didn't they change the rules last year?

[JT]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2012/content/current/story/580122.html

Why all the fuss?

[Uday Rajan]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:28:44 PM UTC-4, JT wrote:
> http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2012/content/current/story/580122.html
>
> Why all the fuss?

(The article refers to Murali Kartik of Surrey "mankading" out Alex Barrow of Somerset earlier today. Surrey captain Gareth Batty was asked by the umpires whether he wanted to proceed with the appeal, and he did. It seems to have caused a furore.)

Yes, AFAIR sometime ago Law 38.2 was amended so that a bowler could not run out a batsman after he had entered his delivery stride. I don't understand the reason for the furore either. First, in the same over, Kartik had previously warned Barrow for leaving his ground too early. Second, if Kartik was successfully able to run out Barrow, Barrow must have left the crease *before* Kartik had entered his delivery stride. If the latter is not correct, the umpires rather than the Surrey team should be at the receiving end of the ire.

Clearly opinions on this matter differ, but to me a non-striker is seeking to obtain an illegal advantage by leaving his ground too early and the bowler is well within his rights to try and prevent him from doing so. I find it difficult to understand why a batsman would be playing fair but out of his ground before the bowler has entered his delivery stride. If it's intentional, he's seeking an illegal advantage, and if it's a mental lapse of concentration, well, that's exactly what should be earning a penalty. After all, if a batsman makes a mistake and is bowled, we don't recall him because it's unfair to dismiss him.

If we frown on bowlers for running out non-strikers, we should clarify the rules. At what stage is a non-striker allowed to leave his crease, or how far down the wicket is he allowed to be before the ball has been delivered?

I find the situation absurd. Where does this stop? Should we let a non-striker leave the crease as the bowler starts his run-up? Or should we just let the non-striker wait three yards from the crease the whole time, rather than within the crease? Or just ban the bowler from running out the non-striker, in which case the non-striker can just get all the way over to the batsman's end before the ball has been delivered. That will end mankading once and for all.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 9:48:36 AM UTC+10, Uday Rajan wrote:
> I find the situation absurd. Where does this stop? Should we let a non-striker leave the crease as the bowler starts his run-up? Or should we just let the non-striker wait three yards from the crease the whole time, rather than within the crease? Or just ban the bowler from running out the non-striker, in which case the non-striker can just get all the way over to the batsman's end before the ball has been delivered. That will end mankading once and for all.

As I understand it the Laws have been tweaked a bit here and there. "Batsman can move once bowler enters delivery stride" sounds like a fair balance to me.

For me it's always been customary to give a warning. After that, I feel NO guilt in mankadding.

This warning obviously applies to batsman leaving before I enter my delivery stride.
If I tried to warn a batsman leaving when he's allowed he'd just laugh and call me a dickhead.

I don't see why further tweaks are needed. The Laws as you've quoted sound fine.
Bowlers don't HAVE to give warnings, and I don't consider NOT giving a warning to be against the Spirit of Cricket.

It's like walking. Some do, some don't. It would be nice if we *all* do, but I can't see that happening.

[Uday Rajan]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:38:22 PM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:
>
> For me it's always been customary to give a warning. After that, I feel NO
> guilt in mankadding.

> ...

> Bowlers don't HAVE to give warnings, and I don't consider NOT giving a warning
> to be against the Spirit of Cricket.

Yes, I agree, I don't see why a warning is necessary, especially under the current version of the Laws. It's being treated as if the bowler is doing something unfair by running out the non-striker, whereas to me it's clear that the batsman is being unfair by leaving the crease before the bowler has even entered his delivery stride. Many years ago, I was out mankaded once. I was completely furious, but not at the bowler, who IMO had done nothing wrong---I was angry about getting out in a stupid way. And that was under the old rules.

> It's like walking. Some do, some don't. It would be nice if we *all* do, but I
> can't see that happening.

I'm not sure I agree about the parallel. I think batsmen should walk, and I applaud those that do while recognizing, of course, that most don't. I think a batsman who doesn't walk when he knows he's out is being unfair. I don't think a bowler who runs out a non-striker is being unfair.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 11:28:46 AM UTC+10, Uday Rajan wrote:
> > It's like walking. Some do, some don't. It would be nice if we *all* do, but I can't see that happening.

> I'm not sure I agree about the parallel. I think batsmen should walk, and I applaud those that do while recognizing, of course, that most don't. I think a batsman who doesn't walk when he knows he's out is being unfair. I don't think a bowler who runs out a non-striker is being unfair.

