Is running out the non-striker when he's backing up "against the spirit of the game"?

[Senile Sentry]

i see a thread about "islamaphobic" abuse from the English crowd and the same crowd talks about spirit..wow

 

[Neil Pickup]

It's one of those things where your opinion is coloured by whether you like the team that did it or that was affected by it. Actually that's the deal with anything to do with gamesmanship in general.

No, it isn't. I hate Surrey and Somerset are one of my preferred teams, and I'm thoroughly on the side of Kartik here.

It's worth noting that the ICC revision to the "delivery stride" - i.e. allowing a run out to happen at any stage before the end of the delivery swing - applies in the LV Championship as well. A good summary from MCC here.

Fact remains that Barrow's just been thick.

 

[wpdavid]

No, it isn't. I hate Surrey and Somerset are one of my preferred teams, and I'm thoroughly on the side of Kartik here.

It's worth noting that the ICC revision to the "delivery stride" - i.e. allowing a run out to happen at any stage before the end of the delivery swing - applies in the LV Championship as well. A good summary from MCC here.

Fact remains that Barrow's just been thick.

tbh you are one of the more rational people out there though.

That being said, even the purveyors of the hilarious 'Slurrey' tag haven't bagged Kartik on this thread, so maybe you're right.

 

[Dan]

tbh you are one of the more rational people out there though.

That being said, even the purveyors of the hilarious 'Slurrey' tag haven't bagged Kartik on this thread, so maybe you're right.

I'm with Neil - Somerset fan, dislike Surrey, completely with Kartik in this case.

 

[ankitj]

No, it isn't. I hate Surrey and Somerset are one of my preferred teams, and I'm thoroughly on the side of Kartik here.

It's worth noting that the ICC revision to the "delivery stride" - i.e. allowing a run out to happen at any stage before the end of the delivery swing - applies in the LV Championship as well. A good summary from MCC here.

Fact remains that Barrow's just been thick.

Surrey and Somerset are two different sides?

Yeah, and it doesn't hold true for everyone obv. But often you see these things being debated to death and sides are taken based on which team did what. I find that pretty boring.

 

[zaremba]

wowzaa...so you do agree that because of one or 2 ****heads who blow themselves up you don't blame the whole community..

Yes I do agree, as does everyone with at least one brain cell.

With respect, you chose a fairly weird way to make a blindingly obvious point.

 

[Son Of Coco]

What about appealing when someone hits a ball hard, the bowler tries to field a shot, but it goes through his fingers and it hits the stumps and the non striker is run out? Is that OK?

Given it probably runs a bloke out you've been saying is cheating for backing up too far, I'd say you'd be all for it

 

[silentstriker]

Cheating? I don't think I used that word at all. Cheating would be breaking the rules of the game. The player is trying to gain an advantage, an advantage which is completely allowed. I see it as the same as batting outside your crease. You do it because it may give you an advantage - that's not cheating, that's you making a decision to do something by weighing the risks and the benefits. The fielding side then has the option of stumping you.

 

[zaremba]

Excellent point.

 

[Faisal1985]

If its legal ethical or not shouldn't even be an issue imo.

 

[nexxus]

Yeh, as is the case with many apparently controversial yet not very controversial at all when you think about it things, it's only an issue for a noisy 15% minority.

 

[ankitj]

If its legal ethical or not shouldn't even be an issue imo.

Pretty much.

Remember how we got Inzaman out for obstructing the field once?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yeh, as is the case with many apparently controversial yet not very controversial at all when you think about it things, it's only an issue for a noisy 15% minority.

Are we talking running out the non-striker or the non-use of UDRS?

 

[nexxus]

Are we talking running out the non-striker or the non-use of UDRS?

Think a case could be made for both, but I was referring to the Mankad.

 

[MrPrez]

I've "mankaded" player before. I use quotation marks because they didn't go out as a result. The non-striker was walking way too early, and my mid-off told me about it. So saw him leave his crease before I reached my delivery stride and it was easy enough to whip the bails off because I'm a spinner. The law of the league I was playing in was the first time you actually whipped the bails off constituted a warning. So he got the warning, and I had no qualms although my coach wasn't as impressed.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Cheating? I don't think I used that word at all. Cheating would be breaking the rules of the game. The player is trying to gain an advantage, an advantage which is completely allowed. I see it as the same as batting outside your crease. You do it because it may give you an advantage - that's not cheating, that's you making a decision to do something by weighing the risks and the benefits. The fielding side then has the option of stumping you.

I may have taken liberties with what you actually said

 

[Trichromatic]

 

[ankitj]

It's against the spirit to be taking unfair advantage of leniency of the bowling team and step out of the crease, if anything.