England Cricket 2022
- Thread starter RileyOBlimey
- Start date
Here's that mankad delivery again.
View attachment 344475
Batter not out of her crease. Bowler in her delivery stride.
But the bowler never had any intention of bowling the ball. On a par with fake fielding IMO
It's a fairly simple fix surely. Bowlers get warned for running on the pitch in the danger areas. It's what, 2 warnings or something and they're out of the attack, the same with too many bouncers in an over. It should be up to the umpire to warn batsmen for constant pisstaking on backing up. 71 times is a bit nuts.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That needs more context. How widespread is it for batters to leave their crease during the delivery action rather than after the ball has left the bowler's hand? Who would actually stand up to that level of analysis?So Dean was out of her crease 71 times in her innings, and was warned repeatedly....
'We had warned her' - Deepti Sharma on the Charlie Dean dismissal
Heather Knight, however, has said that the Indians hadn't warned the batter and were "lying" about itwww.espncricinfo.com
There is a problem if two teams are playing by different rules - one looking to mankad, the other not. How many Indian batters also did exactly this during their innings, knowing that England weren't going to mankad?
The answer to the above question is pretty important imo. If none of the Indians do this, then you can argue that England are giving themselves an advantage. But if the Indians do it as well, then it is India that is giving itself an advantage by seeking to mankad when they know the opposition will not. That's sharp practice.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
It doesn’t matter how widespread it is, or whether England would have done it or not.
It’s the rule/law. It’s crystal clear, and has now been super-clarified!
Batsmen must stop trying to cheat by stealing ground, or face the potential consequences.
I think it should go further. In any game format where batsmen get a free hit after a no-ball (whoever thought that travesty up needs shooting), square leg ump should watch how far the non-striker is backing-up. If they are out of their ground at the point of release, SLU calls it, and the bowler gets a free kick to the offender’s bollocks before the next delivery. At the moment only spinners can benefit from the Mankad. This would even things up for quick bowlers too.
It’s the rule/law. It’s crystal clear, and has now been super-clarified!
Batsmen must stop trying to cheat by stealing ground, or face the potential consequences.
I think it should go further. In any game format where batsmen get a free hit after a no-ball (whoever thought that travesty up needs shooting), square leg ump should watch how far the non-striker is backing-up. If they are out of their ground at the point of release, SLU calls it, and the bowler gets a free kick to the offender’s bollocks before the next delivery. At the moment only spinners can benefit from the Mankad. This would even things up for quick bowlers too.
It was a women’s match!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I disagree. If you know the opposition are playing to a certain set of conventions and seek to exploit that fact, that is sharp practice.
That photo is not a good look. Bowler is pretending to be about to bowl but instead has eyes fixed on the batter, who is in her ground at the moment of the delivery stride. Sharma had no intention of bowling that ball. It's clear deception. And if the Indian batters had been doing the same thing, it's also hypocritical.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
I think feinting the delivery is a bit sneaky to be honest, and I wouldn't disagree with an adjustment in the rules to reflect that, but in general I think the approach here should be to clarify the law and then play to the letter of the law, and if you get out via a Mankad then tough shit. All that spirit of the game stuff was fine in test cricket years ago when a batsman probably wouldn't bother with a quick single most of the time anyway (and certainly not for an hour after lunch) but in short form cricket it's absurd to start shouting 'spirit of the game' at bowlers when it seemingly doesn't apply the other way.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
A kicked arse then. It’s not much less ridiculous than the free hit.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Coaching needs to change for sure. Dean was clearly consistently starting to back up after the bowler had entered her delivery stride rather than after the ball had left the bowler's hand. She - and no doubt loads of others - needs to change that.
I remember back in the day when there was a Gillette cup final or whatever and a single needed off the final ball, the non-striker was virtually up the other end by the time the ball was bowled. That was ridiculous. But I also don't like the idea of a bowler trying to trick a batter into thinking it is safe to leave the crease.
A rule is only a rule if it's enforced, and it's only a good rule if it's enforced equitably.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ump calls one short if the non-striker was out of their crease early? Seems logical enough - a full run wasn't completed. That would stop it pretty sharpish.
Idaho
blah blah blah
I don't understand why it ever became an issue. Just keep your bat behind the line, watch the bowler, and listen for the dur-dum of the delivery stride before advancing down the wicket. Either that or scrap the no ball rule that suddenly makes this "sporting" white line strictly enforced only for bowlers.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
In that photo, the dur has already happened. Need to advance a couple of frames to see whether she was out of her ground for the dum.
