info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Yet another Mankad drama
166 views
Skip to first unread message
jack fredricks
Jan 28, 2024, 5:23:52 AMJan 28
to
https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/debate-erupts-as-mankad-controversy-rocks-under19s-cricket-world-cup/news-story/173376e7c2fd8cc70fa887dad0f57ba0
Yes. Non-strikers should not leave the crease until they're legally allowed. Yet it happens time and time again.
The bad blood Mankads create is not needed in cricket.
Yes. Non-strikers should not leave the crease until they're legally allowed. Yet it happens time and time again.
The bad blood Mankads create is not needed in cricket.
Hamish Laws
Jan 29, 2024, 10:10:44 PMJan 29
to
jack fredricks
Jan 29, 2024, 10:36:09 PMJan 29
to
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 1:10:44 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> Then tell whiny little snots to stay in their crease so the bad man can't run them out...
I'm sure they've been told.
> Then tell whiny little snots to stay in their crease so the bad man can't run them out...
Perhaps there's more to this than you're capable of understanding ie the deception element the new Laws enable.
jack fredricks
Jan 29, 2024, 10:38:58 PMJan 29
to
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 1:10:44 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > The bad blood Mankads create is not needed in cricket.
Imagine if Shamar Joseph had taken Aus's 10th wicket with a Mankad. Would that have been good for the sport?
Hamish Laws
Jan 29, 2024, 11:25:31 PMJan 29
to
There is no deception possible on the mankad attempt under the current rules that the non-striker has to worry about if he watches the bowler deliver.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 30, 2024, 12:15:05 AMJan 30
to
No-brainer.
jack fredricks
Jan 30, 2024, 12:50:51 AMJan 30
to
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:25:31 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> There is no deception possible on the mankad attempt under the current rules that the non-striker has to worry about if he watches the bowler deliver.
You sound like a batting coach saying "if you hit on the ground you can't get caught". Technically correct, but pointless advice.
> There is no deception possible on the mankad attempt under the current rules that the non-striker has to worry about if he watches the bowler deliver.
Under today's Laws a non-striker can leave the crease, legally (ie safe from mankad), prior to the release of the ball.
Deception is enabled, as any 5 year old can tell by watching these replays, as well as the reactions to them.
max.it
Jan 30, 2024, 4:39:16 AMJan 30
to
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:25:30 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:36:09?PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
wants a quick getaway then he should be watching the bowler.
Backing up is just like operating a carpark barrier, if you go too
soon after you insert the token you crash into the barrier, if you go
too late the barrier crashes into you.
So out of the three possible ways for a non striker to behave, two of
them are stupid and easily avoided. No blame is on the barrier or the
bowler and the only way to get run out is to do one of the two stupid
things.
Claiming that stupidity is in some way the fault of deception by
someone else is childish playground mentality.
The actual element of 'safety' for non striker is where he is at the
time, not where the bowler is.
max.it
<hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:36:09?PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 1:10:44?PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > Then tell whiny little snots to stay in their crease so the bad man can't run them out...
>> I'm sure they've been told.
>>
>> Perhaps there's more to this than you're capable of understanding ie the deception element the new Laws enable.
>
>you're a broken record in an off-key bit there.
>There is no deception possible on the mankad attempt under the current rules that the non-striker has to worry about if he watches the bowler deliver.
Makes you wonder what the backer upper is actually watching. If he
>> > Then tell whiny little snots to stay in their crease so the bad man can't run them out...
>> I'm sure they've been told.
>>
>> Perhaps there's more to this than you're capable of understanding ie the deception element the new Laws enable.
>
>you're a broken record in an off-key bit there.
>There is no deception possible on the mankad attempt under the current rules that the non-striker has to worry about if he watches the bowler deliver.
wants a quick getaway then he should be watching the bowler.
Backing up is just like operating a carpark barrier, if you go too
soon after you insert the token you crash into the barrier, if you go
too late the barrier crashes into you.
So out of the three possible ways for a non striker to behave, two of
them are stupid and easily avoided. No blame is on the barrier or the
bowler and the only way to get run out is to do one of the two stupid
things.
Claiming that stupidity is in some way the fault of deception by
someone else is childish playground mentality.
