Shit Mankad law post #13442

[jack fredricks]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/pathetic-way-to-play-victorian-cricketers-controversial-dismissal-sparks-furious-debate/news-story/495e1e9085db66a78d88548ddea01d5e

Well past time for the MCC to clean up the mess they've created. More bad blood. More controversy. It's not needed.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

On 11/20/2022 9:54 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/pathetic-way-to-play-victorian-cricketers-controversial-dismissal-sparks-furious-debate/news-story/495e1e9085db66a78d88548ddea01d5e
>
> Well past time for the MCC to clean up the mess they've created. More bad blood. More controversy. It's not needed.

Very simple.

Just FOLLOW THE LAW.

DON"T leave the crease UNTIL the ball is released from the bowlers hand.


Look at all the useless emotional arguments from cricket fans.


This is EXACTLY WHY humans MUST BE TAUGHT in childhoods, "HOW TO THINK".

Cricket fans over the years were BRAINWASHED to think that running out
the non-striker is against the spirit of the game.

The LAW has been put in place BUT the emotional fans are STILL STUCK in
the past.

This is exactly what I said that very few humans have the ABILITY to
REPLACE their opinions/views/information in their brains with "NEW
info/facts" etc.

I can do it in a SECOND at quantum speed which TERRIFIED the EVIL CIA
NSA FBI DHS MI6 MI5 Psychopaths cuz they DON'T understand HOW I CAN DO
IT "SO EASILY".

I can do it because I have ESP/THIRD EYE.

[jack fredricks]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 7:42:30 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Just FOLLOW THE LAW.
> DON"T leave the crease UNTIL the ball is released from the bowlers hand.

Try again.
The law allows the batsman to leave earlier than that.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Batsmen should just use common sense and NOT leave the crease UNTIL the
ball is released from bowler's hand.

It is actually VERY EASY for batsmen to do.


They will still have extra second to leave the crease AFTER the ball was
released, by the time ball reaches the batsman and batsman plays.


So, I have NO idea WHY fans and players around the world are even
discussing about this issue and wasting their time and emotions.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

On 11/22/2022 7:39 PM, jack fredricks wrote:

IF the law is not clear and confusing, players MUST CHOOSE the EASIEST
SOLUTION/OPTION available, which is NOT leaving the crease UNTIL the
ball is released from hand.

Quite simple.

It applies to entire human species even in other areas of life.

[David North]

On 21/11/2022 05:54, jack fredricks wrote:
> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/pathetic-way-to-play-victorian-cricketers-controversial-dismissal-sparks-furious-debate/news-story/495e1e9085db66a78d88548ddea01d5e
>
> Well past time for the MCC to clean up the mess they've created. More bad blood. More controversy. It's not needed.

In this case, the woolliness of the law with regard to timing doesn't
really come into play. The non-striker appears to have left his ground
by the time the bowler's _back_ foot lands, never mind his front foot or
the expected release of the ball.

Also, rather than standing on or outside the crease with their bat in
their ground as the bowler runs in, wouldn't it be better to start a
couple of metres behind the crease? That way they could start moving
forward earlier, build up more momentum by the time the bowler delivers
the ball and probably get to the other end sooner.

--
David North

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

WHY go through all those unnecessary complications when a SIMPLE
SOLUTION of WATCHING the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand and then
LEAVING the crease, is AVAILABLE?

Non-striker moving simultaneously with the bowler might be DISTRACTING
to the batter too.

Sure, the current law might be confusing to some players but it DOESN'T
mean that batters cannot choose the "easiest and simplest solution"
available.

[jack fredricks]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 4:56:28 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> IF the law is not clear and confusing

The law is not clear.
I've heard dozens of people try to explain the current law, and no one has been able to.
Of course batsmen don't know when they're allowed to leave the crease.

But yes, delaying additional time (like you've suggested) is safe.

[jack fredricks]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 5:45:39 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 21/11/2022 05:54, jack fredricks wrote:
> > https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/pathetic-way-to-play-victorian-cricketers-controversial-dismissal-sparks-furious-debate/news-story/495e1e9085db66a78d88548ddea01d5e
> >
> > Well past time for the MCC to clean up the mess they've created. More bad blood. More controversy. It's not needed.
> In this case, the woolliness of the law with regard to timing doesn't
> really come into play. The non-striker appears to have left his ground
> by the time the bowler's _back_ foot lands, never mind his front foot or
> the expected release of the ball.

Those first 2 aren't part of the current law, so don't matter.
I'm not sure where this particular bowler would otherwise normally release the ball.
Surely it's on an action-by-action basis. Each bowler is different.

But yes, under my proposed change (front foot lands) this would still be Run Out. However no batsman could fairly claim deception or uncertainty - as is the case today.

Mankads are a real problem. Have you ever seen a batsman try to pick a fight after getting bowled by beautiful leg-spin delivery?
Is there any other dismissal that even comes close to the acrimony caused by Mankads? (Maybe beamers?)

[jack fredricks]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 7:31:32 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> WHY go through all those unnecessary complications when a SIMPLE
> SOLUTION of WATCHING the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand and then
> LEAVING the crease, is AVAILABLE?
>
> Non-striker moving simultaneously with the bowler might be DISTRACTING
> to the batter too.
>
> Sure, the current law might be confusing to some players but it DOESN'T
> mean that batters cannot choose the "easiest and simplest solution"
> available.

All of this is correct, and it's what I'd advise if I were a coach. However, I do think the law should be easily understandable to all players.

[Mike Holmans]

And thus be at much more risk of being run out if the batter defends
down the pitch, presumably.

“MCC’s message to non-strikers continues to be to remain in their
ground until they have seen the ball leave the bowler’s hand.”

Given that the intention of the Law is to keep batters in their ground
until they have seen the ball leave the bowler's hand, umpires need a
definition they can apply without the benefit of a TV replay.

Yes, I'm very well aware that there are endless TV replays and third
umpires in elite cricket, but the Laws aren't written with elite
cricket in mind, because over 99% of cricket is not elite cricket.

Perhaps our resident nincompoop (who has at least had the
self-awareness to describe his thread-starting post as "shit") would
care to come up with something that max.it will be able to use when he
next umpires a local club match.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mike Holmans]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 03:23:37 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:45:37 +0000, David North
><nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 21/11/2022 05:54, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/pathetic-way-to-play-victorian-cricketers-controversial-dismissal-sparks-furious-debate/news-story/495e1e9085db66a78d88548ddea01d5e
>>>
>>> Well past time for the MCC to clean up the mess they've created. More bad blood. More controversy. It's not needed.
>>
>>In this case, the woolliness of the law with regard to timing doesn't
>>really come into play. The non-striker appears to have left his ground
>>by the time the bowler's _back_ foot lands, never mind his front foot or
>>the expected release of the ball.

