Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
My arse she was. And by the time the bails were taken off she was a good 2 yards down the track. If she'd been paying attention she had all that time to get back to the crease.
England Cricket 2022
- Thread starter RileyOBlimey
- Start date
My arse she was. And by the time the bails were taken off she was a good 2 yards down the track. If she'd been paying attention she had all that time to get back to the crease.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Well that's all just been clarified by the MCC.
The batter must wait until they see the ball leave the bowlers hand. Simple.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is really easy to sort out. Look at Sharma's bowling action when she actually delivers the ball. In this instance, is she in her normal position to bowl when her front foot lands, which is the point at which Dean leaves her ground. If not, then she's already pulled out.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And it is dead ball if the bowler pulls out of their bowling action.
You're not squaring these two laws.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
This is nonsense. 'The bowler stopped intending to bowl'.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well you could argue of course that she stopped intending to bowl before she even ran/walked in. But she'd definitely stopped intending to bowl by the point that Dean's bat left the crease.
The law on this is an arse.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Well you could argue of course that she stopped intending to bowl before she even ran/walked in. But she'd definitely stopped intending to bowl by the point that Dean's bat left the crease.
The law on this is an arse.
Wait until the ball's been bowled before moving your bat out of the crease!
What's unclear about that?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Whether or not Sharma's actions were against the spirit of the game (a nebulous concept), the laws of the game decree that her actions constituted a dead ball.
How am I wrong?
How am I wrong?
We're all taught to move with the bowler as they run in whether we're a batter or a fielder. Just ingrained. You often see that biting fielders in the arse too as the ball flies over their head because they've advanced.
Sack the coaches. All of them.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Because the ball isn't dead.
What bit of that makes Sharma's action constitute a dead ball?
In fact 20.4.2.9 expressly allows for what she did!
Ted Striker
Foot's on the other hand
The Umpire signalled it a dead ball. That should override any other consideration, no?
This feel closer to the Ump shouting "No baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..." before the medium pacer clatters your off stump...then realises he has made a mistake, the ball was valid, and awards the wicket (with the batsman then claiming (legitimately IMO) they relaxed their defence as they knew it couldn't be given out.
That's not cricket, and nor should this have been.
This feel closer to the Ump shouting "No baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..." before the medium pacer clatters your off stump...then realises he has made a mistake, the ball was valid, and awards the wicket (with the batsman then claiming (legitimately IMO) they relaxed their defence as they knew it couldn't be given out.
That's not cricket, and nor should this have been.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
So how can a batter judge at what point the ball would 'normally' have left the bowler's hand if the bowler mimics a bowling action without actually bowling?
I don't think the laws adequately cover this. Arguably you could call this deliberate deception. Either way, the laws are woefully inadequate.
And I and you and everyone else have seen the ump signal dead ball when the bowler fails to release the ball in their action.
I don't think the laws adequately cover this. Arguably you could call this deliberate deception. Either way, the laws are woefully inadequate.
And I and you and everyone else have seen the ump signal dead ball when the bowler fails to release the ball in their action.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is one of the main reasons they now delay no ball calls. Adam Voges went on to make a double century after he was clean bowled by a legitimate delivery mistakenly called no-ball from Dougie Bracewell when on about 2 in a test. That catalysed the change.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Sure. But as a batter you know not to move too far down and know you can be dismissed for doing so.
Everyone knows that the Mankad exists. Everyone knows that it's legal but but before now considered unsporting. I remember kids doing it at school and getting a bollocking from the PE teacher nearly 50 years ago!
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with even a passing familiarity of the game.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
As I said, the laws are inadequate, but this is the relevant one:
20.4.2.7 there is an instance of a deliberate attempt to distract under either of Laws 41.4 (Deliberate attempt to distract striker) or 41.5 (Deliberate distraction, deception or obstruction of a batter). The ball shall not count as one of the over.
Sharma deliberately deceived Dean into thinking she was bowling when she wasn't. Wording is 'a batter', not 'the striker', note.