The actual element of 'safety' for non striker is where he is at the
time, not where the bowler is.
max.it
jack fredricks
Jan 30, 2024, 5:34:50 AMJan 30
to
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 7:39:16 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Claiming that stupidity is in some way the fault of deception by
> someone else is childish playground mentality.
It looks like this was a set play, planned in advance. The bowler never intended to complete their delivery action. He was looking for the mankad.
> Claiming that stupidity is in some way the fault of deception by
> someone else is childish playground mentality.
max.it
Jan 30, 2024, 7:15:55 AMJan 30
to
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:34:49 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 7:39:16?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Claiming that stupidity is in some way the fault of deception by
>> someone else is childish playground mentality.
>
>It looks like this was a set play, planned in advance. The bowler never intended to complete their delivery action. He was looking for the mankad.
>
>
All you can pass comment on is the action or event, that's what you
actually know in reality. Pretending to have some kind of
understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
just pretending.
In fact attempting to pin a motive or intention on to a person's
action just so it fits your idea of their 'pretence', well, that is
real deception, or stupid.
Tip: If the bowler runs out the non striker legally then that is
intentional if it isn't accidental. You don't need to know when the
bowler decided to do it.
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 7:39:16?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Claiming that stupidity is in some way the fault of deception by
>> someone else is childish playground mentality.
>
>It looks like this was a set play, planned in advance. The bowler never intended to complete their delivery action. He was looking for the mankad.
>
>
actually know in reality. Pretending to have some kind of
understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
just pretending.
In fact attempting to pin a motive or intention on to a person's
action just so it fits your idea of their 'pretence', well, that is
real deception, or stupid.
Tip: If the bowler runs out the non striker legally then that is
intentional if it isn't accidental. You don't need to know when the
bowler decided to do it.
max.it
jack fredricks
Jan 30, 2024, 2:50:12 PMJan 30
to
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Pretending to have some kind of
> understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
> just pretending.
We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
> Pretending to have some kind of
> understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
> just pretending.
This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc) but as you say, we can't "prove" intent.
Speaking of proving intent... how do umpires judge intent if they can't mind read? eg playing a shot?
Surely you'd agree judging intent is actually possible.
max.it
Jan 30, 2024, 3:53:57 PMJan 30
to
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:50:11 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Pretending to have some kind of
>> understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
>> just pretending.
>
>We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
>This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
Because we would be pretending.
>I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc) but as you say, we can't "prove" intent.
>Speaking of proving intent... how do umpires judge intent if they can't mind read? eg playing a shot?
>Surely you'd agree judging intent is actually possible.
>
You can only say what you see. If a batsman doesn't play a shot am I
allowed to judge that he did play a shot because I judge that he
intended to?
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Pretending to have some kind of
>> understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
>> just pretending.
>
>We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
>This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
>I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc) but as you say, we can't "prove" intent.
>Speaking of proving intent... how do umpires judge intent if they can't mind read? eg playing a shot?
>Surely you'd agree judging intent is actually possible.
>
allowed to judge that he did play a shot because I judge that he
intended to?
max.it
jack fredricks
Jan 30, 2024, 6:52:14 PMJan 30
to
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:53:57 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> >We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
> >This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
> Because we would be pretending.
You're more than happy to pretend, ie talk Law hypotheticals, until the cows come home, but you aren't willing to discuss this scenario?
> >We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
> >This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
> Because we would be pretending.
Hamish Laws
Jan 30, 2024, 7:00:15 PMJan 30
to
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:50:12 AM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> > Pretending to have some kind of
> > understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
> > just pretending.
> We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
> This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
So fucking what?
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> > Pretending to have some kind of
> > understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
> > just pretending.
> We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
> This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
The batsman's taking a risk by leaving the crease before they see the ball. If they want to risk being run out at the bowler's end in return for a reduced chance being runout while running WTF should anybody be crying for them?
> I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc)
Not exactly a strong case...
max.it
Jan 30, 2024, 7:14:52 PMJan 30
to
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:52:12 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
You've judged that I pretend and that I am more than happy to do so.
Don't go taking the James Randi challenge - you'll lose.