On a different tack, no amount of tinkering with the wording is going
to have the slightest effect in terms of reducing controversy and bad
blood. People who consider running out cheating non-striking batters
to be immoral aren't going to change their minds because jzf has come
up with a slightly different draft. Those who think cheating should be
penalised aren't particularly concerned about the exact definition of
where cheating begins: they just want the umpires to be able to give
it out.

Cheers,

Mike

[jack fredricks]

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:23:41 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Perhaps our resident nincompoop (who has at least had the
> self-awareness to describe his thread-starting post as "shit") would
> care to come up with something that max.it will be able to use when he
> next umpires a local club match.

Easy. When front foot lands.

It's;
1. later than the previous law, meaning non-striker has less legal time to leave the crease. Although not quite as late as the current law. We're talking fractions of a second difference though.
2. the umpire is watching for it anyway, especially at grassroots level
3. it's black and white. None of this "would otherwise have released the ball" bullshit.
4. it's almost impossible to fake.

[jack fredricks]

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:55:56 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On a different tack, no amount of tinkering with the wording is going
> to have the slightest effect in terms of reducing controversy and bad
> blood. People who consider running out cheating non-striking batters
> to be immoral aren't going to change their minds because jzf has come
> up with a slightly different draft. Those who think cheating should be
> penalised aren't particularly concerned about the exact definition of
> where cheating begins: they just want the umpires to be able to give
> it out.

I don't think mankadding is cheating. Non-strikers who leave early deserve to get run out. No warning needed.

My only beef with the new law is uncertainty attached to it. A batsman has zero idea when it's technically safe to leave the crease.
This is why the MCC is recommending they delay even further to totally make sure.

My other beef pre-dates the new law - mankadding is acrimonious because it, more often than not, has an element of deception to it. Bowlers looking for the mankad (fair enough, too, as the non-striker has probably left early a few times already), then they "pretend" to bowl and complete the run out.

This new law increases the ability for a bowler to enact this deception.

Again, does ANY event in cricket cause more bad blood than a mankad?

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

On 11/23/2022 7:55 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 03:23:37 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:45:37 +0000, David North
>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/11/2022 05:54, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/pathetic-way-to-play-victorian-cricketers-controversial-dismissal-sparks-furious-debate/news-story/495e1e9085db66a78d88548ddea01d5e
>>>>
>>>> Well past time for the MCC to clean up the mess they've created. More bad blood. More controversy. It's not needed.
>>>
>>> In this case, the woolliness of the law with regard to timing doesn't
>>> really come into play. The non-striker appears to have left his ground
>>> by the time the bowler's _back_ foot lands, never mind his front foot or
>>> the expected release of the ball.
>
> On a different tack, no amount of tinkering with the wording is going
> to have the slightest effect in terms of reducing controversy and bad
> blood.

ICC idiots can make it "almost" non-controversial by stipulating that
non-striker can be run out as long as the ball is still in bowlers hand.

So, batters leaving the crease BEFORE the ball is released will be doing
so at their "own risk" of getting run out.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

On 11/23/2022 10:42 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:23:41 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> Perhaps our resident nincompoop (who has at least had the
>> self-awareness to describe his thread-starting post as "shit") would
>> care to come up with something that max.it will be able to use when he
>> next umpires a local club match.
>
> Easy. When front foot lands.

Impossible, for the umpire to SIMULTANEOUSLY keep his eyes on bowlers
front foot AND non-strikers bat at the same time, while his mind is also
busy to PERCEIVE the angle of the ball, where it lands and hits batter's
pads to adjudicate LBW for example.

>
> It's;
> 1. later than the previous law, meaning non-striker has less legal time to leave the crease. Although not quite as late as the current law. We're talking fractions of a second difference though.

Those fractions of seconds will be impossible for umpire's mind to perceive.

> 2. the umpire is watching for it anyway, especially at grassroots level
> 3. it's black and white. None of this "would otherwise have released the ball" bullshit.
> 4. it's almost impossible to fake.

Impossible for umpire to determine if it is faking or genuine to begin with.

You are BURDENING the umpire even more who is already saddled with many
complicated things to perceive and adjudicate.

[jack fredricks]

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 7:11:59 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 11/23/2022 10:42 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:23:41 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> Perhaps our resident nincompoop (who has at least had the
> >> self-awareness to describe his thread-starting post as "shit") would
> >> care to come up with something that max.it will be able to use when he
> >> next umpires a local club match.
> >
> > Easy. When front foot lands.
> Impossible, for the umpire to SIMULTANEOUSLY keep his eyes on bowlers
> front foot AND non-strikers bat at the same time, while his mind is also
> busy to PERCEIVE the angle of the ball, where it lands and hits batter's
> pads to adjudicate LBW for example.

Ump doesn't have to watch the non-striker. Ump only has to watch the bowler's front foot.
As soon as front foot lands the non-striker can't be run out.
If front foot doesn't land, and a run out attempt is made, it's the same as any other mankad. w.r.t work the umpire has to do.

> > It's;
> > 1. later than the previous law, meaning non-striker has less legal time to leave the crease. Although not quite as late as the current law. We're talking fractions of a second difference though.
> Those fractions of seconds will be impossible for umpire's mind to perceive.
> > 2. the umpire is watching for it anyway, especially at grassroots level
> > 3. it's black and white. None of this "would otherwise have released the ball" bullshit.
> > 4. it's almost impossible to fake.
> Impossible for umpire to determine if it is faking or genuine to begin with.
>
> You are BURDENING the umpire even more who is already saddled with many
> complicated things to perceive and adjudicate.

They're already burdened by the new mankad requirements. More so. This is less.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

On 11/24/2022 1:47 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 7:11:59 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 11/23/2022 10:42 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:23:41 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>> Perhaps our resident nincompoop (who has at least had the
>>>> self-awareness to describe his thread-starting post as "shit") would
>>>> care to come up with something that max.it will be able to use when he
>>>> next umpires a local club match.
>>>
>>> Easy. When front foot lands.
>> Impossible, for the umpire to SIMULTANEOUSLY keep his eyes on bowlers
>> front foot AND non-strikers bat at the same time, while his mind is also
>> busy to PERCEIVE the angle of the ball, where it lands and hits batter's
>> pads to adjudicate LBW for example.
>
> Ump doesn't have to watch the non-striker. Ump only has to watch the bowler's front foot.
> As soon as front foot lands the non-striker can't be run out.
> If front foot doesn't land, and a run out attempt is made, it's the same as any other mankad. w.r.t work the umpire has to do.
>

If the bowler runs out the non-striker before landing the front foot,
then you will complain that the bowler has NO INTENTION to deliver the
ball but to deceive the batter.

