• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just had a chat to Luke Dempsey aka the Big Ticket who made 105 off 43 today in first grade, including 13 sixes and 31 off one over.

Asked him what prompted that sort of onslaught, to be told “Burgey, it was a ****ing fire sale today. Everything had to go.”

Heck of a knock.
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
The bans weren't related to the Mankads.

"Fox Cricket understands the brothers pleaded guilty to Level 4 misconduct charges, which were completely unrelated to the ‘Mankad’ controversies that finished the match."
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
They're obviously a pair of ****s.

Someone needs to sort the rule book out, to eliminate the moral code and 'just not cricket' element. I'm not a fan of Mankads either but nor am I a fan of batsmen taking the piss with their backing up.
 
karan_fromthestands

karan_fromthestands

State Captain
SteveNZ said:
They're obviously a pair of ****s.

Someone needs to sort the rule book out, to eliminate the moral code and 'just not cricket' element. I'm not a fan of Mankads either but nor am I a fan of batsmen taking the piss with their backing up.
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing wrong with Mankad, just because a few ppl start whining about it doesn't mean it's bad. Why should the batsman cross the bloody line before the ball is delivered?
 
S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
karan_fromthestands said:
Absolutely nothing wrong with Mankad, just because a few ppl start whining about it doesn't mean it's bad. Why should the batsman cross the bloody line before the ball is delivered?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not necessarily saying it's bad. I just don't like the ambiguity. Because at the moment it operates on partial law, partial moral code. You're right, and I said that - I am in no favour of batsmen taking off before the ball is bowled. But nor am I for a ****wit bowler who has made no attempt to bowl the ball. Obviously there's no context to the video I saw, but I'm willing to believe that team got desperate for wickets and went the Mankad approach.

I would like the ICC to take it out of everyone's hands and give us a hard and fast rule, that is left with no room for a spirit of cricket edict. I don't know what that rule is, because I have a non-cricket job. It's a hard one, you want a rule that is clear and leaves us in a position where we aren't wasting time on checking where the batsman is at the point of release.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
SteveNZ said:
No, I'm not necessarily saying it's bad. I just don't like the ambiguity. Because at the moment it operates on partial law, partial moral code. You're right, and I said that - I am in no favour of batsmen taking off before the ball is bowled. But nor am I for a ****wit bowler who has made no attempt to bowl the ball. Obviously there's no context to the video I saw, but I'm willing to believe that team got desperate for wickets and went the Mankad approach.

I would like the ICC to take it out of everyone's hands and give us a hard and fast rule, that is left with no room for a spirit of cricket edict. I don't know what that rule is, because I have a non-cricket job. It's a hard one, you want a rule that is clear and leaves us in a position where we aren't wasting time on checking where the batsman is at the point of release.
Click to expand...
I think the Mankad Law itself is very clear.

41.16 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early

41.16.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.

41.16.2 If the ball is not delivered and there is an appeal,

  • the umpire shall make his/her decision on the Run out. If it is not out, he/she shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible.
  • the ball shall not count as one in the over.
41.16.3 If the ball is delivered and there is an appeal,

  • the umpire shall make his/her decision on the Run out.
  • if the non-striker is not dismissed, the ball remains in play and Law 21.6 (Bowler breaking wicket in delivering ball) shall apply.
  • if the non-striker is dismissed, the ball shall not count as one in the over.
Click to expand...
But maybe they could move it to Law 38 (Run Out) instead of under Law 41 (Unfair play).

The ICC have a clear stance on it too, the ambiguity just lies in the heads of some fans and players who aren't up to the times yet.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The biggest problem with the mankad is that umpires are cowards. For every other form of dismissal it goes : player appeals-> Umpire makes decision. For a mankad it's player appeals -> Umpire doesn't even check if it should be out or not as per the law ->Umpire asks fielding captain to make the decision. Absolute horse****.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Umpires still check if the batter is actually out of their crease. The practice of checking with the fielding team captain if his team actually 'means' the appeal should go tho. You don't check with the captain if they wish to follow through with a caught behind or LBW appeal. You just give it out if it's out. If the captain doesn't want his players appealing for non-striker runouts then he could have briefed them before the game, and he can always withdraw the appeal after you've made your decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top