Discussing cricket laws and certain scenarios isn't pretending, but
claiming knowledge through somehow being able to judge a bowler's
intention certainly is pretending. It's pure woo woo fantasy land
stuff.
I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
intention or motivation is. If you know better then show me and I'll
promise not to do such a conceited, arrogant and stupid thing ever
again.
I'm afraid you'll have to go back in the BoZo BiN with the other slow
learners.
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't go taking the James Randi challenge - you'll lose.
Discussing cricket laws and certain scenarios isn't pretending, but
claiming knowledge through somehow being able to judge a bowler's
intention certainly is pretending. It's pure woo woo fantasy land
stuff.
I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
intention or motivation is. If you know better then show me and I'll
promise not to do such a conceited, arrogant and stupid thing ever
again.
I'm afraid you'll have to go back in the BoZo BiN with the other slow
learners.
max.it
jack fredricks
Jan 30, 2024, 7:37:46 PMJan 30
to
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 10:14:52 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
> intention or motivation is.
I'm not asking you to pretend. I'm asking you to discuss the scenario where a bowler starts his run up with no intention to bowl, but rather to perform a mankad.
> I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
> intention or motivation is.
Why is this so hard for you?
max.it
Jan 31, 2024, 3:38:10 AMJan 31
to
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:37:44 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 10:14:52?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
>> intention or motivation is.
>
>I'm not asking you to pretend. I'm asking you to discuss the scenario where a bowler starts his run up with no intention to bowl, but rather to perform a mankad.
>Why is this so hard for you?
>>
How the fuck is anyone supposed to know what the intention of anyone
else is?
Please tell me how you know what someone else's intention is?
If I saw you in the street I wouldn't be able to tell that you are an
asshole, but after reading your nonsense I am sure that you are.
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 10:14:52?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
>> intention or motivation is.
>
>I'm not asking you to pretend. I'm asking you to discuss the scenario where a bowler starts his run up with no intention to bowl, but rather to perform a mankad.
>Why is this so hard for you?
>>
else is?
Please tell me how you know what someone else's intention is?
If I saw you in the street I wouldn't be able to tell that you are an
asshole, but after reading your nonsense I am sure that you are.
max.it
jack fredricks
Jan 31, 2024, 5:26:38 AMJan 31
to
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:38:10 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:37:44 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 10:14:52?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
> >> intention or motivation is.
> >
> >I'm not asking you to pretend. I'm asking you to discuss the scenario where a bowler starts his run up with no intention to bowl, but rather to perform a mankad.
> >Why is this so hard for you?
> >>
> How the fuck is anyone supposed to know what the intention of anyone
> else is?
You don't need to KNOW.
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:37:44 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 10:14:52?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
> >> intention or motivation is.
> >
> >I'm not asking you to pretend. I'm asking you to discuss the scenario where a bowler starts his run up with no intention to bowl, but rather to perform a mankad.
> >Why is this so hard for you?
> >>
> How the fuck is anyone supposed to know what the intention of anyone
> else is?
You just have to acknowledge that a bowler could do this - start their run up with the intention to mankad, rather than deliver the ball.
Once you agree that's possible, then discuss it.
Nice and easy.
jack fredricks
Jan 31, 2024, 5:29:59 AMJan 31
to
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:26:38 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> You don't need to KNOW.
> You just have to acknowledge that a bowler could do this - start their run up with the intention to mankad, rather than deliver the ball.
> Once you agree that's possible, then discuss it.
> Nice and easy.
Imagine the scenario you're playing cricket, fielding at mid on. As you hand the ball to the bowler, the bowler says "We're desperate for a wicket, I'm going to go for the mankad", then does so.
> You don't need to KNOW.
> You just have to acknowledge that a bowler could do this - start their run up with the intention to mankad, rather than deliver the ball.
> Once you agree that's possible, then discuss it.
> Nice and easy.
See how easy it is? I'm not asking you to teleport somewhere in real life, whilst time travelling, and actually mind read.
Hypotheticals have been around since leaving caves.
max.it
Jan 31, 2024, 6:33:24 AMJan 31
to
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 02:29:57 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't need to know, but I can imagine?
I'll leave you to play with your imagination.
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll leave you to play with your imagination.
max.it
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Jan 31, 2024, 10:19:44 AMJan 31
to
You got your thought process in this issue, completely wrong.
