New law for incoming batsmen.

[melanChronic]

Like that they are trying to legitimise Mankad runouts, but think they should firm up that it has to occur before the delivery stride. It's bullshit when the bowler enters their delivery stride, doesn't release and then tries to claim a runout. Like they are faking out the non-striker or something. If it happens with the motion of running in to the wicket then fair game I say (no warning required).

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Will mean a greater reduction in hattricks.

Nick off the inform player and rather than crowd the new batsman, you bowl to the bloke that's 55*

And why would being out caught behind mean a change of strike - but losing your off pole means you don't rotate.

 

[ROOTA#6]

It never made any sense the old way, what difference does it make where the batsmen were if the run doesn't count? Long overdue and I wonder why it was ever any other way to begin with.

What if they get through for one and are coming back for the second before the ball is caught?

 

[ROOTA#6]

Will mean a greater reduction in hattricks.

Nick off the inform player and rather than crowd the new batsman, you bowl to the bloke that's 55*

And why would being out caught behind mean a change of strike - but losing your off pole means you don't rotate.

What…I’m obviously reading the rule change wrong

 

[big_e]

Will mean a greater reduction in hattricks.

Nick off the inform player and rather than crowd the new batsman, you bowl to the bloke that's 55*

And why would being out caught behind mean a change of strike - but losing your off pole means you don't rotate.

I don't think you understand the rule.

 

[cats_09]

Will mean a greater reduction in hattricks.

Nick off the inform player and rather than crowd the new batsman, you bowl to the bloke that's 55*

And why would being out caught behind mean a change of strike - but losing your off pole means you don't rotate.

Huh?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

At least this will finally quieten the constant howls of protest there's always been about the batters-crossed-during-a-catch rule

 

[TigerCraig]

Will mean a greater reduction in hattricks.

Nick off the inform player and rather than crowd the new batsman, you bowl to the bloke that's 55*

And why would being out caught behind mean a change of strike - but losing your off pole means you don't rotate.

That's the exact opposite of what the new law says

 

[The hands of stone]

I actually dont mind it . Rewards the bowler with a crack at the new batter .

 

[The Falcon Strike]

What…I’m obviously reading the rule change wrong

I don't think you understand the rule.

Huh?

Yep - hands up here - read that wrong

Whilst this was hardly being called for - it is somewhat consistent with other non runout dismissals

Not the end of the world

It does change tactic for a lower order batter who can no longer go for a 6 knowing that even sky ball would bring the main bat on strike

 

[PhatBoy]

Will mean a greater reduction in hattricks.

Nick off the inform player and rather than crowd the new batsman, you bowl to the bloke that's 55*

And why would being out caught behind mean a change of strike - but losing your off pole means you don't rotate.

Wrong way around mate. It will increase hat tricks as the form batsman will be watching from the non strikers end

 

[corbies]

The cricket board certainly not going to win any medals for reading comprehension any time soon.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I guess I don't mind this rule change, but to be honest, it seems rather unnecessary when there are so many other things that should be reviewed first.

It does make me think about run-outs though. I've never really paid attention to how it works, but have assumed the incoming batter went to the end that the player got run out at. So that would be the only dismissal where the incoming batter would potentially be at the non-strikers end?

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Also, I'm very much in favour of destigmatising the mankad rule.

 

[tandino]

The batters crossing in and of itself is pretty meaningless really. It's probably a more logical position for the rules to take.

 

[Wallaby]

The saliva one is the most interesting one to me. I can see the following discussions happening.

1. Any bowler who licks his fingers - is that a warning or sanction (suspension, runs penalty, whatever).
2. Fielders and bowlers are going to get even more creative with what they have in their pockets (why do cricket pants need pockets anyway?).
3. 12th men running onto the field with water bottles - 'here have a drink' - with something on the water bottle.


There's a lot of ways around this rule, and they are all going to be tried (most probably are already).

 

[Father Jack]

What if they get through for one and are coming back for the second before the ball is caught?

No run and the positions of the batters resets.