It's a NO WIN situation for the bowler.

I am sure max.it will agree that the law you are suggesting will make
"umpires job more complicated".

[mike]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 7:45:39 AM UTC, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 21/11/2022 05:54, jack fredricks wrote:
> > https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/pathetic-way-to-play-victorian-cricketers-controversial-dismissal-sparks-furious-debate/news-story/495e1e9085db66a78d88548ddea01d5e
> >
> > Well past time for the MCC to clean up the mess they've created. More bad blood. More controversy. It's not needed.

I think the mankad team lost. Actually i didnt see the umpire give a signal. it seemed the batter was
gonna stay and asked the umpire. perhaps in oz they just say, yor out mate etc.

> In this case, the woolliness of the law with regard to timing doesn't
> really come into play. The non-striker appears to have left his ground
> by the time the bowler's _back_ foot lands, never mind his front foot or
> the expected release of the ball.
>
> Also, rather than standing on or outside the crease with their bat in
> their ground as the bowler runs in, wouldn't it be better to start a
> couple of metres behind the crease? That way they could start moving
> forward earlier, build up more momentum by the time the bowler delivers
> the ball and probably get to the other end sooner.
>

hed be in trouble if the other batter just played defensively and didnt want to run ;)

mike

[jack fredricks]

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 8:05:33 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> If the bowler runs out the non-striker before landing the front foot,
> then you will complain that the bowler has NO INTENTION to deliver the
> ball but to deceive the batter.

Some mankads don't have a level of deception. Bowler runs in, non-striker leaves way too early, run out happens.
Others involve the bowler doing almost all of their action before running the non-striker out.
It's this latter I don't like.
They can still happen under my proposed changes.
What is different, though, is the batter KNOWS exactly when it's safe to leave. They don't have that certainty today.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

The concept of deception DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.

Bowlers have the RIGHT to run the non-strikers out.

If the batter LEAVES the crease "BEFORE the ball is RELEASED" from
bowler's hand, he can be run out.

End of story.

Deception is just an "emotional argument".

It's actually a fucking joke that ICC clowns took SO LONG to get rid of
the "spirit of the game" shit from running the non-striker out.

I also hope you STOP using the word "mankading", because it was TWO
WHITE PLAYERS who FIRST ran out non-strikers in cricket history BUT the
CUNNING whites used Indian batsman's name to STIGMATIZE by ASSOCIATING
it with POC players.

[Hamish Laws]

Why should the non-striker be able to leave his crease safely before the bowler has delivered the ball?

[jack fredricks]

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 4:46:34 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Deception is just an "emotional argument".

Yep. And those emotions cause fights. Cricket doesn't need it.

[jack fredricks]

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 8:17:04 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why should the non-striker be able to leave his crease safely before the bowler has delivered the ball?

Ask the MCC.
Today's laws allow this.

If I was creating cricket from scratch and had to make up a law for this, considering all laws are arbitrary?
Saying "non-striker can leave crease once ball is released" seems... redundant. Once the ball is released the ball is rocketing down the pitch and no run out can happen anyway.

[max.it]

It's only 'safe' for a batsman to leave his crease when the ball is
dead.
There is no level of deception, the bowler is under no obligation to
deliver the ball.
When the bowler begins his run up is when the batsman knows exactly
when it isn't safe. You can't get any more certain than that.

Someone here is trying to sell a novelty fake pound note for £1.

max.it

[Hamish Laws]

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 10:01:35 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 8:17:04 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why should the non-striker be able to leave his crease safely before the bowler has delivered the ball?
> Ask the MCC.
> Today's laws allow this.

I'm asking you seeing as you're the loud mouth on here dying on a hill about it.

>
> If I was creating cricket from scratch and had to make up a law for this, considering all laws are arbitrary?
> Saying "non-striker can leave crease once ball is released" seems... redundant. Once the ball is released the ball is rocketing down the pitch and no run out can happen anyway.

It doesn't need a special rule, just have it that a batsman is able to be runout if they're out of their ground when the ball is live.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Exactly.

jzfredricks is confused in this issue.

[David North]

On 24/11/2022 03:23, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:45:37 +0000, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/2022 05:54, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/pathetic-way-to-play-victorian-cricketers-controversial-dismissal-sparks-furious-debate/news-story/495e1e9085db66a78d88548ddea01d5e
>>>
>>> Well past time for the MCC to clean up the mess they've created. More bad blood. More controversy. It's not needed.
>>
>> In this case, the woolliness of the law with regard to timing doesn't
>> really come into play. The non-striker appears to have left his ground
>> by the time the bowler's _back_ foot lands, never mind his front foot or
>> the expected release of the ball.
>>
>> Also, rather than standing on or outside the crease with their bat in
>> their ground as the bowler runs in, wouldn't it be better to start a
>> couple of metres behind the crease? That way they could start moving
>> forward earlier, build up more momentum by the time the bowler delivers
>> the ball and probably get to the other end sooner.
>
> And thus be at much more risk of being run out if the batter defends
> down the pitch, presumably.
>
> “MCC’s message to non-strikers continues to be to remain in their
> ground until they have seen the ball leave the bowler’s hand.”
>
> Given that the intention of the Law is to keep batters in their ground
> until they have seen the ball leave the bowler's hand, umpires need a
> definition they can apply without the benefit of a TV replay.

Well I don't think the current law is it. In borderline cases, the
umpire would not be able to apply it with much certainty even _with_ the
benefit of a TV replay, as it involves judging the timing of something
that didn't happen.

Surely it would be easier for an umpire, whether on-field or with a TV
screen, to apply a definition based on an actual event rather than a
theoretical one.

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 12:05:27 AM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 10:01:35 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 8:17:04 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Why should the non-striker be able to leave his crease safely before the bowler has delivered the ball?
> > Ask the MCC.
> > Today's laws allow this.
> I'm asking you seeing as you're the loud mouth on here dying on a hill about it.

I'd hope my answer is clear from the posts in this thread.
At batsman SHOULDN'T be allowed to leave before the ball is released. I'm completely ok with (certain) mankads. No warning needed. Leave early, get run out.

My beef is with the ability of the bowler to deceive the batsman, to help get a run out.
I say this as someone who was godlike at mankads in indoor cricket, where the ball is almost-never dead, and run out can happen at any time. Mankadding in indoor is a skill.
But indoor cricket is FULL of hatred and controversy (at the grassroots level). It really is a game for thugs.

If the law was changed to "ball is live once run up starts and non-striker can be run out at any time ball is live", then outdoor cricket would devolved to indoor w.r.t mankads.
I believe the MCC *know* this, which is why they changed the law to what it is today - when otherwise would've released the ball.
This stops a bowler from completing their action, not releasing ball, non-striker thinking it's safe and leaves, run out happens.
The MCC could have just as easily changed it to what you've suggested, but they didn't.
They removed a big chunk of the bad deception, but not all of it.

