Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

International Cricket

Ah, didn't know that. Explains it. You know why they changed it?

My guess would be the huge growth of T20 and numbers of batsman backing up half way down the track. And let's face it, some of them really take the piss.

It's prompted the MCC to take a more solid view of it:
Under the previous rule bowlers could attempt a run out only before entering their delivery stride. Now, bowlers at all levels will be able to run-out the non-striker up to the instant at which they “would be expected to deliver the ball”.

The MCC have changed the wording of the Mankad rule from “Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery” to “Non-striker leaving their ground early” in a bid to put the “onus on the non-striker to remain in their ground”.

“It is often the bowler who is criticised for attempting such a run out but it is the batsman who is attempting to gain an advantage,” the MCC explained.

“The message to the non-striker is very clear – if you do not want to risk being run out, stay within your ground until the bowler has released the ball.”
MCC Change 'Handled The Ball' & 'Mankad' Law | Wisden Cricket
 
Think the old rule is clearer. Adding 'expected' is creating confusion imo. By that wording above, I would say that this is still clearly not out. Buttler isn't looking at the bowler, but has timed his move for about when the ball is going to be released. Still a stinker.
 
Although, that what i posted may only be coming into effect on april 1st. So this may still have taken place under the old system. Bit confusing.
 
My guess would be the huge growth of T20 and numbers of batsman backing up half way down the track. And let's face it, some of them really take the piss.
I remember old Gillette Cup matches, a single needed off the last ball and the non-striker almost level with the striker by the time the ball was bowled. It's happened for a long while. :D
 
I remember old Gillette Cup matches, a single needed off the last ball and the non-striker almost level with the striker by the time the ball was bowled. It's happened for a long while. :D
Well the old method for getting a one off the last ball was for the striker to charge up, play the full toss with a dead bat and run over it, whilst passing the non-striker who was probably level with him at that point!
 
Must say Ashwin is going down in my estimation by the second. Lying now and saying it was instinctual. But he aborted bowling to stop and watch and wait for Buttler to leave his ground. Lying fucker.

Look, it was very instinctive. On my part, it was very instinctive. It was not planned or anything like that.

Drama in Jaipur as Jos Buttler mankaded by R Ashwin


I call bullshit on that. Which is sad as he's a top player. Why do that?
 
Unsurprised by stances taken so far. Harsha Bogle as an IPL apologist. Dean Jones can't see anything wrong. Nothing from next man in Steve Smith? MCC has spoken (or fudged).

MCC STATEMENT ON THE ‘MANKAD’ INCIDENT IN THE IPL MATCH BETWEEN KINGS XI PUNJAB AND RAJASTHAN ROYALS, IN WHICH R ASHWIN RAN OUT JOS BUTTLER.
In relation to the incident, the wording of the Law needs to be examined to understand it further. This Law is essential. Without it, non-strikers could back up at liberty, several yards down the pitch and a Law is needed to prevent such action.

THE LAW:
Law 41.16 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early

If the non-striker is out of his/her ground from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the bowler is permitted to attempt to run him/her out. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one in 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 as possible.

The crux of the issue is when the non-striker can safely leave his/her ground, and what the bowler can do to effect this form of dismissal without courting controversy. To clarify, it has never been in the Laws that a warning should be given to the non-striker and nor is it against the Spirit of Cricket to run out a non-striker who is seeking to gain an advantage by leaving his/her ground early.

Furthermore, with batsmen now being deemed in or out by millimetres by TV replays on quick singles, it is right that they should remain in their ground at the non-striker’s end until it is fair for them to leave.

Yesterday’s incident could have been ruled out or not out, depending on how “the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball” is interpreted. Some feel that Ashwin delayed his action to allow Buttler the chance to leave his ground and that Buttler was in his ground when he expected the ball to be released. If it was a deliberate delay, that would be unfair and against the Spirit of Cricket. Ashwin claims this not to be the case.

The TV umpire had to make a decision and, under the Law (and indeed ICC’s interpretation of them, which clarifies the expected moment of release as when the arm reaches its highest point), it was understandable how he opted to give Buttler out.

It is up to both teams to ensure that the game is played within both the Laws and the Spirit of Cricket. Non-strikers must be careful not to gain an unfair advantage by leaving their ground early, while bowlers must act within the timeframe outlined in the Law to effect a Run out under Law 41.16.
 
Unsurprised by stances taken so far. Harsha Bogle as an IPL apologist. Dean Jones can't see anything wrong. Nothing from next man in Steve Smith? MCC has spoken (or fudged).