You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
realizing it.
You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
What have you accomplished?
Time to introspect.
jack fredricks
Jan 31, 2024, 9:37:16 PMJan 31
to
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
> realizing it.
Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
> realizing it.
There's no imposing.
> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.
I'll ask you the same thing he failed to answer - if the bowler tells his captain "I'm going to pretend to bowl and try to get a mankad", then does so, was there an element of deception?
> What have you accomplished?
You'll find the 2 things I mostly complain about, DRS and Mankad, have both had serious revision during this time.
Both were, and remain, Dog's Breakfasts of rules/laws.
I'm sure both will under go more revision soon enough.
However, I don't think MY comments have any impact on that. It's not like the ICC nor MCC prowl these pages looking for ideas.
Further to this, though.. I am not Robinson Crusoe on these topics. Many people air these same "complaints".
> Time to introspect.
There is a cheap shot reply available to me, but I will not do so as I am fond of you.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Feb 1, 2024, 1:58:16 AMFeb 1
to
On 1/31/2024 6:37 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
>> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
>> realizing it.
>
> Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
> There's no imposing.
>
Not a single cricket fan on UKSC bought into your "deception concept" in
> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
>> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
>> realizing it.
>
> Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
> There's no imposing.
>
YEARS.
So, IF you don't give up that angle, it means you are trying to impose.
>> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
>
> The ability to perform deception is real.
> It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.
>
The ISSUE of DECEPTION doesn't even arise IF the non-striker just STAYS
in the CREASE "UNTIL" he sees the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand.
It is very very simple.
> I'll ask you the same thing he failed to answer - if the bowler tells his captain "I'm going to pretend to bowl and try to get a mankad", then does so, was there an element of deception?
>
The ONUS is on the NON-STRIKER "NOT TO CHEAT" by leaving the crease early.
Bowler is NOT cheating, the non-striker is CHEATING by LEAVING EARLY and
GAINING an ADVANTAGE.
>> What have you accomplished?
>
> You'll find the 2 things I mostly complain about, DRS and Mankad, have both had serious revision during this time.
> Both were, and remain, Dog's Breakfasts of rules/laws.
> I'm sure both will under go more revision soon enough.
> However, I don't think MY comments have any impact on that. It's not like the ICC nor MCC prowl these pages looking for ideas.
> Further to this, though.. I am not Robinson Crusoe on these topics. Many people air these same "complaints".
the OLD MANKAD rules and thinking.
Once they ACCEPT that it's the RESPONSIBILITY of the non-striker NOT to
leave the crease early and CHEAT, literally EVERYTHING will be SOLVED
for good.
>
>> Time to introspect.
>
> There is a cheap shot reply available to me, but I will not do so as I am fond of you.
I enjoy discussing cricket with you too.
No hard feelings regardless of our animated arguments.
jack fredricks
Feb 1, 2024, 2:14:47 AMFeb 1
to
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:16 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 6:37 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
> >> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
> >> realizing it.
> >
> > Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
> > There's no imposing.
> >
> Not a single cricket fan on UKSC bought into your "deception concept" in
> YEARS.
>
> So, IF you don't give up that angle, it means you are trying to impose.
> >> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
> >
> > The ability to perform deception is real.
> > It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.
> >
> Jack, You are still NOT getting it.
>
> The ISSUE of DECEPTION doesn't even arise IF the non-striker just STAYS
> in the CREASE "UNTIL" he sees the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand.
No, that's how a non-striker mitigates the risk of deception.
> On 1/31/2024 6:37 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
> >> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
> >> realizing it.
> >
> > Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
> > There's no imposing.
> >
> Not a single cricket fan on UKSC bought into your "deception concept" in
> YEARS.
>
> So, IF you don't give up that angle, it means you are trying to impose.
> >> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
> >
> > The ability to perform deception is real.
> > It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.
> >
> Jack, You are still NOT getting it.
>
> The ISSUE of DECEPTION doesn't even arise IF the non-striker just STAYS
> in the CREASE "UNTIL" he sees the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand.
> It is very very simple.
> > I'll ask you the same thing he failed to answer - if the bowler tells his captain "I'm going to pretend to bowl and try to get a mankad", then does so, was there an element of deception?
