Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[honestbharani]

That Mankad one is a bit weird. Does the non striker have to watch the hand now or just trust that the bowler won't complete his action without releasing the ball?

I don't like that Mankad rule change. Leaves it much more open to abuse now and bowlers can essentially fake out the non striker by pretending to bowl the ball. Dumb.

Nah, **** the batsmen. You just have to wait till the ball is bowled before you leave the crease, whether you are the striker or the non striker. If you wanna telegraph getting away from where you are supposed to stand, you leave yourself open to be dismissed if the bowler is smart enough. Totally and utterly fair and the way it should have been all these years too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah, **** the batsmen. You just have to wait till the ball is bowled before you leave the crease, whether you are the striker or the non striker. If you wanna telegraph getting away from where you are supposed to stand, you leave yourself open to be dismissed if the bowler is smart enough. Totally and utterly fair and the way it should have been all these years too.

Way to miss the point. Under the new rule, the bowler can deceive the batsman by pretending to bowl and then stop and run the batsman out. The non striker times the start of his run with the expected time of the bowler releasing the ball. With this change, it opens the way for ****** situations where the bowler fakes out the non striker, who has done nothing wrong.

I think it's completely unnecessary, the old law worked just fine and penalised the non striker fairly for leaving the crease early.

 

[honestbharani]

Way to miss the point. Under the new rule, the bowler can deceive the batsman by pretending to bowl and then stop and run the batsman out. The non striker times the start of his run with the expected time of the bowler releasing the ball. With this change, it opens the way for ****** situations where the bowler fakes out the non striker, who has done nothing wrong.

I think it's completely unnecessary, the old law worked just fine and penalised the non striker fairly for leaving the crease early.

Lol. You are the one missing the point. Read what I posted again. You do not leave the crease till the ball is actually bowled, that is, ball should be released out of the bowlers' hand. As a non striker, you time to get out of the crease "after" the ball is released, not "at the point of release". It is still pre-meditation if you do that as a batsman and I do not see why the non-striker should be allowed to do that either. A ball is bowled when the ball is released by the bowler and you are allowed to start moving outside of the crease then without worrying that the bowler can see you and adjust and get you out.


EDIT: If the non striker wants to leave the crease at the bowlers' action, he is still doing something wrong as he is supposed to leave the crease only after the ball has been bowled. Its not rocket science OS. We have forever played with this rule in our backyard, school and club games both in Chennai and when I was in the US. It actually is a lot simpler and easier to understand, implement and police. Batsmen get way too much way too easy in this game anyways.

 

[Daemon]

Nah, **** the batsmen. You just have to wait till the ball is bowled before you leave the crease, whether you are the striker or the non striker. If you wanna telegraph getting away from where you are supposed to stand, you leave yourself open to be dismissed if the bowler is smart enough. Totally and utterly fair and the way it should have been all these years too.

I agree with the principle that you should stay put before release. With this rule you really have to watch and make sure the ball leaves the hand before you leave the crease. Momentum may still take you out of it. Bowlers can complete their action and flick the ball back onto the stumps to catch you short. Open to abuse as ***** says, where the bowler attempts to trick the batsmen into leaving the crease.

I think that isn't too bad but it would take a lot of getting used to and also leave a sour taste in the mouth if bowlers start to resort to tricking the batsmen.

 

[honestbharani]

As a batsman in any form of cricket, if you are not actually "watching" the ball, you deserve to lose your wicket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Lol. You are the one missing the point. Read what I posted again. You do not leave the crease till the ball is actually bowled, that is, ball should be released out of the bowlers' hand. As a non striker, you time to get out of the crease "after" the ball is released, not "at the point of release". It is still pre-meditation if you do that as a batsman and I do not see why the non-striker should be allowed to do that either. A ball is bowled when the ball is released by the bowler and you are allowed to start moving outside of the crease then without worrying that the bowler can see you and adjust and get you out.

What? Why should the non striker not be allowed to pre-meditate as long as he's not leaving the crease early?

With this change, non strikers potentially have to stand with their bat inside the crease waiting for the bowler to release it and only then can they even begin moving (not even moving out of the crease, just moving to get that initial momentum). Without those first couple of steps it makes even legal quick singles so much more difficult.

The problem was never with the old law itself. It was with enforcing it. Umpires were too ****ing cowardly to say to a batsman "piss off you're out", instead doing the ask-the-captain-for-permission nonsense. There was no need to change the law itself.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Whatever, I don;t care much. I just hope now that it's enforced like a proper rule instead of this "spirit of cricket" bs of warning the non striker twice, then running him out, asking the umpire if it's out, which then leads to the umpire throwing up his hands saying "not my job" and shifting the whole burden onto the captain's lap. It's a farce.

 

[honestbharani]

What? Why should the non striker not be allowed to pre-meditate as long as he's not leaving the crease early?

With this change, non strikers potentially have to stand with their bat inside the crease waiting for the bowler to release it and only then can they even begin moving (not even moving out of the crease, just moving to get that initial momentum). Without those first couple of steps it makes even legal quick singles so much more difficult.