The standard argument against walking is "I've been shafted so many times by poor umpiring. I had to accept the ump's decision then, so why can't I'll simply accept it now?".

If a batsman is 100% certain that he edged it and that it was caught cleanly, and I had a magic wand then yes, I'd agree with you, wave my wand and make all batsmen walk. Anything less than 100% certainty, though, and I don't think they should walk.

The parallel I was trying to draw was this; walking and mankad-warning are both actions that are "outside" the Laws, but they both make cricket a nicer game. If ALL players do it, then no one is disadvantaged and "cricket wins". If only SOME people do it, though, then those who don't will benefit (runs and winning-wise).

Same goes for taking the fielder's word, letting the ump know that there was no edge and it should be a leg-bye, not running when the ball deflects off your bat, and providing the away team with lunch :). All those things make cricket special, imo.

[Andrew Dunford]

"Uday Rajan" <uday...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f72e960-55a4-49ec...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:28:44 PM UTC-4, JT wrote:
>> http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2012/content/current/story/580122.html
>>
>> Why all the fuss?
>
> (The article refers to Murali Kartik of Surrey "mankading" out Alex Barrow
> of Somerset earlier today. Surrey captain Gareth Batty was asked by the
> umpires whether he wanted to proceed with the appeal, and he did. It seems
> to have caused a furore.)
>
> Yes, AFAIR sometime ago Law 38.2 was amended so that a bowler could not
> run out a batsman after he had entered his delivery stride. I don't
> understand the reason for the furore either. First, in the same over,
> Kartik had previously warned Barrow for leaving his ground too early.
> Second, if Kartik was successfully able to run out Barrow, Barrow must
> have left the crease *before* Kartik had entered his delivery stride. If
> the latter is not correct, the umpires rather than the Surrey team should
> be at the receiving end of the ire.

Just to clear up the Laws / Playing Conditions aspect of this, which is a
bit confusing:

In the 2000 Code, Law 42.15 was introduced. The relevant paragraph is "The
bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run
out the non-striker". This remains the Law today.

However, it has become increasingly obvious in recent years that such a Law
enables the non-striking batsman to leave his crease very early without
sanction. Hence various bodies have introduced amendments to Law 42.15 in
their own Playing Conditions. For example, for international matches the
ICC Playing Conditions state:

"Law 42.15 shall be replaced by the following:
The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has
not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the
non-striker."

The ECB Playing Conditions in force in the County Championship use exactly
the same warning.

Of course this can become very confusing. Last season I twice had to
explain to players in the local junior competition that the couldn't
'mankad' a player in the manner being attempted because the match wasn't
being played under ICC Playing Conditions.

<snip>

Andrew

[sdavmor]

Go Mankad! Go Mankad! Run the bastard batsman out I say! ** No sympathy
here **.
--
SDM a 21st century schizoid man in SoCal
Systems Theory website www.systemstheory.net
"overfulnoisecascade" CD coming soon

[Take it Easy]

In article <k1p9ge$k92$2...@news.albasani.net>, sda...@fakeemailaddy.com
says...

Totally agreed. And invoking "gentleman" clause here is just ridiculous.

If the batsman is out of the crease before a run is possible, then he
can be out. I don't even agree with the latest change. The bowler should
be allowed to dismiss at any time. If the ball hasn't left the bowler,
why are you outside the crease?

Takeiteasy [not taking it easy :)]

[jzfredricks]

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:43:13 AM UTC+10, Take it Easy wrote:
> If the batsman is out of the crease before a run is possible, then he
> can be out. I don't even agree with the latest change. The bowler should
> be allowed to dismiss at any time. If the ball hasn't left the bowler,
> why are you outside the crease?

Because if we do that then a nasty element will creep into cricket - deception.

It's hard to articulate the difference between the deception of a well hidden wrong un' and the deception of tricking a non-striker into thinking you've bowled (so that you can run him out), but I'm certain there is one.

The Laws and Spirit should try to REDUCE conflict between teams, rather than increase it.

[Bob Dubery]

On Sep 6, 2:29 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:43:13 AM UTC+10, Take it Easy wrote:
> > If the batsman is out of the crease before a run is possible, then he
> > can be out. I don't even agree with the latest change. The bowler should
> > be allowed to dismiss at any time. If the ball hasn't left the bowler,
> > why are you outside the crease?
>
> Because if we do that then a nasty element will creep into cricket - deception.
>
> It's hard to articulate the difference between the deception of a well hidden wrong un' and the deception of tricking a non-striker into thinking you've bowled (so that you can run him out), but I'm certain there is one.