> >
> WHAT is WRONG in the bowler PRETENDING to bowl and TRYING to get mankad?
The problem is, so many (like yourself and max) refuse to even accept that a bowler can employ deception to help get a mankad. See above for proof.
> Many people air these complaints because most of them are still STUCK in
> the OLD MANKAD rules and thinking.
My beef is the new laws have GREATLY increased the opportunity for a bowler to use deception to do this, and in doing so amplified the bad blood created by mankads.
This problem can be simply fixed - make the safe point "when front foot lands during delivery stride", rather than today's bullshit safe point, which needs its own subsection to define.
> Go ahead with the cheap shot. I won't be offended.
max.it
Feb 1, 2024, 4:24:26 AMFeb 1
to
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:58:14 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> wrote:
>On 1/31/2024 6:37 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
<FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> wrote:
>On 1/31/2024 6:37 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44?AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
>>> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
>>> realizing it.
>>
>> Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
>> There's no imposing.
>>
>
>
>
>Not a single cricket fan on UKSC bought into your "deception concept" in
>YEARS.
>
>So, IF you don't give up that angle, it means you are trying to impose.
>
>
>
>>> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
>>
>> The ability to perform deception is real.
>> It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.
>>
>
>
>Jack, You are still NOT getting it.
>
>The ISSUE of DECEPTION doesn't even arise IF the non-striker just STAYS
>in the CREASE "UNTIL" he sees the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand.
>
>It is very very simple.
>
>
>
>
>> I'll ask you the same thing he failed to answer - if the bowler tells his captain "I'm going to pretend to bowl and try to get a mankad", then does so, was there an element of deception?
>>
>
It wouldn't matter a tuppenny fuck if he said it, wrote it down two
>>> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
>>> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
>>> realizing it.
>>
>> Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
>> There's no imposing.
>>
>
>
>
>Not a single cricket fan on UKSC bought into your "deception concept" in
>YEARS.
>
>So, IF you don't give up that angle, it means you are trying to impose.
>
>
>
>>> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
>>
>> The ability to perform deception is real.
>> It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.
>>
>
>
>Jack, You are still NOT getting it.
>
>The ISSUE of DECEPTION doesn't even arise IF the non-striker just STAYS
>in the CREASE "UNTIL" he sees the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand.
>
>It is very very simple.
>
>
>
>
>> I'll ask you the same thing he failed to answer - if the bowler tells his captain "I'm going to pretend to bowl and try to get a mankad", then does so, was there an element of deception?
>>
>
weeks before and published it in the Times and made a statement to the
house of commons of his intention to mankad, and then went on to bowl
a googly. The bowler can change his mind on which delivery or not he
will bowl at any time right up until the ball leaves his hand. The
batsman doesn't have any say in what the bowler does legally, how he
bowls and if he mankads or not.
On what planet can bowler making a decision on a legitimate means of
dismissal ever be deception?
Show the deception and you will be understood and believed. If you are
incorrect you will be corrected, if you continue to ignore correction
you will be ridiculed and further ostinancy results in persecution.
I'm sure you already know that, living the dream aren't you.
>
>
>WHAT is WRONG in the bowler PRETENDING to bowl and TRYING to get mankad?
>
>
>The ONUS is on the NON-STRIKER "NOT TO CHEAT" by leaving the crease early.
>
>Bowler is NOT cheating, the non-striker is CHEATING by LEAVING EARLY and
>GAINING an ADVANTAGE.
>
>
max.it
>
>WHAT is WRONG in the bowler PRETENDING to bowl and TRYING to get mankad?
>
>
>The ONUS is on the NON-STRIKER "NOT TO CHEAT" by leaving the crease early.
>
>Bowler is NOT cheating, the non-striker is CHEATING by LEAVING EARLY and
>GAINING an ADVANTAGE.
>
>
jack fredricks
Feb 1, 2024, 5:13:14 AMFeb 1
to
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:24:26 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> On what planet can bowler making a decision on a legitimate means of
> dismissal ever be deception?
It would be interesting if you took the stance "deception is ok here" (like FBI has), but to say there is no element of deception when there obviously is doesn't deserve much of a response.
