*Official* IPL 2019

[Borges]

IPL needs better umpires; umpires who can be expected to perform up to the exalted standards required of IPL umpires.
First there was bumbling Oxenford, and then there is blind Ravi; get rid of these palookas, I say. Let them go officiate in test matches, not IPL.

 

[Borges]

I reckon a warning and nothing more for the first offence is justified, and a dismissal should only be attempted if this warning has subsequently been ignored.

Yes; write it into the rules.
For the first offence, inform the umpire, and let the umpire issue an official warning and also nullify runs that may have been scored through unfair means.
Summarily guillotine the cheat if there is a second offence.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes; write it into the rules.
For the first offence, inform the umpire, and let the umpire issue an official warning and also nullify runs that may have been scored through unfair means.
Summarily guillotine the cheat if there is a second offence.

Actually not a stupid idea. Third umpire could to monitor where the non-striker is when "the bowler would be reasonably expected to have released the ball" and if the non-striker was cheating then nullify all runs from that delivery.

Check for no-balls while he's at it too, which is crazy that it's not happening already

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Okay, but your first point seems to disregard the escalated importance of backing up and completing runs in t20 cricket. It could be argued that there is more importance in the batsmen backing up as much as possible so that those vital runs can be completed, and hence the possibility of ending up marginally out of the crease by the time of the bowlers release is increased.

And this is certainly comparable to where a bowler is taken through the wicket and the way that they must coordinate themselves so as not to do it. A batsmen must be treading the fine line between backing up well and too well so that they could potentially be run out. To not be doing this afterall, would be against the very premise of attempting to score runs as quick as possible

Hence, I reckon a warning and nothing more for the first offence is justified, and a dismissal should only be attempted if this warning has subsequently been ignored. It would be extremely negative for the game if bowlers were to have to be in constant fear of running across the middle of the wicket in case they were instantly taken out of the attack, and this is why warnings make it better. The warning for mankading is really the same principle.

Any argument that, "... cos T20 ... blah blah blah," clearly has not been thought through in terms of actual cricket. By this argument, let's add a 5-second period in which no run-outs can be made because runs are at a premium so that things should be made easier for them to be able to complete them. Let's remove the short-run rule because that little extra bit of thinking about where they put their bat could cost them that second tight run.

What does 'scoring runs as quickly as possible' have to do with anything to do with the laws? Where do the laws stipulate that, "play should be conducted so to allow for the quickest possible scoring of runs"?

Why does it matter that it increases the risk? How about we remove such run-outs entirely then: the bowler cannot run the non-striker out before he releases, not before he begins the swing of his arm, not before he enters his delivery stride, not ever. That'll definitely cut down the risk they face.

Furthermore, it is a very batsmen-centred argument, and one that has no justification beyond, 'make things easier for batsmen to do x.'

Or, we can accept the rules as they are and batsmen can deal with it. They'll have to score runs as quickly as possible whilst following the laws.


Furthermore, it is not comparable to a bowler running on the wicket. It is most comparable to a batsman running on the wicket: both actions involve running towards the other end of the pitch, and so carry some possibility of running on the pitch. In both cases, there are options open to reduce its possibility, moer for the batsman because he is not required to stand inside the return crease and can so be further away from the protected area. A bowler has to stay within the creases while bowling and because he will have more momentum going forwards (whereas a batsman goes from close to a standing start), particularly if he is fast, that increases the possibility of running on the wicket, and it is harder to control be virtue of simple physics. Until we invent a bowler who can follow through at a right angle immediately after bowling, it keeps being a possibility. But, the physical nature of bowling means that a bowler will necesarily take at least one step beyond the crease [possible exeptional exceptions aside].

By contrast, a batsman can start his run at any time. He could wait 5 seconds after the ball has been hit and only then begin to run. The act of backing up or running does not necessitate leaving the crease before the bowler has released the ball. He is not already moving in the same way a bowler is.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Hence, I reckon a warning and nothing more for the first offence is justified, and a dismissal should only be attempted if this warning has subsequently been ignored. It would be extremely negative for the game if bowlers were to have to be in constant fear of running across the middle of the wicket in case they were instantly taken out of the attack, and this is why warnings make it better. The warning for mankading is really the same principle.

The idea that batsmen need to or ought to be warned is based on a total ignorance of the laws of cricket, and it will complicate them as well.

To sum up:

Law 38: Run out

38.1 Out Run out

Either batsman is out Run out, except as in 38.2, if, at any time while the ball is in play, he/she is out of his/her ground and his/her wicket is fairly put down by the action of a fielder even though No ball has been called, except in the circumstances of 38.2.2.2, and whether or not a run is being attempted.

When is the ball in play, you may ask?

Law 20: Dead ball

20.5 Ball ceases to be dead

The ball ceases to be dead – that is, it comes into play – when the bowler starts his/her run-up or, if there is no run-up, starts his/her bowling action.

Open-and-shut.

The ambiguity with the non-striker come because it was decided that the bowler should not be able to fake-bowl, hold onto the ball and attempt a run-out, and they have decided recently that the expected timing of release will determine that end-point
Furthermore, there are also rules preventing run-stealing. Both of these are based around the idea of fair play.

But, running the non-striker out is in and of itself not unfair play, and is covered by a law that gives no scope for warnings. The warning is a courtesy some may or may not give just as some may not run out somebody who has been in a collision whilst others would (or be Carl Hooper and mess it up completely by throwing to the wrong end).


To continue batsmen/bowler analogies, a bowler is not warned for overstepping before being no-balled. there is no 'warn him first time, call him second time' which is the approach people want to take with run-outs at the non-striker's end.

 

[Starfighter]

That's a long text wall to say that the laws don't care about BSM's opinion of how running in T20 should be conducted.

Also the analogy with running on the wicket is apples to oranges. Despite the text of the law , no umpire actually warns a bowler for the first instance of running on the pitch, they wait for a pattern then warn the bowler. Damaging the pitch is a cumulative thing, not much happens but it builds up, so such an interpretation works especially as extent of the protected area is a bit nebulous in application despite some formal prescriptions. Whereas leaving your ground early is a discreet thing, you either do or you don't. BSM's analogy is tantamount to asking for warnings for front foot no-balls.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Rashid might take a five-fer here.

 

[slippy888]

Rashid might take a five-fer here.

On course for 180 here

 

[slippy888]

You going all in on the Royals here

 

[mr_mister]

Move over Pant

Say hello to Samson

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

How the hell did Rashid Khan end up with man of the match?


Nihadas Trophy legend, Vijay Shankar deserved it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You shouldn't lose a match where you only lose 2 wickets. A couple of great innings but the conclusion that has to be made that there was not enough urgency in the batting.

 

[slippy888]

DE KOCK looks set here

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

176 looks enough

 

[mr_mister]

Depends on Gayle basically

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

True dat

 

[weldone]

Haha the pause was when he was weighing up the pros and cons of taking his own name, but then 'smartly' decided against it

https://www.facebook.com/Cricinfo/videos/2063413620618111/

 

[Borges]

Hey, weldone, if you go and roll your eyes at the MCC, they may be persuaded to perform yet another U-turn; it worked swimmingly well when some English journalists tried it..

 

[weldone]

lol Nikhil Naik

What a meme batsman!

 

[Niall]

This has been a mess in the last few overs from Delhi who love a choke. They seemed to forget that the game was not won even whey looked in control. Pant batted like an idiot and less said about Vihari the better.