honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I am fine with a free hit for unsuccessful attempts of this type of run-outs tbh.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Women's Cricket discussion thread
- Thread starter V Reddy
- Start date
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
@ashley bach , you can see this if the other video did not work.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think you realise how obvious it is how worked up you're getting with your overly emotional (and targeting specific posters with emotional insults) responses to everyone
Notice that almost no one else is doing that? Passion is good but you're going to give yourself an aneurysm if you take everything so personally
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Third umpire would have to check the replay every ball which would absolutely waste everyone's time whenever there's a couple of frames in it.
anil1405
International Captain
That was my first thought too but TV umpires check for no-balls every delivery and they can do the same for this one in the same frame.
Haha! Righto champ. Throw up a poll as to whether your opinions or mine are of more relevance to CW as a whole. If it's you, I'll go and play online Sudoku for the rest of my days.
Your analogy about the no ball sucks, by the way. Absolutely no parallel at all with what is being discussed.
I don't expect people to do jack ****. What I said was in that instance, I am pretty clear that myself, and probably 99% of cricketers would not have resorted to what that Indian bowler did. How many times does a game get down to that situation, and how many times do you reckon the batsman is creeping outside their crease in those? Heaps. Heaps and heaps. How many times has a bowler decided to Mankad? One here, one in that Melbourne comp. So don't tell me the rest of them weren't interested in winning. Why didn't Trent Boult pull up in the 2019 WC final and Mankad someone? He didn't fancy winning? No, because he knows that is a BS way to end a game. He knows that he is paid significant $ to play a game and no ****ing crowd wants a spinner to pull up and whip the bails off to end a contest. If that batsman needs to be warned, or the law needs to be more black and white, sweet. But despite what cnerd says - and I respect him - it ain't.
Xix was around before they gave women the right to vote. He's the guy at the far left of the evolutionary chart, right beside Lucy with the scraped knuckles and the pronounced jaw.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Emotions running hot in this thread, some would say fittingly.
Not me because I'm not ***ist, but some would say
Not me because I'm not ***ist, but some would say
RossTaylorsBox
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
For a no-ball you only have to check the foot landing though. For a short run you'd have to check when the ball is released (the exact point when this happens is also debatable) and where the bat is when this happens.
Spark
Global Moderator
I'll repeat what I said a few months back: every sport needs written rules, but no sport has rules that are capable of standing up to the sort of insane rules lawyering scrutiny and loophole-searching that, you know, actual laws receive. As it stands the fact is that mankading is only allowed in the game because of this sort of unspoken honour code system that is nowhere codified in the rules that means that no one really does it and it looks way out of place when it happens, and everyone sort of agrees to handicap themselves by not exploiting this very plain opportunity opened by the laws to attempt to mankad someone on ~80% of deliveries.
Would it be entirely legal and professional if someone actually did attempt to play the sport according to the rules to their maximum extent and attempt to mankad at every single possibility? Of course. I don't see how you could argue that it's not within the rules to do so. Would that render the sport utterly and completely unwatchable and make me want to do, oh I don't know, literally any else with my spare time other than watch cricket? Obviously. No sport is ever designed to stand up to that level of "well it's in the rules" level of ruthless exploitation of loopholes.
I don't mind mankading but I think in their quest for internet points, a few people who I won't name but it should be pretty obvious are forgetting what "the laws of the game" are actually for. You need them, but they're necessarily downstream from the way the game is actually played. Cricket is a sport, not a constitutional government.
Would it be entirely legal and professional if someone actually did attempt to play the sport according to the rules to their maximum extent and attempt to mankad at every single possibility? Of course. I don't see how you could argue that it's not within the rules to do so. Would that render the sport utterly and completely unwatchable and make me want to do, oh I don't know, literally any else with my spare time other than watch cricket? Obviously. No sport is ever designed to stand up to that level of "well it's in the rules" level of ruthless exploitation of loopholes.
I don't mind mankading but I think in their quest for internet points, a few people who I won't name but it should be pretty obvious are forgetting what "the laws of the game" are actually for. You need them, but they're necessarily downstream from the way the game is actually played. Cricket is a sport, not a constitutional government.
Last edited:
anil1405
International Captain
Let's not pretend it would be a humongous task. Couple of frames and it would be clear. By the time bowlers even walks back past the umpire to his/her run up that would be determined.
Heboric
International Debutant
Yep when it happens to your team the viewpoint mysteriously changes.
I mean feel free to go play Sudoku, they are fun to solve. Not sure how making a poll here would mean anything though since it's not like we're true representatives of everyone who cares, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. As is all the other nonsense on mindreading and such as if we can claim to know exactly what was going on in their heads during every delivery and whether they thought about running out the non striker or not without them coming out and actually saying things.
The official stance is pretty clear, it's up to the players to use it as they see fit. Deepti decided to run out Dean, succeeded, end of story. Everyone else worrying over how it might ruin the watching experience if it happens more and more are wasting their time, if it gets changed later on due to abuse then so be it. Doesn't make it a **** thing to do now though or that the people who do it are **** blokes (TM). Could say the same about some of the pearl clutchers here.
Hard to stay reasonable with an emotional take though, so can't blame you for getting worked up over this.
OK everyone, off the internet! Xix has rightly pointed that something happened, that's the end of the story, and we're wasting our time.
Goodnight all.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Reply to spark since he owned you