[jack fredricks]

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:35:20 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> It's only 'safe' for a batsman to leave his crease when the ball is
> dead.

I'm not entirely sure if this is correct.

At batsman can leave as soon as the the bowler "would be expected to deliver the ball".
But the ball might still be live at that point.
An example might be an unorthodox bowling action, eg double arm rotation, that doesn't qualify for Unfair Play (Law 42.4).

Does the ball automatically become dead if a bowler reaches "would be expected to deliver the ball" but doesn't release? Certainly debatable.

[David North]

On 24/11/2022 09:47, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 7:11:59 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 11/23/2022 10:42 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 1:23:41 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>> Perhaps our resident nincompoop (who has at least had the
>>>> self-awareness to describe his thread-starting post as "shit") would
>>>> care to come up with something that max.it will be able to use when he
>>>> next umpires a local club match.
>>>
>>> Easy. When front foot lands.
>> Impossible, for the umpire to SIMULTANEOUSLY keep his eyes on bowlers
>> front foot AND non-strikers bat at the same time, while his mind is also
>> busy to PERCEIVE the angle of the ball, where it lands and hits batter's
>> pads to adjudicate LBW for example.
>
> Ump doesn't have to watch the non-striker. Ump only has to watch the bowler's front foot.
> As soon as front foot lands the non-striker can't be run out.

Are we back to the idea that the non-striker would be safe as long as
the front foot lands (or in the case of the current law, the moment of
expected release has been reached) before the wicket is broken, even if
they have left their ground earlier and not regained it?

That was clearly not how the law was applied in the Charlie Dean case,
when the wicket was broken well after the expected release moment.

--
David North

[David North]

If the batter watches the bowler go through their bowling action, they
know when the release is expected to within a very small margin - OK, it
might be slightly later for a short ball than for a flighted full ball.
Waiting until the end of that margin doesn't seem like a great hardship.

If the batter watches the bowler abort their bowling action, it should
be pretty obvious that it's not safe - and is pointless - to leave their
ground until the umpire calls Dead ball.

If the batter doesn't watch the bowler, they would have difficulty
knowing when the expected release point was, but then they might also
have difficulty knowing when the front foot landed. The solution for the
batter in either case is simple - watch the bowler.

--
David North

[David North]

On 25/11/2022 23:28, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 11:35:20 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> It's only 'safe' for a batsman to leave his crease when the ball is
>> dead.
>
> I'm not entirely sure if this is correct.

I assume that max.it meant safe generally, rather than safe from being
run out by the bowler without or before delivery.

>
> At batsman can leave as soon as the the bowler "would be expected to deliver the ball".
> But the ball might still be live at that point.
> An example might be an unorthodox bowling action, eg double arm rotation, that doesn't qualify for Unfair Play (Law 42.4).
>
> Does the ball automatically become dead if a bowler reaches "would be expected to deliver the ball" but doesn't release? Certainly debatable.

Law 20.4.2.10:

"Either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball when ... the ball does
not leave the bowler’s hand for any reason other than an attempt to run
out the nonstriker under Law 38.3 (Non-striker leaving his/her ground
early)."

So no, if the bowler does not release the ball in order to attempt a run
out, it isn't dead.

--
David North

[David North]

I'm not suggesting going hell for leather. Obviously they would need to
make sure they could still get back.

--
David North

[Hamish Laws]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 6:45:39 PM UTC+11, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>
> Also, rather than standing on or outside the crease with their bat in
> their ground as the bowler runs in, wouldn't it be better to start a
> couple of metres behind the crease? That way they could start moving
> forward earlier, build up more momentum by the time the bowler delivers
> the ball and probably get to the other end sooner.
>

That's the way I was taught to back up, take a few walking steps so you've actually got some momentum. Just make sure your bat is still in the crease until you've seen the ball's been bowled

Pretty sure it's what was recommended in The Art of Cricket as well

[Robert Henderson]

master Unwholesome soils itself ...RH

[jack fredricks]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 6:16:55 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> That was clearly not how the law was applied in the Charlie Dean case,
> when the wicket was broken well after the expected release moment.

I disagree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR9cmXBOmFM&ab_channel=Criczoom

Dean has left the crease when the ball is near the bowler's hip. Far from delivery release position.

As for how the law itself works, I've not seen clarification. I think the batsman is "forever" safe once the bowler reaches that point.
I think it's worthy of discussion, though.

[jack fredricks]

Opps.. AND Sharma's arm never gets into release position. Sharma aborts the delivery and to perform the run out. So the "non-striker is safe" moment never happens.

[jack fredricks]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 10:55:26 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> Opps.. AND Sharma's arm never gets into release position. Sharma aborts the delivery and to perform the run out. So the "non-striker is safe" moment never happens.

This does of course lead to this question - when is "would be expected to deliver the ball"?
Is it based on foot position? Hand position? Both?
ISTM that it's both. And Sharma's bowling hand was never close to release position.

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 08:50:44 +0000, David North
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/11/2022 03:43, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 8:05:33 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> If the bowler runs out the non-striker before landing the front foot,
>>> then you will complain that the bowler has NO INTENTION to deliver the
>>> ball but to deceive the batter.
>>
>> Some mankads don't have a level of deception. Bowler runs in, non-striker leaves way too early, run out happens.
>> Others involve the bowler doing almost all of their action before running the non-striker out.
>> It's this latter I don't like.
>> They can still happen under my proposed changes.
>> What is different, though, is the batter KNOWS exactly when it's safe to leave. They don't have that certainty today.
>
>If the batter watches the bowler go through their bowling action, they
>know when the release is expected to within a very small margin - OK, it
>might be slightly later for a short ball than for a flighted full ball.
>Waiting until the end of that margin doesn't seem like a great hardship.

The huge point which jzf is missing is that a mankad is *never* a
spur-of-the-moment thing. It is *always* a tactic deliberately adopted
when a bowler or team has noticed someone repeatedly infringing. In
order to execute a mankad, the bowler has to change his action by
aborting at a point which leaves him close enough to the stumps to
whip the bails off. Nobody is going to attempt to do that at random:
they're only going to do it if they've got the impression that it's
95% certain to work because this batter is just about always
infringing.

He keeps referring to controversy and bad blood, but none of the
controversy and bad blood in recent cases has had anything whatever to
do with precisely when the wicket was broken. It has always been about
morality, the spirit of the game and so forth.