The problem was never with the old law itself. It was with enforcing it. Umpires were too ****ing cowardly to say to a batsman "piss off you're out", instead doing the ask-the-captain-for-permission nonsense. There was no need to change the law itself.

Dude, the law is ****ing clear. You do not leave the crease till the ball is bowled. If you want to get momentum , start a couple of steps back and walk in with the bowler but ensure you are leaving the crease AFTER the ball has been bowled. As I said, its not rocket science and it is totally fair. I have always found it easier to time my leaving of the crease as the ball is bowled. You are talking as though it is impossible for a non striker to do and it is something unfair. It is neither. Nothing about this law stops the batsmen from moving within the crease to gain momentum. I have played with these rules for a long time and almost everyone I have played with have felt this is the fairest, easiest to implement and simplest law about the whole Mankading issue.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Dude, the law is ****ing clear. You do not leave the crease till the ball is bowled. If you want to get momentum , start a couple of steps back and walk in with the bowler but ensure you are leaving the crease AFTER the ball has been bowled.

How can you even do this under the new rule if the bowler is allowed to stop his delivery mid stride. You can't actually time anything as the non striker.

 

[honestbharani]

You mean a bowler can stop midway through what is a rotating body action and you cant ****ing stop walking in?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah you can. It can also lead to ridiculous situations where the bowler and non striker play a game of tag in close ODIs.

 

[Burgey]

Lol. You are the one missing the point. Read what I posted again. You do not leave the crease till the ball is actually bowled, that is, ball should be released out of the bowlers' hand. As a non striker, you time to get out of the crease "after" the ball is released, not "at the point of release". It is still pre-meditation if you do that as a batsman and I do not see why the non-striker should be allowed to do that either. A ball is bowled when the ball is released by the bowler and you are allowed to start moving outside of the crease then without worrying that the bowler can see you and adjust and get you out.


EDIT: If the non striker wants to leave the crease at the bowlers' action, he is still doing something wrong as he is supposed to leave the crease only after the ball has been bowled. Its not rocket science OS. We have forever played with this rule in our backyard, school and club games both in Chennai and when I was in the US. It actually is a lot simpler and easier to understand, implement and police. Batsmen get way too much way too easy in this game anyways.

There's your problem

How do you feel about the idea of a bowler deliberately deceiving a batsman and using this rule to run them out? Don't much like the idea tbh. Shades of the WI youth side running that bloke out in a tourney last year (?). Thought that was really piss poor. Bloke wasn't taking an advantage in that instance - the bowler deliberately deceived him into leaving the crease iirc. Think it stinks.

 

[honestbharani]

I honestly do not think it will work like that. AS a bowler, the last thing you want is to lose your momentum and action during a close game. Anyways, I still think this is much clearer and totally black and white compared to the old law, so I am glad.

 

[Burgey]

I honestly do not think it will work like that. AS a bowler, the last thing you want is to lose your momentum and action during a close game. Anyways, I still think this is much clearer and totally black and white compared to the old law, so I am glad.

I dunno, you can end​ a close game by doing just that and running a bloke out.

 

[honestbharani]

There's your problem

Nah, its a blessing and you know it.


Reg. your point, as I keep saying, the old law is the one that had grey areas, here it is very clear what a non-striker is expected to do. You just have to stay inside the crease (with your bat, legs or both) till the ball is actually bowled and then start running. IT clarifies things for everyone involved. As long as you stay inside the crease like you are supposed to, no number of fake outs from the bowler is going to help him and I am sure the umpires can warn and then send them off through the other new laws if the bowler is deliberately doing it over and over as a tactic to run someone out. You should know, Burgey, as you coach the kids team. This will make it so much easier to explain to them and they will find it so much easier to understand.

 

[honestbharani]

I dunno, you can end​ a close game by doing just that and running a bloke out.

 

[Burgey]

I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it plays out in reality before we really know how it works. Hopefully we don't have to find out.

 

[cnerd123]

I love how everyone just ignored that Burgey post on the previous page.

Why cant we keep doing that?


And TBH I don't mind the new rule. It's open to abuse initially, but eventually batsmen will adjust and only start backing out of their crease once the ball has actually been bowled. I like this change because it clears up all the vagueness the earlier rules had, with regards to 'delivery stride' and stuff. Now it's black and white. You can be run out any moment the ball comes into play, which begins when the bowler starts his run up. I like the simplicity.

 

[Shri]

That Mankad one is a bit weird. Does the non striker have to watch the hand now or just trust that the bowler won't complete his action without releasing the ball?

I don't like that Mankad rule change. Leaves it much more open to abuse now and bowlers can essentially fake out the non striker by pretending to bowl the ball. Dumb.

Nope. Wait until the ball is bowled before you start your run.

 

[Spikey]

I wonder if we'll ever get to a point where the rule just becomes the non-striker must remain stationary until the ball is released. I'm not saying I'd support it, but if you keep on messing with the mankad rule it'll probably get to that point