- May 10, 2004
- 24,853
- 5,691
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Pistons/Hammers/Sri Lanka/The Exers
Sorry, but that is a steaming pile of horse shit. If what you say is true, we wouldn't need DRS would we?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The Mankad rule
- Thread starter golions
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Sorry, but that is a steaming pile of horse shit. If what you say is true, we wouldn't need DRS would we?
- May 10, 2004
- 24,853
- 5,691
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Pistons/Hammers/Sri Lanka/The Exers
What fantasy land do you live in and can I join you?
Totally unrelated. Of course you want the umpires to make the right decisions, when they're called to make them.
The whole "should they appeal / should the batsman walk" is a different discussion altogether.
What's wrong with any of that?
I understand that few professional cricketers are magnanimous with their approach to the rules on the field. That doesn't mean that the option for them to be so shouldn't exist.
Carbine Chaos
See My Chess
- Apr 1, 2009
- 65,326
- 99,187
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
The fact you need to resort to cheap insults says a lot about you. And I don't see the relevance of your point.
Sure, no grey areas then for the batsman.
Lets put the bowler in the same context.
Should bowlers be warned, or instantly banned from bowling for the innings, for the following?
- running on the wicket protected area
- throwing / bent arm more than 15 degrees
- beam balls
Of course I'm being deliberately provocative....
Lets put the bowler in the same context.
Should bowlers be warned, or instantly banned from bowling for the innings, for the following?
- running on the wicket protected area
- throwing / bent arm more than 15 degrees
- beam balls
Of course I'm being deliberately provocative....
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,695
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
That's supposed to be illegal?
Yeah, but do it once and you get warned / no ball called.
Not dismissed from the game like a Mankad runout is.
Screw that. Sport isn't about 19th century colonial philosophies anymore. It's about winning and losing, and the rules that apply. If a non-striker is out of his crease I'd run him out without warning 100 times out of 100. And I'd tell him to read the rule book before playing any kind of sport.
Cricket has to be the only professional sport where ignorance of the rules or ignoring the application of them is looked at with pride. And always to favour the batsman.
You can't be serious. You expect players earning millions of dollars a year (which they now do) to make the right decisions based on sportsmanship??? Love to know what colour the sky is in your world. Australia v India at the SCG in 2008 was a perfect example of what happens when you let pampered brats be trusted to do the right thing.
If anything the last 20 years have conclusively proven that cricketers are as hypocritical a breed of sportsmen as any you'll come across. They all act outraged when batsmen don't walk (and neither they should - that's what the umpire is for), but they'll never do it themselves.
Fully agree that sport reveals character. And most of the time what's revealed isn't that pleasant.
Last time cricket was remotely civilised was before World War 1. Even then the players were just as greedy and hypocritical as they are now. Difference was everyone either ignored it or pretended it didn't exist.
Way to miss the point.
No. I expect them to make decisions. Whether they are based on sportsmanship or gamesmanship is up to them.
That's not true at all. There have been plenty of occasions when cricketers have done sporting things, often to their personal detriment or that of their side. And their rarity means it is regarded all the more highly.
Likewise, those who behave in an particularly unsporting manner are vilified far more in cricket than other sports. In what other sport would a perfectly legal act of gamesmanship provoke condemnation by Prime Ministers, and still be remembered with ill-feeling over 30 years later?
Likewise, those who behave in an particularly unsporting manner are vilified far more in cricket than other sports. In what other sport would a perfectly legal act of gamesmanship provoke condemnation by Prime Ministers, and still be remembered with ill-feeling over 30 years later?
But what is unsportsmanlike about running out a batsman who is trying to gain an unfair advantage? It is the batsmen who are being unsportsmanlike by taking advantage of the taboo against the Mankad to a truly absurd degree.
I'm fine with the rule being that the bowler can't have entered his delivery stride before he removes the bails. That's fair enough, as batsmen shouldn't have to wait to see that the ball has truly left the bowler's hand before he sets off, as the expectation is that if the bowler performs his action, the ball will be going down the other end of the pitch. That's fine. But if the batsman is out of his crease before the bowler even reaches his delivery stride, it's fair bloody game.