I should think it's in making a swing of the arm that would usually
result in the ball being delivered. Which is why the laws and playing
conditions are worded as they are.

The cricinfo report tells us that the wording for county cricket
matches is

"The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he
has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the
non-striker."


>

> The Laws and Spirit should try to REDUCE conflict between teams, rather than increase it.

Subjective spirits of the game should not overrule the laws IMO, and
it's the laws that people should play to. If a particular law is to be
dispensed with then that should be negotiated, not just ignored
because we don't like that sort of stuff.

[Take it Easy]

In article <b90b693b-f0a0-4f75...@googlegroups.com>,
jzfre...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:43:13 AM UTC+10, Take it Easy wrote:
> > If the batsman is out of the crease before a run is possible, then he
> > can be out. I don't even agree with the latest change. The bowler should
> > be allowed to dismiss at any time. If the ball hasn't left the bowler,
> > why are you outside the crease?
>
> Because if we do that then a nasty element will creep into cricket -
> deception.
>
> It's hard to articulate the difference between the deception of a well
> hidden wrong un' and the deception of tricking a non-striker into
> thinking you've bowled (so that you can run him out), but I'm certain
> there is one.

The non-striker/batsman should run only if there is a scoring
opportunity. Just because the ball is released from the hand (or not),
there is no need to leave the crease. If somebody is doing that to
enhance their chance of completing a run, they have to take the risk of
getting run out.

> The Laws and Spirit should try to REDUCE conflict between teams,
> rather than increase it.

I don't understand why there should be conflict for this case. Don't
start running before there is an opportunity to score run. I wouldn't
even expect a warning ahead.

Takeiteasy.

[jzfredricks]

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 4:01:18 PM UTC+10, Take it Easy wrote:
> I don't understand why there should be conflict for this case. Don't
> start running before there is an opportunity to score run. I wouldn't
> even expect a warning ahead.

By this logic the non-stricker shouldn't leave the crease until the striker has hit the ball, and perhaps even later in the case of byes.
That seems strange to me.

[jzfredricks]

The way I read things TakeItEasy is suggesting a Law change. I was responding to that propose Law.

[Bob Dubery]

Ah. OK. I think the rule is fine as it stands. The non-striker has to
be out of his ground before the bowler goes into his delivery swing,
and the bowler can't try to fox the non-striker by pantomiming a
delivery and then removing the bails.

[CaraMia]

On 06-Sep-12 11:31 AM, Take it Easy wrote:
>
> The non-striker/batsman should run only if there is a scoring
> opportunity. Just because the ball is released from the hand (or not),
> there is no need to leave the crease. If somebody is doing that to
> enhance their chance of completing a run, they have to take the risk of
> getting run out.
>

I agree. A run is possible only when the batsman hits the ball or if it
hits his body/pad or if the ball is missed by the keeper. If non-striker
chooses to run before this, then he has to bear the risk.

[Unknown]

The law does not prevent the non striker from backing up, it just
makes it possible for him to be run out before the bowler's back foot
hits the ground.The regulation makes the deception possible by
allowing the run out after the back foot contact.

The bowler can throw down the strikers wicket to run him out, if the
striker is guarding well out of his ground or charging. Though he will
be noballed for the throwm, but not reported.


max.it

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, September 7, 2012 6:17:45 AM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> The bowler can throw down the strikers wicket to run him out, if the
> striker is guarding well out of his ground or charging. Though he will
> be noballed for the throwm, but not reported.

Sure you mean to say "this is what SHOULD happen" :)

I'm fairly certain if that happened in my comp there would be mass confusion and a 15 minute argument, ending in the mandatory Dead Ball call.

[Bob Dubery]

On Sep 6, 10:17 pm, (max.it) wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:13:05 +0530, CaraMia <c...@mia.com> wrote:
> >On 06-Sep-12 11:31 AM, Take it Easy wrote:
>
> >> The non-striker/batsman should run only if there is a scoring
> >> opportunity. Just because the ball is released from the hand (or not),
> >> there is no need to leave the crease. If somebody is doing that to
> >> enhance their chance of completing a run, they have to take the risk of
> >> getting run out.
>
> >I agree. A run is possible only when the batsman hits the ball or if it
> >hits his body/pad or if the ball is missed by the keeper. If non-striker
> >chooses to run before this, then he has to bear the risk.
>
> The law does not prevent the non striker from backing up, it just
> makes it possible for him to be run out before the bowler's back foot
> hits the ground.The regulation makes the deception possible by
> allowing the run out after the back foot contact.