ETA: You need the slo-mo, but she has just left the crease at the dum. Just. Like a run-out when there's one frame in it.
But the dum happens with the bowler already having pulled out of the delivery. That's my problem with this. You could argue - I think I would argue - that the bowler has pulled out of the delivery before the dum of the delivery stride (cos the arm is nowhere near where it should be) and that the batter is still in her ground at that point of pulling out. If the point at which a bowler pulls out of the delivery is then dead ball, then the batter can't be out for something she did after that point.
I'm rethinking this. I now think it might be a stinker of an umpiring decision. I also think the Laws surrounding this are totally shite and contradictory.
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
India were no more aware that England wouldn't use the Mankad, than England were of India's intentions.
It's in the rules. Play by them.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
India knew England hadn't done it cos they'd already batted.
This isn't theoretical or mind reading.
Ashwin v Vaughan/Ponting
www.theguardian.com
The Mankad was acceptable once so why does Ashwin get so much grief? | Andy Bull
Cricket was not always so precious when it came to bowlers running out batsmen for backing up too far
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
It was enforced. And if and England bowler had run out an Indian non-striker it would have been enforced again.
That's equitable.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Bollocks. There's a reason they did this bowling second.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Does it need clearing-up? I'd be very surprised if anyone who's played at any level hasn't had a bowler pull-up and warn them for backing up too far. Granted, there will have been a lot of eye rolling and probably a few words of abuse from the sidelines, but everyone knows it's in the game.
Hopefully this clarification will stop that.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Show us the bit of law that is unclear or contradictory.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
At what point is the batter deemed out of her ground? It's the moment when the ball would 'normally' have left the bowler's hand.
At what point is it dead ball cos the bowler has pulled out of her delivery? It's surely the point at which the bowler is no longer going through with her action.
If the bowler stops her action and the batter is in her ground at that point, how is that not 'dead ball, not out'?
Explain to me how this was not a stinker of an umpiring mistake?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Let's be clear here. Dean was still in her ground when Sharma pulled up.
Terrible decision.
Ted Striker
Foot's on the other hand
Isn't it a key part of baseball - akin to 'stealing bases'? (my rounders knowledge is not that strong).
I don't like it ,but as someone who has really been reminded/bombarded of examples of English dubious sporting behaviour by gleeful Indians on twitter, perhaps it's best we classify this as the watershed moment when this becomes a legitimate 'threat' or part of the game.
It's hardly armageddon for a non-striker to either start earlier* or keep an eye on any spinner. If a fast bowler can keep his feet behind the crease, so can a non-striker. Whether the punishment should be more akin to a wicket-reversal (no ball) or lost run (non-grounded bat on a second run) which I think are likely its closest neighbours, is a fair debate. As someone pointed out, batsman have had it fairly good over the last few rule changes (bat size aside ), so maybe... let 'em crash?
*Backing up is less to get the batsman closer to the strikers end, but to not be starting from a standing start if Run is called.
I don't like it ,but as someone who has really been reminded/bombarded of examples of English dubious sporting behaviour by gleeful Indians on twitter, perhaps it's best we classify this as the watershed moment when this becomes a legitimate 'threat' or part of the game.
It's hardly armageddon for a non-striker to either start earlier* or keep an eye on any spinner. If a fast bowler can keep his feet behind the crease, so can a non-striker. Whether the punishment should be more akin to a wicket-reversal (no ball) or lost run (non-grounded bat on a second run) which I think are likely its closest neighbours, is a fair debate. As someone pointed out, batsman have had it fairly good over the last few rule changes (bat size aside
), so maybe... let 'em crash?*Backing up is less to get the batsman closer to the strikers end, but to not be starting from a standing start if Run is called.
Ted Striker
Foot's on the other hand
(My legal argument - and my instant reaction when watching it first time - would have started with the ump declaring a dead ball (before the bails came off IIRC). Surely that overrides any subsequent events?)
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
yes, it's an accepted and integral part of the game in baseball. tbh I wouldn't mind if it became an accepted and integral part of cricket as well, particularly white-ball cricket. But I don't think the laws are quite right just yet for that to happen.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is now my position having watched the slo-mo a few times. Umps didn't consider where Dean's bat was at the point that the bowler stopped actually intending to bowl.
Yes, I agree. Make it legal then. Stealing bases is an art form in baseball but the runners know the risks very well and there's no complaints if they're caught.