The definition of *when* a bowler may mankad did not change when they
moved the text from Law 41 (unfair play) to Law 38 (run out). The
subsidiary additions clarify the sequence of umpiring decisions to be
made depending on whether ball is or is not delivered and there is an
appeal. MCC has made no change to when a mankad can be executed for at
least 50 years. What it has changed is defining it as an ordinary run
out rather than as an extraordinary response to "Batsmen unfairly
stealing a run", as the old Law had it. Effectively, they changed no
more than to hint that it is entirely within the spirit of the game.

When, as in the Charlie Dean case, England go on to have their captain
repeatedly lie about what had been happening earlier (CI's analysis
showing that she had been mankad-able about 70 times before it
actually happened), I fail to see how fiddling around with whether the
front foot has landed is going to clear up anything.

This Australian thing which provoked jzf's shit post reported the
aggrieved team ranting on about "if that's how you want to play the
game". Not a word about front feet.

As so often, jzf is barking up entirely the wrong tree. His object is
ostensibly to remove the controversy and bad blood. Can he cite even
*one* instance where such controversy and bad blood as has eventuated
revolved around whether the front foot had landed?

How does his proposed remedy address the problem he has identified?

Cheers,

Mike

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 2:42:56 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Can he cite even
> *one* instance where such controversy and bad blood as has eventuated
> revolved around whether the front foot had landed?

No, I can't, because that's not what today's law calls for....

I'm saying the safe point *should* be when front foot lands, as it's black and white.

Take the Charlie Dean mankad for example.
David says it's a clear example of where the non-striker was run out *after* the safe point ("would be expected to deliver the ball") was reached.
But I strongly challenge that that point was actually reached. In fact, I was kind of shocked David thinks it was reached.
See.... uncertainty. Even with video replay. Tis a bit harder out there in the middle for the non-striker.
There's ZERO doubt about Sharma's front foot landing though.

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 2:42:56 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:

> The huge point which jzf is missing is that a mankad is *never* a
> spur-of-the-moment thing.

Aren't you thick. No need for the question mark.

I complain about the planned, deceptive mankads. I do NOT think they are spur-of-the-moment. They are planned, and performed.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Harder out there in the middle for non-striker, who has his ENTIRE BRAIN
to THINK about leaving the crease or not, and NOTHING ELSE to worry about?

If you THINK that it is harder out there for the non-striker, then CAN
YOU IMAGINE "how much harder" it is for the UMPIRE to watch bowler's
foot for a no-ball, non-striker's bat and the crease, watch if bowler is
throwing, watch the ANGLE of the delivery from the bowler so he can
determine LBW's correctly......all these things SIMULTANEOUSLY?

> There's ZERO doubt about Sharma's front foot landing though.

You are really STUCK on the front foot.

Sharma running out Dean is completely LEGITIMATE.

Peter Della Penna clearly video analyzed that Dean LEFT the crease about
70 times before the ball is delivered.

Sharma running out Dean is a NO-BRAINER.

In fact, if I were her, I wouldn't even have waited for Dean to CHEAT 70
times.......

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Bro jzfredricks,

You are completely "misunderstanding and misinterpreting" what happened
in Sharma vs Dean or for that matter in any other non-striker being
mankaded cases.

Holmans already explained in simple clear english, there is NO DECEPTION
involved.

Give it up, bro.

Just change your opinions and move on.

You are thinking "emotionally" INSTEAD of analyzing factually and
realistically.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

On 11/26/2022 3:47 PM, jack fredricks wrote:

> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 2:42:56 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> Can he cite even
>> *one* instance where such controversy and bad blood as has eventuated
>> revolved around whether the front foot had landed?
>
> No, I can't, because that's not what today's law calls for....
>
> I'm saying the safe point *should* be when front foot lands, as it's black and white.

The safe point for non-striker is and should be when the ball LEAVES the
hand of the bowler.

It is quite simple to understand without any controversies, bad blood,
spirit of the game and other stuff.

It is so simple, black and white for the players, umpires and fans, it
will ELIMINATE every single argument/controversy in the future.

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:56:58 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> If you THINK that it is harder out there for the non-striker, then CAN
> YOU IMAGINE "how much harder" it is for the UMPIRE to watch bowler's
> foot for a no-ball, non-striker's bat and the crease, watch if bowler is
> throwing, watch the ANGLE of the delivery from the bowler so he can
> determine LBW's correctly......all these things SIMULTANEOUSLY?

Yes, the umpire has to watch all that.

They have to watch all that TODAY, plus they have to additionally watch for "would be expected to deliver the ball", which involves watching the bowler's hand.

My way removes this last part. If you can't comprehend that means LESS, then I can't help you.

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 5:02:04 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> You are completely "misunderstanding and misinterpreting" what happened
> in Sharma vs Dean or for that matter in any other non-striker being
> mankaded cases.

I have no said anything about Sharma and deception.

I have only mentioned Sharma as David said Sharma eventually reached the "safe" point (for the non-striker to leave).

Do keep up.

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 5:08:13 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> The safe point for non-striker is and should be when the ball LEAVES the
> hand of the bowler.

That's not what the law says.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

It is NOT an additional task.

The bowler's hand/delivery of the ball is within umpire's EYE SPAN.

Field Umpire can refer to third umpire for CLOSE mankad decisions.

You are actually making the umpire's job even harder with complicated
front foot issue INSTEAD of making it "EASY and SIMPLE" for Umpires,
players and fans to understand and implement.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

ICC already stated during Sharma's mankading of Dean issue, that batters
should stay in crease until the ball leaves bowler's hand, IF they don't
want to be mankaded.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

It's actually Dean who CHEATED 70 times by leaving the crease EARLY, as
per video analysis by Peter Della Penna.

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 6:16:33 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > My way removes this last part. If you can't comprehend that means LESS, then I can't help you.
> It is NOT an additional task.

As I said, I can't help you.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

Sorry jzf.

You don't know what you are talking about.


As long as the ball is still in bowler's hand, non-strikers can be run out.

PLAIN, EASY and SIMPLE.

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 8:16:07 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> As long as the ball is still in bowler's hand, non-strikers can be run out.

Not true. Go read the Laws.

[jack fredricks]

Actually, I'll just show you.

Run Out Law says;

"38.3.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out."

We'll call that the "safe point".

As discussed in this thread, there are 2 ways to interpret this;

1. If batsman leaves prior to the safe point, they're forever liable to be run out, even if the bowler eventually reaches the safe point
2. If batsman leaves prior to the safe point, and then the bowler reaches the safe point, the batsman can no longer be run out

Not that it matters, but I think #2 is the case. The "instant" the bowler reaches the safe point, the batsman is no longer liable to be run out.

Regardless....

Here's an example of the ball being in hand and the batsman being safe (contrary to what you said).