The regulation used in county cricket makes no mention of the back
foot. The MCC laws mention "delivery stride" and also prevent the
bowler attempting to run out the backing-up batsman AND deliver the
ball. The ICC playing conditions refer to "delivery swing" (same as
the county cricket laws).

So the bowler could commence his run up and continue to the point at
which he usually delivers the ball but not actually try to deliver it
(or try to suggest that he is about to deliver the ball).

Which is OK, because to do that he'd have to see the batter out of his
ground before hand - thus the batter is trying to steal some ground.

> The bowler can throw down the strikers wicket to run him out, if the
> striker is guarding well out of his ground or charging. Though he will
> be noballed for the throwm, but not reported.

That's in the laws? The MCC laws say that if the run out attempt fails
then the umpires are to call dead ball ASAP.

[Take it Easy]

In article <6d4cc9fc-8479-45d3...@googlegroups.com>,
jzfre...@gmail.com says...

>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 3:42:42 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:

> > On Sep 6, 2:29ï¿œam, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Laws and Spirit should try to REDUCE conflict between teams, rather than increase it.
> >
> > Subjective spirits of the game should not overrule the laws IMO, and
> > it's the laws that people should play to. If a particular law is to be
> > dispensed with then that should be negotiated, not just ignored
> > because we don't like that sort of stuff.
>
> The way I read things TakeItEasy is suggesting a Law change. I was responding to that propose Law.

Just to be clear I am fine with the current laws as such. I wouldn't
mind if the law allows the bowler to run out the non-striker at any
time.

My main gripe is that when a perfectly legal run out is considered to be
against the spirit of the game (even after a warning that is not
required in the first place).

Takeiteasy.

[Take it Easy]

In article <c0b1ad71-ccf8-4588...@googlegroups.com>,
jzfre...@gmail.com says...

It is not "shouldn't leave" but if he does leave, he can be run out, as
simple as that. When I said "don't start running before, etc" I meant
"if you don't want the risk of getting run out, don't start running
before, etc".

Takeiteasy.

[Yokel]

The bowler has been able to throw at either end to run out either
batsman unfairly backing up / running for as long as I remember - I
started umpiring when the 1947 code was in force!

To throw at the striker's end under these circumstances has always
conceded a "No ball". In the days before the "Unfair and Dangerous" law
came in, you could actually lob the ball (with a legitimate bowling
action) over the batsman's head for the keeper to stump him off what
would then have been called a "Wide" (nowadays, of course, a ball
passing over the striker's head... [blah blah] is a "No Ball"). Now the
bowler is automatically warned for "throwing" rather than "bowling", the
right he has always had under the Laws has to be protected by the "no
warning" clause.

A throw at the non-striker's end is not a "No Ball" but in days gone by
could concede overthrows if the throw missed the stumps. The Powers
That Be considered this was unfair to the fielding side so a failed run
out attempt at the bowler's end *before the ball is legally delivered*
now results in a "Dead Ball" call.

The bowler *cannot* go through his complete delivery swing and follow
through to break the wicket at his end to attempt a run-out. The Laws
state that if the bowler fails to release the ball under these
circumstances the umpire shall call and signal "Dead Ball". This was the
recourse the umpires used to have in this situation before the Laws were
tightened up and the circumstances in which the bowler could run out the
non-striker were set down in black-and-white.

As far as the "warning" goes, I am with those who say it is part of the
spirit in which the game should be played. But, like "walking", it is
not compulsory; and if the non-striker continues to unfairly "back up"
after having been warned, then he gets what he deserves if the bowler
then runs him out. And if the Playing Conditions have actually been
altered to make this easier than under the original Laws, then the
authorities must be happy with this, too.

There is another option available to the bowler - and that is just to
stop in his run-up. If the batsmen continue to run, the umpire has
powers to intervene under the unfair play Law (42) and if the
circumstances warrant the batsmen can be warned. Even if the batsmen
have not gone so far as to be attempting to "steal a run", repeated
instances could give the umpires cause to warn them for time-wasting, in
the same way as was done in the "switch hit" episode when the bowler
stopped every time the batsman changed his stance before delivery.

--
- Yokel -

Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.