> On what planet can bowler making a decision on a legitimate means of
> dismissal ever be deception?
max.it
Feb 1, 2024, 7:05:12 AMFeb 1
to
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 02:13:13 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:24:26?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> On what planet can bowler making a decision on a legitimate means of
>> dismissal ever be deception?
>
>It would be interesting if you took the stance "deception is ok here" (like FBI has), but to say there is no element of deception when there obviously is doesn't deserve much of a response.
>
>
There is no deception to be "ok here", zero, nil.
Show the deception, explain how it is deception and you will be
believed, your position will be understood and others will change
their position to agree with you in the discussion.
Do you mean that you have no response? I think your position is an
empty sack and I have demonstrated that.
You have failed to present any compelling evidence for your claim that
the dismissal is unfair or deceitful in some way.
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:24:26?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> On what planet can bowler making a decision on a legitimate means of
>> dismissal ever be deception?
>
>It would be interesting if you took the stance "deception is ok here" (like FBI has), but to say there is no element of deception when there obviously is doesn't deserve much of a response.
>
>
Show the deception, explain how it is deception and you will be
believed, your position will be understood and others will change
their position to agree with you in the discussion.
Do you mean that you have no response? I think your position is an
empty sack and I have demonstrated that.
You have failed to present any compelling evidence for your claim that
the dismissal is unfair or deceitful in some way.
max.it
jack fredricks
Feb 1, 2024, 6:57:02 PMFeb 1
to
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Show the deception
I already have. But I'll try another way.
Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
> Show the deception
I already have. But I'll try another way.
Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
max.it
Feb 1, 2024, 7:25:25 PMFeb 1
to
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:57:01 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Show the deception
>
>I already have. But I'll try another way.
>
If you already had then I wouldn't need to keep asking.
Anyway you're a gonner now. You can waste someone else's time, you
can't afford mine.
Plonk.
max.it
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Show the deception
>
>I already have. But I'll try another way.
>
>
>Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>
>
>
I'm sure I probably can if I saw it happening.
>Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>
>
>
Anyway you're a gonner now. You can waste someone else's time, you
can't afford mine.
Plonk.
max.it
jack fredricks
Feb 1, 2024, 7:28:48 PMFeb 1
to
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:25:25 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Anyway you're a gonner now. You can waste someone else's time, you
> can't afford mine.
Finally. We get to the stage where you run off in a fit of uncontrolled anger.
> Anyway you're a gonner now. You can waste someone else's time, you
> can't afford mine.
Was the question too hard? Aren't you an umpire?
jack fredricks
Feb 1, 2024, 7:39:09 PMFeb 1
to
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:25:25 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> I'm sure I probably can if I saw it happening.
Your intellect is so stunted you can't even *think* of deceptive actions? You need to actually see them first?
It's no wonder you can't understand the deception element of the scenario I've described.
Although it just occurred to me even if you saw it in person, you'd probably shout "BUT I CAN'T READ MINDS!".
David North
Feb 2, 2024, 12:33:52 AMFeb 2
to
On 31/01/2024 00:00, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:50:12 AM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>> Pretending to have some kind of
>>> understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
>>> just pretending.
>> We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
>> This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
>
> So fucking what?
> The batsman's taking a risk by leaving the crease before they see the ball. If they want to risk being run out at the bowler's end in return for a reduced chance being runout while running WTF should anybody be crying for them?
>
>> I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc)
>
> When he went past the point of delivery and the batsman was not out?
> Not exactly a strong case...
... and in this case the bowler stopped very early in his action, when
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:50:12 AM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>> Pretending to have some kind of
>>> understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
>>> just pretending.
>> We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
>> This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
>
> So fucking what?
> The batsman's taking a risk by leaving the crease before they see the ball. If they want to risk being run out at the bowler's end in return for a reduced chance being runout while running WTF should anybody be crying for them?
>
>> I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc)
>
> When he went past the point of delivery and the batsman was not out?
> Not exactly a strong case...
his bowling arm was still in its downward swing, so hardly "just before
arm is vertical". He stopped so early that he put his front foot down
closer to the bowling crease than the popping crease, with a much
shorter stride than (I assume) he would normally take.