An earlier poster had it right - fake bowling is no different from fake fielding, and is not permitted by the Laws.
Terrible umping.
20.4.2.7 there is an instance of a deliberate attempt to distract under either of Laws 41.4 (Deliberate attempt to distract striker) or 41.5 (Deliberate distraction, deception or obstruction of a batter). The ball shall not count as one of the over.
Sharma deliberately deceived Dean into thinking she was bowling when she wasn't. Wording is 'a batter', not 'the striker', note.
An earlier poster had it right - fake bowling is no different from fake fielding, and is not permitted by the Laws.
Terrible umping.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Because the ball doesn't come out. Come on, that's perfectly straightforward.
If the NS waits until the ball is gone before moving out, s/he cannot be Mankadded, regardless of whether or not the bowler is attempting a deliberate deception. What's so difficult about that?
Correctly so. And that's covered in 20.4.2.9
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Phwoar! You needed a crowbar to manipulate that one didn't you
Obviously 20.4.2.9 negates your extremely spurious interpretation of this!
One of my pet hates. The ball went out there. Take the throw in from there please.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I shall leave that for the jury to decide.Phwoar! You needed a crowbar to manipulate that one didn't you
Obviously 20.4.2.9 negates your extremely spurious interpretation of this!
But in my first reaction, it is the deception side of it that sat badly with me, and the laws do cover that. It's there, all bolded up for you.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
But in my first reaction, it is the deception side of it that sat badly with me, and the laws do cover that. It's there, all bolded up for you.
You've only emphasised bits that suit you though!
We have to look at what it's referring to; in this case law 41.5, the relevant part of which says:
"41.5.1 In addition to 41.4, it is unfair for any fielder wilfully to attempt, by word or action, to distract, deceive or obstruct either batter after the striker has received the ball."
It's there, all bolded up for you.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Gah details.You've only emphasised bits that suit you though!
We have to look at what it's referring to; in this case law 41.5, the relevant part of which says:
"41.5.1 In addition to 41.4, it is unfair for any fielder wilfully to attempt, by word or action, to distract, deceive or obstruct either batter after the striker has received the ball."
It's there, all bolded up for you.
The law's an arse anyway. Did I say that?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
The umpire started to signal a dead ball but didn't go through with it after he realised what was happening.
If he had it would have been an umpiring error.
Ted Striker
Foot's on the other hand
That's preposterous! How many wavy hand crosses does the umpire need to do before it can be rescinded? He should still have called it. (or least carried his hand through to brush his hair like a missed hi 5 dad-joke lol)
It's the equivalent of an umpire shouting nobaaaaaaaaaaactuallynoyou'realrightasyouwere.
I get that backing up is slightly more sluggish than calling out a no-ball on a quicky, but you can never have half an umpires call. Never
.
Ted Striker
Foot's on the other hand
You've only emphasised bits that suit you though!
We have to look at what it's referring to; in this case law 41.5, the relevant part of which says:
"41.5.1 In addition to 41.4, it is unfair for any fielder wilfully to attempt, by word or action, to distract, deceive or obstruct either batter after the striker has received the ball."
It's there, all bolded up for you.
The bolded bit in place, of course, because deception is explicitly part of the game (think slower balls, wrong'uns etc)
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
That's preposterous! How many wavy hand crosses does the umpire need to do before it can be rescinded? He should still have called it. (or least carried his hand through to brush his hair like a missed hi 5 dad-joke lol)
It's the equivalent of an umpire shouting nobaaaaaaaaaaactuallynoyou'realrightasyouwere.
I get that backing up is slightly more sluggish than calling out a no-ball on a quicky, but you can never have half an umpires call. Never
This is just a non-argument. The ball wasn't dead and the umpire stopped signalling it as such when he realised he was about to make a mistake.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Which rather bolsters the argument for also considering the Mankad part of the game.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Not really. Other forms of deception are not allowed - eg fake fielding. Fake bowling is the equivalent of fake fielding, surely. It's not quite the same as a well-disguised wrong-un.
