stacked nine players on the leg side/behind leg side, then bowled 'leg theory' or on/outside leg stump, you've hardly got a game at all.

 

[mr_mister]

I think the only reason they got so drastic with curbing Bodyline was it literally threatened English/Australian political relations right? Or was that overblown

 

[Xix2565]

Dumb = brainless

No I meant a lot more than that when I said brainless, dogs at least have some more intelligence then what's being shown in defence of the idiocy of the "Spirit of the Game".

 

[Son Of Coco]

One can very easily time 'getting one's momentum up' to arrive at the crease at release or slightly after. Doing it in a manner (as some do) so one is consistently well down the wicket means it is reasonable to infer additional reasons.


Considering the earliest definitely known such dismissal was in 1843, batsmen have had plenty of forewarning.

This was published in a well known instructional book in 1845:

View attachment 33080

I would suggest that batsmen would do well to heed the advice.

Why is the bowler masturbating as the batsman leaves his crease? These Victorian-era publications certainly were saucy!

 

[social]

Yeah I can't add much more than others have, but none of those even remotely exist because of spirit of cricket. They exist for player safety (bouncers) and quality of the product (bouncers, restrictions, fielders behind square.)

What happens when a bowling team is looking to go negative to force a draw or generally hold the opposition back in a Test/FC game? They do basically all you're saying. They bowl short with as many people back as possible. They spread the field far and wide. They bowl 'negative lines' either wide of off stump or on the body/outside leg. Is it entertaining? **** no, it isn't. Why can't you have 9 behind leg but you can on the off side? Because bowling a foot outside off stump, a batsman can hit it to basically any area on the ground. Bowling anywhere from on the pads, they can't. So if you stacked nine players on the leg side/behind leg side, then bowled 'leg theory' or on/outside leg stump, you've hardly got a game at all.

Bodyline was an attacking strategy designed to force batsmen into playing high risk shots

It was essentially banned as enough thought that it contravened the spirit of cricket

 

[social]

I think the only reason they got so drastic with curbing Bodyline was it literally threatened English/Australian political relations right? Or was that overblown

Emotions were very high

Politicians got involved

Australian team threatened to forfeit a tour game if it was used against them

Larwood was never selected for England again after refusing to apologise

 

[Victor Ian]

Well, if England decides this is big enough to threaten to never tour, and a few politicians get involved, perhaps you have grounds for comparing this to Bodyline and perhaps rules will be changed. As it is nothing more than a few voiciferous people hankering on about spirit while never actually addressing the spirit of breaking a rule and wishing to be exempt from consequences, I imagine that the rules won't be changed.
People can still be righteous and warn a batsman first, but they don't have to and they should not be demeaned when they don't. It's kind of like walking. We clap those who do it, but don't expect it off anyone.

 

[the big bambino]

History lesson

MCC changed laws of cricket in England after bodyline series to promote spirit of cricket

Basically outlawed bodyline

Jardine never played against Australia again after flouting those laws

Larwood never played for England again

Common knowledge for anyone involved with cricket

After seeing an extract of the 1935 wisden (cricinfo) it's not that straight forward. Bodyline initiated the changes but wasn't directly banned which would've required including length and line of delivery, bowler's intent and the placement of the field in the definition. I wonder if the authourities, knowing the intricacies, decided on another way of dealing with the problems it caused.

So MCC passed a resolution late Nov 1933 where they used the term "direct attack" and it being an offence against the spirit of the game. It was accepted by all the counties who agreed they wouldn't permit such bowling. The MCC monitored this agreement hoping it would work or at least giving them time to better define a law preventing direct attack that wouldn't impact on other aspects of the game. Such as inhibiting fields for off spinners and in swingers.

Self regulation didn't work. I guess captains would always interpret their bowler's actions as being consistent with the resolution. After observing examples of direct attack in 1934, MCC defined it as persistent and systemic fast and short pitched balls at the batsman standing clear of his wicket and passed it in Nov 34. Administration for direct attack was to be under Law 43 which I think covers unfair play. The definition of direct attack dealt with bodyline (and dangerous bowling generally) without inhibiting captains setting preferred fields for other bowling.

Jardine never flouted the game's laws: Neither did Larwood. I suspect the justification of cricket's spirit in addressing direct attack was diplomatic as was the term itself. That way the MCC could ban it without compromising the achievements of its 32/33 team. That should've been the end of it if spirit of cricket was the reason. But MCC required an apology from Larwood and Voce as a ransom to playing for England again. To me that suggests there were political reasons additional to concerns for player safety and the spirit of cricket for the subsequent laws on direct attack.

 

[mr_mister]

Larwood was a Hitman sanctioned by Don Jardine to take care of mob rival Don Bradman by any means necessary. If it wasn't through Bodyline it would have been through letterbombs

 

[_00_deathscar]

Someone should try it against India’s best bat in a knockout game

India’s best bats stay in the crease cos they’re not cheaters.

 

[_00_deathscar]

How is taking a wicket in any way not a deliberately premeditated act? By definition there is actual intent to, you know, take the wicket. Do you think people bowl deliveries without any thoughts at all?

If you watched Indian bowling in the 90s you’d be forgiven for thinking so.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Lol those rules are there because otherwise cricket would ****ing suck to play and watch.

It already does though…