OTOH, the non-striker's bat was still several inches behind the crease
at that point, so that didn't give the bowler any cause to stop. It
seems pretty obvious that the bowler was watching for the non-striker to
turn his head away, and then stopped and waited for him to leave his ground.
--
David North
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Feb 2, 2024, 12:34:22 AMFeb 2
to
It is no longer relevant once cricket administrators and fans understand
that the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT and NOT the other way around.
There will NEVER be a case of deception once administrators make players
understand that bowler has EVERY RIGHT to mankad them out as long as the
ball is NOT released from their hands AND batter is out of the crease.
It can't get SIMPLER than that.
Bad blood happens because humans are brainwashed EMOTIONAL ANIMALS who
REFUSE to think rationally and REFUSE to "CHANGE their mindset".
Solution is to TRAIN PLAYERS to STAY in the fucking crease as long as
the ball is NOT released by the bowler.
QUITE SIMPLE to understand and IMPLEMENT for players, umpires, fans and
administrators.
David North
Feb 2, 2024, 1:10:53 AMFeb 2
to
Law 41.5.1 is about deliberate distraction, deception or obstruction of
a batter after the striker has received the ball - nothing to do with
Mankads.
--
David North
jack fredricks
Feb 2, 2024, 2:09:15 AMFeb 2
to
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 3:34:22 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.
I have a feeling the deception part is new-ish. I recall some stuff about "fake fielding" being outlawed.
> > Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.
Here's me, a human with an imagination, having a go at giving an example where this Law might come into play.
A keeper, standing uppish, takes one down legside. He then points to fine leg and shouts "keep it to one!". Batsman set off for a run, thinking it's gone down to fine leg, but the keeper (holding the ball) now attempts a run out.
Please note me bring up 41.5.1 wasn't to say mankads should invoke 41.5.1. I was trying, and failing, to get max to understand what deception is.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Feb 2, 2024, 2:52:20 AMFeb 2
to
mankading.
The point I made about mankading issue is STILL VALID anyway.
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Feb 2, 2024, 2:53:07 AMFeb 2
to
On 2/1/2024 10:10 PM, David North wrote:
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
Feb 2, 2024, 2:58:56 AMFeb 2
to
about in Mankading issue.
In mankading, the ONUS is on the batsman NOT TO CHEAT. Of course he can
CHEAT at his own risk and get mankaded out.
As simple as that.
max.it
Feb 2, 2024, 3:15:31 AMFeb 2
to
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:10:50 +0000, David North
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02/02/2024 05:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 2/1/2024 3:57 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
<nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02/02/2024 05:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 2/1/2024 3:57 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>>> Show the deception
>>>
>>> I already have. But I'll try another way.
>>>
>>> Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the
>>> *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>>
>>
>>
>> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.
>>
>> It is no longer relevant once cricket administrators and fans understand
>> that the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT and NOT the other way around.
>>
>> There will NEVER be a case of deception once administrators make players
>> understand that bowler has EVERY RIGHT to mankad them out as long as the
>> ball is NOT released from their hands AND batter is out of the crease.
>>
>> It can't get SIMPLER than that.
>>
>> Bad blood happens because humans are brainwashed EMOTIONAL ANIMALS who
>> REFUSE to think rationally and REFUSE to "CHANGE their mindset".
>>
>> Solution is to TRAIN PLAYERS to STAY in the fucking crease as long as
>> the ball is NOT released by the bowler.
>>
>> QUITE SIMPLE to understand and IMPLEMENT for players, umpires, fans and
>> administrators.
>
>You seems to have missed the word "fielder" in Jack's question.
>
>Law 41.5.1 is about deliberate distraction, deception or obstruction of
>a batter after the striker has received the ball - nothing to do with
>Mankads.
>
>
I remember that part of the 'new' laws being explained at umpires
>>>> Show the deception
>>>
>>> I already have. But I'll try another way.
>>>
>>> Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the
>>> *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>>
>>
>>
>> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.
>>
>> It is no longer relevant once cricket administrators and fans understand
>> that the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT and NOT the other way around.
>>
>> There will NEVER be a case of deception once administrators make players
>> understand that bowler has EVERY RIGHT to mankad them out as long as the
>> ball is NOT released from their hands AND batter is out of the crease.
>>
>> It can't get SIMPLER than that.