MCC STATEMENT ON THE ‘MANKAD’ INCIDENT IN THE IPL MATCH BETWEEN KINGS XI PUNJAB AND RAJASTHAN ROYALS, IN WHICH R ASHWIN RAN OUT JOS BUTTLER.
In relation to the incident, the wording of the Law needs to be examined to understand it further. This Law is essential. Without it, non-strikers could back up at liberty, several yards down the pitch and a Law is needed to prevent such action.

THE LAW:
Law 41.16 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early

If the non-striker is out of his/her ground from the moment the ball comes into play to the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the bowler is permitted to attempt to run him/her out. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one in 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 as possible.

The crux of the issue is when the non-striker can safely leave his/her ground, and what the bowler can do to effect this form of dismissal without courting controversy. To clarify, it has never been in the Laws that a warning should be given to the non-striker and nor is it against the Spirit of Cricket to run out a non-striker who is seeking to gain an advantage by leaving his/her ground early.

Furthermore, with batsmen now being deemed in or out by millimetres by TV replays on quick singles, it is right that they should remain in their ground at the non-striker’s end until it is fair for them to leave.

Yesterday’s incident could have been ruled out or not out, depending on how “the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball” is interpreted. Some feel that Ashwin delayed his action to allow Buttler the chance to leave his ground and that Buttler was in his ground when he expected the ball to be released. If it was a deliberate delay, that would be unfair and against the Spirit of Cricket. Ashwin claims this not to be the case.

The TV umpire had to make a decision and, under the Law (and indeed ICC’s interpretation of them, which clarifies the expected moment of release as when the arm reaches its highest point), it was understandable how he opted to give Buttler out.

It is up to both teams to ensure that the game is played within both the Laws and the Spirit of Cricket. Non-strikers must be careful not to gain an unfair advantage by leaving their ground early, while bowlers must act within the timeframe outlined in the Law to effect a Run out under Law 41.16.
Total cop out. :D
 
MCC in change of mind (a bit) shocker.

Ashwin's 'pause too long', not within spirit of cricket - MCC

I have virtually no interest in 20/20 or IPL. However, I was pleased to see KXIP getting thrashed today with Ashwin bowling four ineffectual expensive overs and captaining terribly by all accounts (handing free runs to Narine at the start for example). And I’ll be pleased every time Ashwin gets hammered and loses any cricket match from now on.
 
MCC in change of mind (a bit) shocker.

Ashwin's 'pause too long', not within spirit of cricket - MCC

I have virtually no interest in 20/20 or IPL. However, I was pleased to see KXIP getting thrashed today with Ashwin bowling four ineffectual expensive overs and captaining terribly by all accounts (handing free runs to Narine at the start for example). And I’ll be pleased every time Ashwin gets hammered and loses any cricket match from now on.

This simply confirms MCC shouldn't be in charge of the laws. If they couldn't see what had happened before making their initial statement, there's no helping them. If that's your job and you can't get that right, give up. Hopeless.

That said, if Ashwin had done it to Warner not Buttler, then fair do's.
 
Pathetic from the MCC. The still posted above clearly showed that Ashwin had paused intentionally. Fuck me there are so many fuckwits in positions of responsibility in the world. :D
 
The MCC's 2016/17 rule change actually made it easier to 'legitimately' Mankad so their initial statement then reversal a day later on the Buttler incident is extra annoying.

Ironically, it may have been a previous Mankad incident where Buttler was also the victim in 2014 against Sri Lanka that helped prompt the 2016/17 change in favour of the bowler.

I wish the MCC would just stick to providing cannon fodder for last year's champions in the pre-season warm up game.
 
The MCC's 2016/17 rule change actually made it easier to 'legitimately' Mankad so their initial statement then reversal a day later on the Buttler incident is .
They also added in a fuzzy area. Entering delivery stride is reasonable clear but point when you expect the ball to be delivered isn't. It requires basically guesswork.
 
They also added in a fuzzy area. Entering delivery stride is reasonable clear but point when you expect the ball to be delivered isn't. It requires basically guesswork.
'The point where you'd expect it to be delivered' basically means 'any time it's in the bowler's hand'. That's what they should have said.
 
I think bowlers should be allowed to step a bit over the line when they deliver the ball. Maybe get vaguely warned by the batter if they do it loads.
 
Crazy option. How about batters stay in their crease until the ball is delivered?

Yeah. Coz 20/20, where, whether you like it or not, entertainment is equated with runs scored, was basically invented for Mankad-ing wasn’t it?
 
Back
Top Bottom