 

[kickazz]

Also, I'm very much in favour of destigmatising the mankad rule.

Absolutely.

In effect it seems this 'rule change' is not a change at all - but they have simply acknowledged it is a run out like anything else.

It's not a problem for a batsman if they don't cheat. And if they claim to have merely "gotten into a bad habit of leaving early" then hopefully that bad habit will now be quickly sorted out.

 

[kickazz]

Like that they are trying to legitimise Mankad runouts, but think they should firm up that it has to occur before the delivery stride. It's bullshit when the bowler enters their delivery stride, doesn't release and then tries to claim a runout. Like they are faking out the non-striker or something. If it happens with the motion of running in to the wicket then fair game I say (no warning required).

Yeah I can appreciate this, but does "delivery stride" then become another painful grey area?

I used to play a bit of indoor, where the Mankad was more than legit, and in fact, you had to do it in/after the delivery stride, "tricking" the batsman as it were.

The thing is, you learn a very simple thing as a batman - do not leave your crease until you physically see the ball leave the bowler's hand.


By making it this strict, batsmen will become conditioned. Yes, in a close game where you need one off the last ball with 1 wicket in hand - a bowler could try this. If it works, well done. The batsman should not have left the crease early to try and gain 5cm advantage. Harsh but fair.

 

[akkaps]

The thing is, you learn a very simple thing as a batman - do not leave your crease until you physically see the ball leave the bowler's hand.

I don't see what is so hard with this. Okay, so there is daylight between ball and hand, you run. Plus you also rick backing up too far and being run out after the batsman has hit it.

Where I play indoor, it's still very frowned upon. Which shits me.

 

[Wallaby]

Where I play indoor, it's still very frowned upon. Which shits me.

Really? When I played indoor, it was a standard practise - you tried it a few times per game.

Seriously, we penalise bowlers for going a millimetre over the line, we penalise fielders for having a toenail touching the boundary rope. But we let batsmen sneak a metre or so and it's considered 'unfair' if anybody tries to stop them.

If I was captain of the Australian Cricket team I would announce 'We're Mankading', and instruct my bowlers to try it regularly. I would instruct my batsmen backing-up to watch the bowler's hand and not get caught out. After a couple of tests, it would become accepted, and no one would mind it.

Then going forward, the fielder at mid-on or mid-off would have the job of checking out the non-striker, and if they thought he was cribbing, he would have a word with the bowler.

 

[legend166]

Made sense, the run doesn't count so why would the batsmen switch ends.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I don't mind the enshrining of the Mankad rule - i just wish it was more absolute.

ie - rather than deliver stride - make it that once either the back leg or the front leg (in their normal delivery stride) hit the ground then you are clear to run.

I understand some people bowl of the wrong foot - so it is whatever leg or stride is normal from them.

I am agnostic as to which one - but it needs to be clear.

 

[akkaps]

Really? When I played indoor, it was a standard practise - you tried it a few times per game.

Seriously, we penalise bowlers for going a millimetre over the line, we penalise fielders for having a toenail touching the boundary rope. But we let batsmen sneak a metre or so and it's considered 'unfair' if anybody tries to stop them.

If I was captain of the Australian Cricket team I would announce 'We're Mankading', and instruct my bowlers to try it regularly. I would instruct my batsmen backing-up to watch the bowler's hand and not get caught out. After a couple of tests, it would become accepted, and no one would mind it.

Then going forward, the fielder at mid-on or mid-off would have the job of checking out the non-striker, and if they thought he was cribbing, he would have a word with the bowler.

Probably should have clarified that I don’t play cricket at an action indoor centre. It’s this place in hawthorn in a church opposite Swinburne. Different variation in rules altogether

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Probably should have clarified that I don’t play cricket at an action indoor centre. It’s this place in hawthorn in a church opposite Swinburne. Different variation in rules altogether

Strange culture for indoor. Indoor has always been a different sport in that the ball is always live with the exception of end of over.

Same as the other poster - I haven't played in years - but there was no issue mankading at all. Same as deliberately bowling wide on third ball to generate a run out or stumping.