1. bowler run in
2. fakes a FULL delivery swing, hoping to mankad
3. after bowler has got to the point where "normally have been expected to release the ball", non-striker leaves ground
4. bowler, ball in hand, attempts a run out
5. Not Out is the call

See? Ball in hand. Batsman out of ground but safe.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

On 11/27/2022 2:56 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 8:28:28 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 8:16:07 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> As long as the ball is still in bowler's hand, non-strikers can be run out.
>> Not true. Go read the Laws.
>
> Actually, I'll just show you.
>
> Run Out Law says;
>
> "38.3.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out."
>
> We'll call that the "safe point".

Did the law say ANYTHING about the front foot landing?

You are "personally interpreting" that front foot landing is the safe point.

>
> As discussed in this thread, there are 2 ways to interpret this;
>
> 1. If batsman leaves prior to the safe point, they're forever liable to be run out, even if the bowler eventually reaches the safe point
> 2. If batsman leaves prior to the safe point, and then the bowler reaches the safe point, the batsman can no longer be run out
>
> Not that it matters, but I think #2 is the case. The "instant" the bowler reaches the safe point, the batsman is no longer liable to be run out.
>
> Regardless....

You said you "think" #2 is the case.

Safe point is when the ball is RELEASED from bowler's hand.

>
> Here's an example of the ball being in hand and the batsman being safe (contrary to what you said).
>
> 1. bowler run in
> 2. fakes a FULL delivery swing, hoping to mankad
> 3. after bowler has got to the point where "normally have been expected to release the ball", non-striker leaves ground
> 4. bowler, ball in hand, attempts a run out
> 5. Not Out is the call
>
> See? Ball in hand. Batsman out of ground but safe.
>
>

Highly unlikely that ANY bowler will go through/fake the full swing of
the bowling arm and then run out the non-striker.

How many mankads have been declared out in the entire international 180
year cricket history, so far?

Total 9

4 in tests
4 in ODIs
1 in T20s

[David North]

On 26/11/2022 16:42, Mike Holmans wrote:

> The definition of *when* a bowler may mankad did not change when they
> moved the text from Law 41 (unfair play) to Law 38 (run out). The
> subsidiary additions clarify the sequence of umpiring decisions to be
> made depending on whether ball is or is not delivered and there is an
> appeal. MCC has made no change to when a mankad can be executed for at
> least 50 years.

In the 4th edition of the 2000 Code, which, AFAICS, stood until 2017,
Law 42.15 read "The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery
stride, to attempt to run out the nonstriker."

https://archive.org/details/laws-of-cricket-2000-code-4th-edition-final-10422/page/n57/mode/2up

--
David North

[David North]

On 26/11/2022 23:47, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 2:42:56 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> Can he cite even
>> *one* instance where such controversy and bad blood as has eventuated
>> revolved around whether the front foot had landed?
>
> No, I can't, because that's not what today's law calls for....
>
> I'm saying the safe point *should* be when front foot lands, as it's black and white.
>
> Take the Charlie Dean mankad for example.
> David says it's a clear example of where the non-striker was run out *after* the safe point ("would be expected to deliver the ball") was reached.
> But I strongly challenge that that point was actually reached. In fact, I was kind of shocked David thinks it was reached.

Were you? I take "the instant when the bowler would normally have been
expected to release the ball" to imply "if he/she had continued with the
delivery as normal".

Are you suggesting that if the bowler aborts the delivery before the
point in their action when they would normally release the ball, they
can then wait as long they like to see if the non-striker leaves their
ground, until the umpire gets bored and calls Dead ball?

--
David North

[David North]

They won't as things stand, because the law doesn't allow them to (and I
don't think it ever has). If the law was changed to allow it, who knows?

--
David North

[David North]

I am interpreting "instant" as a moment in time, rather than a point in
the bowler's action, i.e. " the instant when the bowler would normally
have been expected to release the ball" if you watched them run up and
then turned away before they did anything that they don't normally do.

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:04:32 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > But I strongly challenge that that point was actually reached. In fact, I was kind of shocked David thinks it was reached.
> Were you? I take "the instant when the bowler would normally have been
> expected to release the ball" to imply "if he/she had continued with the
> delivery as normal".

How can that be the case?
If the non-striker leaves early, the bowler aborts the delivery and tries perform a run out.
In almost every case it takes more time to abort>turn around> runout than it would to deliver as normal.
So time must "stop", as does assessment of "would be expected to deliver the ball", once a bowler aborts their delivery action.

> Are you suggesting that if the bowler aborts the delivery before the
> point in their action when they would normally release the ball, they
> can then wait as long they like to see if the non-striker leaves their
> ground, until the umpire gets bored and calls Dead ball?

I am suggesting that!
A bowler can only be assessed as "would be expected to deliver the ball" if they actually get into a position to deliver the ball. That means rolling the arm over to release position.

[jack fredricks]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:25:26 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> They won't as things stand, because the law doesn't allow them to (and I
> don't think it ever has). If the law was changed to allow it, who knows?

The laws absolutely allow this. It just won't be a run out.

[jack fredricks]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:40:53 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> I am interpreting "instant" as a moment in time, rather than a point in
> the bowler's action, i.e. " the instant when the bowler would normally
> have been expected to release the ball" if you watched them run up and
> then turned away before they did anything that they don't normally do.

I believe it's not time-based, but rather action-based.
The e-learning video here;
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out
kind of backs that up. Not explicitly, mind you.
They highlight the release point (hand at culmination of bowling action).

[David North]

I don't think that tells us much, as it shows a normal delivery, not
what happens when the bowler doesn't reach that point in their action.

If the MCC intended the cut-off to be when the bowler actually reaches

the point in their action when they would normally release the ball,

then ISTM that they could have worded the law to say so explicitly.
OTOH, they could also have been clearer if they intended my interpretation.

--
David North

[David North]

If it's not supposed to be time-based, why use the word 'instant', which
means 'an extremely short period of time'.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/instant

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 29/11/2022 12:44, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:40:53 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> >> I am interpreting "instant" as a moment in time, rather than a point in
> >> the bowler's action, i.e. " the instant when the bowler would normally
> >> have been expected to release the ball" if you watched them run up and
> >> then turned away before they did anything that they don't normally do.
> >
> > I believe it's not time-based, but rather action-based.
> > The e-learning video here;
> > https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out
> > kind of backs that up. Not explicitly, mind you.
> > They highlight the release point (hand at culmination of bowling action).
> I don't think that tells us much, as it shows a normal delivery, not
> what happens when the bowler doesn't reach that point in their action.

I think it shows when they reach that point in a normal delivery.

> If the MCC intended the cut-off to be when the bowler actually reaches
> the point in their action when they would normally release the ball,
> then ISTM that they could have worded the law to say so explicitly.

Isn't that what they did?

"when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" seems to be explicitly that.

> OTOH, they could also have been clearer if they intended my interpretation.

