*Official* IPL 2019

[TheJediBrah]

Did the bowler release the ball? No. Did the non-striker leave the crease? Yes. Is there an umpire error? ****ing no. Is this rocket science? No. I don't know what Daemon is smoking.

Do you need the law quoted for you to read again?

 

[morgieb]

I don't see how what Mankading usually is is particularly relevant tbh

I guess my point is that Ashwin thought Buttler was trying to gain an unfair advantage by leaving his crease.

In this case I don't think he was, and given that Buttler was still in the crease when he lands it shouldn't have been out. But there's evidence he was out of his crease when Ashwin landed to bowl the ball in previous balls, so it makes sense what he was trying to do.

 

[weldone]

Do you need the law quoted for you to read again?

Nope. I think you guys need to understand it. The law makes reference to "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball". Don't tell me Buttler was normally expecting Ashwin to release the ball even though he didn't complete 100% of his run-up and delivery stride!

 

[Borges]

I think Bruce Oxenford got this one right. The onus to have his bat grounded till the ball was released was on Buttler; this was quoted earlier:

The MCC have changed the wording of the Mankad rule from “Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery” to “Non-striker leaving their ground early” in a bid to put the “onus on the non-striker to remain in their ground”.
“It is often the bowler who is criticised for attempting such a run out but it is the batsman who is attempting to gain an advantage,” the MCC explained.
“The message to the non-striker is very clear – if you do not want to risk being run out, stay within your ground until the bowler has released the ball.”

 

[weldone]

Seriously. MCC has even explained the law and TJB is still arguing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I guess my point is that Ashwin thought Buttler was trying to gain an unfair advantage by leaving his crease.

In this case I don't think he was, and given that Buttler was still in the crease when he lands it shouldn't have been out. But there's evidence he was out of his crease when Ashwin landed to bowl the ball in previous balls, so it makes sense what he was trying to do.

An argument can definitely be made that Ashwin didn't realise he was doing anything wrong, these kinds of things happen in the heat of battle and he probably doesn't deserve to be crucified as he has been. Calling him a cheat probably more than a bit harsh upon further reflection.

There's little doubt that the wrong decision was made though

Nope. I think you guys need to understand it. The law makes reference to "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball". Don't tell me Buttler was normally expecting Ashwin to release the ball even though he didn't complete 100% of his run-up and delivery stride!

I think you've gone off the deep end and left all logic and reason behind. Doesn't seem as though you can think objectively about this at this stage.

 

[weldone]

I guess my point is that Ashwin thought Buttler was trying to gain an unfair advantage by leaving his crease.

In this case I don't think he was, and given that Buttler was still in the crease when he lands it shouldn't have been out. But there's evidence he was out of his crease when Ashwin landed to bowl the ball in previous balls, so it makes sense what he was trying to do.

Does the law talk about being in the crease when the bowler lands? Jeez, for a stump-out do you argue that batsman was in the crease when keeper first grabbed the ball, or something equally pointless?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Seriously. MCC has even explained the law and TJB is still arguing.

Do you really not see the issue that this could create going forward? Or the precedent it sets? It could genuinely be a danger to batsmen's safety if they need to whip their sight around nearly 180 degrees in milliseconds to watch a ball travellign 150kph.

 

[harsh.ag]

Why does he need to assume anything? Is he blind?

It's because the rule 41.16 explicitly brings the batsmen's expectations into play - "If the non-striker is out of his/her ground from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the bowler is permitted to attempt to run him/her out."

If you think the rule is wrong, that's a separate conversation.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

As I said just a little while ago:

I'd say the question is what is, "the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball"?

The way I interpreted this rule was that it would prevent a bowler from retaining the ball after going through the bowling action and running somebody out. I believe that this is what Mankad did when he ran Brown out in 1947.

From this, the way I have interpreted it is that it relates to the position of the arm and hand ...

"Release" I think is important here. The ball is released from the hand, and I believe it must be above shoulder level to avoid being no-balled for underarm bowling. Foot position is not as relevant.

 

[harsh.ag]

I think Bruce Oxenford got this one right. The onus to have his bat grounded till the ball was released was on Buttler; this was quoted earlier:

Nah, there is a definition provided of what "early" means. Buttler didn't go early by that definition.

Nope. I think you guys need to understand it. The law makes reference to "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball". Don't tell me Buttler was normally expecting Ashwin to release the ball even though he didn't complete 100% of his run-up and delivery stride!

He left only after the pause. So the expectation could easily be that the ball would have left the bowler's hand by that time if it was normal delivery. Just because you disagree with that doesn't make the expectation wrong.

 

[weldone]

As I said just a little while ago:

Absolutely. That was the intent of the law, as was made amply clear in their explanation too.

 

[morgieb]

Does the law talk about being in the crease when the bowler lands? Jeez, for a stump-out do you argue that batsman was in the crease when keeper first grabbed the ball, or something equally pointless?

The law is "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball". I take Ashwin landing as when he would've been expected to release the ball.

 

[weldone]

He left only after the pause. So the expectation could easily be that the ball would have left the bowler's hand by that time if it was normal delivery. Just because you disagree with that doesn't make the expectation wrong.

See NotMcKenzie's point.

 

[harsh.ag]

I'd say the question is what is, "the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball"?

The way I interpreted this rule was that it would prevent a bowler from retaining the ball after going through the bowling action and running somebody out. I believe that this is what Mankad did when he ran Brown out in 1947.

From this, the way I have interpreted it is that it relates to the position of the arm and hand, and I began watching the hand of the bowler whilst non-striker, something which is not that difficult to do, and one can follow the ball from the hand to the bat/pad/down the leg side and into the field to decide on whether to run and back up as one does so.

All this fuss seems to be over the position of the feet, which can be varied over the depth of the creases and even with respect to the arm [although that's generally between bowlers]

Yeah, but I wouldn't have had that interpretation as a batsman unless it was specifically pointed out to me beforehand. Don't know if the players have been given clear instructions on this.

 

[weldone]

The law is "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball". I take Ashwin landing as when he would've been expected to release the ball.

That'd be stupid. What does landing have to do with releasing the ball? the two don't happen at the same time. It's like guessing batsman's timing of the shot by looking at his footwork. See NotMcKenzie's point about the law - that's the correct interpretation of 'normal release'.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Yeah, but I wouldn't have had that interpretation as a batsman unless it was specifically pointed out to me beforehand. Don't know if the players have been given clear instructions on this.

That is literally the only way I have interpreted it up till this fuss

 

[harsh.ag]

That'd be stupid. What does landing have to do with releasing the ball? the two don't happen at the same time. It's like guessing batsman's timing of the shot by looking at his footwork. See NotMcKenzie's point about the law - that's the correct interpretation of 'normal release'.

Stop calling others stupid. You're not the only enlightened person. Different people can interpret the same wording differently while still being reasonable.

That was literally the only way I have interpreted it up till this fuss

Yeah, that's fine, but, as you can see, reasonable people can disagree. And unless the players had been provided explicit instructions to interpret it in this way, it should have been taken into account by the umpire.

 

[weldone]

That was literally the only way I have interpreted it up till this fuss

me too

I don't see how normal release can be defined in any other way.

 

[mr_mister]

That'd be stupid. What does landing have to do with releasing the ball? the two don't happen at the same time. It's like guessing batsman's timing of the shot by looking at his footwork. See NotMcKenzie's point about the law - that's the correct interpretation of 'normal release'.

Give it uuup

Ashwin was a sneaky little ****. Everyone else can own it when their favourite players **** up why can't you