>>
>> Bad blood happens because humans are brainwashed EMOTIONAL ANIMALS who
>> REFUSE to think rationally and REFUSE to "CHANGE their mindset".
>>
>> Solution is to TRAIN PLAYERS to STAY in the fucking crease as long as
>> the ball is NOT released by the bowler.
>>
>> QUITE SIMPLE to understand and IMPLEMENT for players, umpires, fans and
>> administrators.
>
>You seems to have missed the word "fielder" in Jack's question.
>
>Law 41.5.1 is about deliberate distraction, deception or obstruction of
>a batter after the striker has received the ball - nothing to do with
>Mankads.
>
>
meeting. It was pretty much specific to one element of play from
outfielders that had become common, and there was certainly at more
times than not deception involved.
Can you remember?
max.it
jack fredricks
Feb 2, 2024, 5:20:44 AMFeb 2
to
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 6:15:31 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> I remember that part of the 'new' laws being explained at umpires
> meeting. It was pretty much specific to one element of play from
> outfielders that had become common, and there was certainly at more
> times than not deception involved.
> Can you remember?
The most common fielder deception, that I have seen in all my years of cricket, is pretending to throw the ball at the stumps (when you don't even have it in hand). This can cause runners to dive.
> I remember that part of the 'new' laws being explained at umpires
> meeting. It was pretty much specific to one element of play from
> outfielders that had become common, and there was certainly at more
> times than not deception involved.
> Can you remember?
jack fredricks
Feb 2, 2024, 5:32:00 AMFeb 2
to
jack fredricks
Feb 3, 2024, 7:36:35 PMFeb 3
to
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 8:32:00 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/why-the-fake-fielding-law-is-relevant-1122828
Fraser Stewart, MCC's Laws of Cricket manager (in 2017) said this about fake throwing;
"Fielders may not try to deceive either batsman. The fielder here has tried to deceive the batsmen, attempting to convince them that there is no chance of a run."
and
"As for the fielder sliding - that would depend on context - is he/she trying to convince the batsmen that the ball is closer to being thrown in than it actually is? If so, it is deception."
The umpires are required to make a decision about the intent of the fielder. If the umpire decides the intent was to cause deception, then the fielding team is punished.
Today's Law 41.5.1 starts "after the striker has received the ball".
If, however, it started earlier, before the mankad attempt (eg at the start of the bowler's run up).. then a *premeditated* mankad (pretending to bowl when you were never going to but instead looking for the run out) would undoubtedly be considered deception under 41.5.1.
That that's my problem. Today's Laws enable and weaponise this deception. This is an act that would be considered against the Spirit and against the Laws if the Law started a mere 1.5seconds earlier (how long it takes to deliver a ball).
I have no problem with a bowler, who sees a non-striker leave early, running that batsman out.
I have a problem with a bowler pretending to bowl in the hope that a batsman wanders out of their crease. This premeditated, fake bowling is happening more and more.
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/why-the-fake-fielding-law-is-relevant-1122828
Fraser Stewart, MCC's Laws of Cricket manager (in 2017) said this about fake throwing;
"Fielders may not try to deceive either batsman. The fielder here has tried to deceive the batsmen, attempting to convince them that there is no chance of a run."
and
"As for the fielder sliding - that would depend on context - is he/she trying to convince the batsmen that the ball is closer to being thrown in than it actually is? If so, it is deception."
The umpires are required to make a decision about the intent of the fielder. If the umpire decides the intent was to cause deception, then the fielding team is punished.
Today's Law 41.5.1 starts "after the striker has received the ball".
If, however, it started earlier, before the mankad attempt (eg at the start of the bowler's run up).. then a *premeditated* mankad (pretending to bowl when you were never going to but instead looking for the run out) would undoubtedly be considered deception under 41.5.1.
That that's my problem. Today's Laws enable and weaponise this deception. This is an act that would be considered against the Spirit and against the Laws if the Law started a mere 1.5seconds earlier (how long it takes to deliver a ball).
I have no problem with a bowler, who sees a non-striker leave early, running that batsman out.
I have a problem with a bowler pretending to bowl in the hope that a batsman wanders out of their crease. This premeditated, fake bowling is happening more and more.
0 new messages