There's a lot about this law that isn't clear. I hope it's revised asap.

[jack fredricks]

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:54:26 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> If it's not supposed to be time-based, why use the word 'instant', which
> means 'an extremely short period of time'.

The time certain conditions are met.
The time is time based.
The conditions are not.
The conditions are based on the bowler's action.

[jack fredricks]

I missed a line

1. The instant certain conditions are met
2. The time certain conditions are met
3. (rest of comment)

[David North]

On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 08:24:57 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > On 29/11/2022 12:44, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:40:53 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > >> I am interpreting "instant" as a moment in time, rather than a point in
> > >> the bowler's action, i.e. " the instant when the bowler would normally
> > >> have been expected to release the ball" if you watched them run up and
> > >> then turned away before they did anything that they don't normally do.
> > >
> > > I believe it's not time-based, but rather action-based.
> > > The e-learning video here;
> > > https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out
> > > kind of backs that up. Not explicitly, mind you.
> > > They highlight the release point (hand at culmination of bowling action).
> > I don't think that tells us much, as it shows a normal delivery, not
> > what happens when the bowler doesn't reach that point in their action.
> I think it shows when they reach that point in a normal delivery.

Well yes, but it's pretty obvious when that is any (to within a small margin).

> > If the MCC intended the cut-off to be when the bowler actually reaches
> > the point in their action when they would normally release the ball,
> > then ISTM that they could have worded the law to say so explicitly.
> Isn't that what they did?
>
> "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" seems to be explicitly that.

Not really. I depends on when you do the expecting. As soon as the bowler starts their run up, I'm expecting them to release the ball at a future time, and I have a reasonable idea of when I'm expecting that to happen. If the law said "when the bowler reaches the point in his/her action when he/she would normally release the ball", that would be a lot clearer.

[David North]

On 29/11/2022 12:37, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:04:32 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>> But I strongly challenge that that point was actually reached. In fact, I was kind of shocked David thinks it was reached.
>> Were you? I take "the instant when the bowler would normally have been
>> expected to release the ball" to imply "if he/she had continued with the
>> delivery as normal".
>
> How can that be the case?
> If the non-striker leaves early, the bowler aborts the delivery and tries perform a run out.
> In almost every case it takes more time to abort>turn around> runout than it would to deliver as normal.

That depends on when they abort their action. If it is before they pass
the wicket, as it was in the case at the start of this thread, then they
are likely to put the wicket down before they would have released the
ball, unless there was significant hesitation.

In any case, it is only relevant if the non-striker stops being liable
to be Run out at "the instant when the bowler would normally have been
expected to release the ball" if they were out of their ground before
that instant and remain out of their ground. I have said before that
that was not my interpretation.

If that was the intention, why did the lawmakers waffle on about the
non-striker being _liable_ to be Run out, when they could have gone
straight to the Run out itself?

"If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment
the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would
normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is

liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be
out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is
put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the
bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently
delivered."

... could have been condensed to ...

"If at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the

instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the

ball, the non-striker is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is
put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the
bowler’s hand holding the ball, he/she will be Run out, whether or not
the ball is subsequently delivered."

Also, it would seem ludicrous if, say, a left-arm spinner bowling round
the wicket was just about to release the ball when they suddenly noticed
the non-striker several yards down the pitch, but the law prevented them
from holding onto the ball and running out the non-striker.

OTOH, in the animation for Law 38, Stephen Fry says that the bowler "is
entitled to run out the non-striker until the moment when he or she
would normally have been expected to release the ball". If whoever wrote
his script got it right, that supports your interpretation.

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 12:03:27 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 08:24:57 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > > On 29/11/2022 12:44, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:40:53 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > > >> I am interpreting "instant" as a moment in time, rather than a point in
> > > >> the bowler's action, i.e. " the instant when the bowler would normally
> > > >> have been expected to release the ball" if you watched them run up and
> > > >> then turned away before they did anything that they don't normally do.
> > > >
> > > > I believe it's not time-based, but rather action-based.
> > > > The e-learning video here;
> > > > https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out
> > > > kind of backs that up. Not explicitly, mind you.
> > > > They highlight the release point (hand at culmination of bowling action).
> > > I don't think that tells us much, as it shows a normal delivery, not
> > > what happens when the bowler doesn't reach that point in their action.
> > I think it shows when they reach that point in a normal delivery.
> Well yes, but it's pretty obvious when that is any (to within a small margin).

If it's obvious why would the MCC highlight it in the e-learning, if not to say "this is when the bowler would normally be expected to release the ball"?

> > > If the MCC intended the cut-off to be when the bowler actually reaches
> > > the point in their action when they would normally release the ball,
> > > then ISTM that they could have worded the law to say so explicitly.
> > Isn't that what they did?
> >
> > "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" seems to be explicitly that.
> Not really. I depends on when you do the expecting. As soon as the bowler starts their run up, I'm expecting them to release the ball at a future time, and I have a reasonable idea of when I'm expecting that to happen. If the law said "when the bowler reaches the point in his/her action when he/she would normally release the ball", that would be a lot clearer.

But if it IS time-based, you're saying that instant can be reached AFTER the bowler aborts their delivery action.
The means the umpire has to imagine/calculate the passing of time to a certain point.
Surely the umpire is going to imagine the bowler completing their bowling action up until the normal release point.
What about a bowler who pauses in their action to see if the non-striker leaves the crease. Surely that's legal, no? What's an umpire to do then? Pretend the action continued as normal, time-wise? Or revert to an action-based ruling?

If that is the way things are expected to work, this Law is a lot worse than I thought it was.

[Mike Holmans]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 19:59:29 +0000, David North
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>
>If that was the intention, why did the lawmakers waffle on about the
>non-striker being _liable_ to be Run out, when they could have gone
>straight to the Run out itself?

Because they were writing this clause to make it *clear* that
mankadding was legal, which was a matter of controversy at the time?

As the village idiot might put it:

Translation: Mankadding *is* legal. This is how it's done.

Cheers,

Mike

[jack fredricks]

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 5:05:08 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Because they were writing this clause to make it *clear* that
> mankadding was legal, which was a matter of controversy at the time?

So they went from one unclear law to another? Nice....

[David North]

The previous wording was: "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."

I would have thought that one point that *was* already clear from that
was that the run-out is legal (even though the exact conditions for it
to be legal were/are not clear).