And that's your interpretation, and that's fine.
That's the nice thing about sportsmanship. It's contextual.
That's the nice thing about sportsmanship. It's contextual.
Nothing to do with not knowing the rules. It is about acknowledging that the following exists
Spirit of Cricket: Preamble to the Laws
Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself. The major responsibility for ensuring the spirit of fair play rests with the captains.
1. There are two Laws which place responsibility for the team's conduct firmly on the captain.
Responsibility of captains
The captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws.
Player's conduct
In the event of a player failing to comply with instructions by an umpire, or criticising by word or action the decision of an umpire, or showing dissent, or generally behaving in a manner which might bring the game into disrepute, the umpire concerned shall in the first place report the matter to the other umpire and to the player's captain, and instruct the latter to take action.
How many other sports have a preamble in relation to the spirit of the game?
Sure, professionalism and hard nosed approach has taken a lot of gloss over cricket as synonymous with fair play. But the concept has not gone altogether. I am glad of that.
Could you explain what is so unsportsmanlike about the Mankad?
I'm not saying it is unsportsmanlike.
I'm saying the beauty of the way the game is constructed is that it allows the players to respond to certain situations in accordance with their consciences, and observers to evaluate their actions according to theirs.
I'm saying the beauty of the way the game is constructed is that it allows the players to respond to certain situations in accordance with their consciences, and observers to evaluate their actions according to theirs.
OK, I think I may have misinterpreted your position. I agree that the idea of sportsmanship and playing within the spirit of the game is brilliant for cricket. I just think it's ridiculous that the Mankad is still taboo. Back when it was a way of essentially tricking the batsman by pretending to bowl, prompting him to leave the crease, and then knocking the bails off, it was against the spirit of the game. Now, however, batsmen are manipulating this taboo and transgressing terribly. Either make it equally against the spirit of the game to back up so ridiculously far, or bring back the Mankad, with the proviso that it isn't done after the bowler has completed his action.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
The Mankad is still legitimate.
Bloke backs up to far and you tell him that if he does it again you'll Mankad him.
If he does it again you Mankad him and it's perfectly kosher
Bloke backs up to far and you tell him that if he does it again you'll Mankad him.
If he does it again you Mankad him and it's perfectly kosher
1. With regards to the Starc incident, ball was dead because Starc dropped it before delivery.
2. Best way to deal with non-striker leaving his ground early is to simply as a bowler not deliver the ball, do it 3 or 4 times in an over and the umpires and batting side will be aware. Umpires can award 5 penalty runs eventually
2. Best way to deal with non-striker leaving his ground early is to simply as a bowler not deliver the ball, do it 3 or 4 times in an over and the umpires and batting side will be aware. Umpires can award 5 penalty runs eventually
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,695
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
So you're not allowed to chuck the ball? I thought that rule had been relaxed/abolished recently observing bowling actions
Under the Laws of Cricket
Definition of fair delivery – the arm.
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler‟s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.
This is probably amended by playing conditions relevent to test matches, first class cricket, district cricket etc etc probably even bush cricket where all these 10% straightenings and b/s comes into it !
A few other less known laws
Bowler throwing towards striker’s end before delivery.
If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker‟s end before entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal No ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the procedure stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action against the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon possible
Definition of fair delivery – the arm.
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler‟s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.
This is probably amended by playing conditions relevent to test matches, first class cricket, district cricket etc etc probably even bush cricket where all these 10% straightenings and b/s comes into it !
A few other less known laws
Bowler throwing towards striker’s end before delivery.
If the bowler throws the ball towards the striker‟s end before entering his delivery stride, either umpire shall call and signal No ball. See Law 42.16 (Batsmen stealing a run). However, the procedure stated in 2 above of caution, informing, final warning, action against the bowler and reporting shall not apply.
Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon possible