--
David North

[David North]

On 02/12/2022 20:01, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 12:03:27 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On Friday, 2 December 2022 at 08:24:57 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 5:23:23 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>>> On 29/11/2022 12:44, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 5:40:53 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>> I am interpreting "instant" as a moment in time, rather than a point in
>>>>>> the bowler's action, i.e. " the instant when the bowler would normally
>>>>>> have been expected to release the ball" if you watched them run up and
>>>>>> then turned away before they did anything that they don't normally do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe it's not time-based, but rather action-based.
>>>>> The e-learning video here;
>>>>> https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out
>>>>> kind of backs that up. Not explicitly, mind you.
>>>>> They highlight the release point (hand at culmination of bowling action).
>>>> I don't think that tells us much, as it shows a normal delivery, not
>>>> what happens when the bowler doesn't reach that point in their action.
>>> I think it shows when they reach that point in a normal delivery.
>> Well yes, but it's pretty obvious when that is any (to within a small margin).
>
> If it's obvious why would the MCC highlight it in the e-learning,

FWIW, it's under "Animations", not "E-learning" (in case anyone else is
looking in the wrong place, as I did initially).

> if not to say "this is when the bowler would normally be expected to release the ball"?

Beats me. I was originally going to say that it is pretty obvious to
anyone who has watched a bowler bowl. Maybe it's for the benefit of
those who haven't. Is it not obvious to you?

>>>> If the MCC intended the cut-off to be when the bowler actually reaches
>>>> the point in their action when they would normally release the ball,
>>>> then ISTM that they could have worded the law to say so explicitly.
>>> Isn't that what they did?
>>>
>>> "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" seems to be explicitly that.
>> Not really. I depends on when you do the expecting. As soon as the bowler starts their run up, I'm expecting them to release the ball at a future time, and I have a reasonable idea of when I'm expecting that to happen. If the law said "when the bowler reaches the point in his/her action when he/she would normally release the ball", that would be a lot clearer.
>
> But if it IS time-based, you're saying that instant can be reached AFTER the bowler aborts their delivery action.
> The means the umpire has to imagine/calculate the passing of time to a certain point.
> Surely the umpire is going to imagine the bowler completing their bowling action up until the normal release point.
> What about a bowler who pauses in their action to see if the non-striker leaves the crease. Surely that's legal, no?

Yes, if the non-striker leaves their ground before the bowler would
otherwise have released the ball. If the bowler is allowed to wait any
longer than that for the non-striker to leave their ground, then ISTM
that it is giving the bowler a licence to try to trick the non-striker.

> What's an umpire to do then? Pretend the action continued as normal, time-wise?

Yes

--
David North

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 9:38:05 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> The previous wording was: "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."

IIRC, not long ago the safe point was when the bowler entered their delivery stride. I think this is the Law MH is talking about.
This was too generous to the non-striker, and they could make quite a bit of ground by the time the ball got to the striker. So it was delayed from "enter delivery stride" to what it is now.

[jack fredricks]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 10:12:38 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > if not to say "this is when the bowler would normally be expected to release the ball"?
> Beats me. I was originally going to say that it is pretty obvious to
> anyone who has watched a bowler bowl. Maybe it's for the benefit of
> those who haven't. Is it not obvious to you?

I think it's less obvious that one might think.
The variation in release points between all bowlers is quite a lot.
There are variations like spin vs pace, bouncer vs yorker, slower deliveries, wrist vs finger spin, round arm vs higher arm.

I think if you ran an experiment showing viewers a frame-by-frame of random deliveries and asked them to push a button on the frame just prior to release the results would not be incredibly accurate.

Hopefully you would agree there's almost no variation when judging my proposed change - when the front-foot lands.

It's a significantly clearer and easier to judge moment.

non-striker.
> > What's an umpire to do then? Pretend the action continued as normal, time-wise?
> Yes

I don't think the Law expects umpires, bowlers, and non-strikers to use their imagination to work out what would've happened if the bowler had continued with their action normally and time had continued. It must be said the LBW law does this kind of "what would have happened" extrapolation, but a ball is ballistic and quite easy to predict. Bowler's actions vary greatly.
Having it action-based is make a lot more sense.
If the bowler, regardless of pauses and changes to action, eventually (as in actually) gets to the release point, the non-striker is safe to leave their ground.
If the bowler releases the ball... no issue.
If the bowler doesn't release the ball, but instead holds it and then attempts a run out, the non-striker is safe.

[David North]

On 04/12/2022 20:08, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 10:12:38 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>> if not to say "this is when the bowler would normally be expected to release the ball"?
>> Beats me. I was originally going to say that it is pretty obvious to
>> anyone who has watched a bowler bowl. Maybe it's for the benefit of
>> those who haven't. Is it not obvious to you?
>
> I think it's less obvious that one might think.
> The variation in release points between all bowlers is quite a lot.
> There are variations like spin vs pace, bouncer vs yorker, slower deliveries, wrist vs finger spin, round arm vs higher arm.
>
> I think if you ran an experiment showing viewers a frame-by-frame of random deliveries and asked them to push a button on the frame just prior to release the results would not be incredibly accurate.

When I said "to within a small margin", I didn't mean to within one
frame (which depends on the frame rate), and highlighting the release
point for one delivery in an animation doesn't really do anything to
clarify things AFAICS.

> Hopefully you would agree there's almost no variation when judging my proposed change - when the front-foot lands.
>
> It's a significantly clearer and easier to judge moment.

Indeed.

--
David North

[Mike Holmans]

So if the non-striker starts moving and is out of their ground early
enough for a spin bowler to stop dead in the middle of their five-step
amble and flick the bail off, when did the front foot land? And which
was the front foot if they haven't reached the stumps? Talking about
the front foot landing when the bowler is aborting his action and not
going through with it seems about as unclear as one could be.

Just watch, if jzf's proposed change goes through, jzf complaining
about how unclear the law is when he's shown a film of a mankadding in
which the bowler doesn't start his action or falls over while
athletically twisting to fling the ball at the stumps.

Cheers,

Mike

[jack fredricks]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 6:09:58 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> So if the non-striker starts moving and is out of their ground early
> enough for a spin bowler to stop dead in the middle of their five-step
> amble and flick the bail off, when did the front foot land?

It sounds like it didn't. It's the front foot landing in the delivery stride, something the umpire already assesses.

Same as Law 5;
"5. Fair delivery - the feet
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride"

> And which
> was the front foot if they haven't reached the stumps? Talking about
> the front foot landing when the bowler is aborting his action and not
> going through with it seems about as unclear as one could be.

if they abort before delivery stride then the front-foot hasn't landed.

> Just watch, if jzf's proposed change goes through, jzf complaining
> about how unclear the law is when he's shown a film of a mankadding in
> which the bowler doesn't start his action or falls over while
> athletically twisting to fling the ball at the stumps.

Sounds exciting, I'd pay to see that.

[jack fredricks]

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 6:46:46 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> "5. Fair delivery - the feet
> For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride"

Apologies if I didn't make that clear earlier. I thought the adults would be able to work that part out.