MCC New Code of Laws

[Burgey]

It's also woeful they didn't write a law that the ball itself has to touch/ cross the boundary. Would save a **** load of time and uncertainty. You dive full stretch and pull off a great piece of fielding only to give up four because your big toe glanced against the rope while you parried the ball away. Stupid law.

 

[Burgey]

I doubt he knew it was in the laws till he read the Sky Sports tweet tbh

Nah I'm pretty sure he did.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Pretty sure Broad gets paid because he's reasonably good at bowling.

 

[Starfighter]

You're going to have to be specific, I have many of them.

If it's about having the non-striker facing the next delivery after a caught, well yea it's really only a law that makes sense in T20s when guys are skying it to the boundary fielder.

No, it doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Starfighter]

It's also woeful they didn't write a law that the ball itself has to touch/ cross the boundary. Would save a **** load of time and uncertainty. You dive full stretch and pull off a great piece of fielding only to give up four because your big toe glanced against the rope while you parried the ball away. Stupid law.

Strongly agree. The change to the timed out law is clearly intended to reduce delays, and not having the batsmen cross for a catch will reduce them as well. But they leave that waste of time in there.

Th only contention I can see arising from changing it is when the fielder slides and pushes the rope out of the way. To that, I say just mark a line under the rope. The main purpose of the rope is make the boundaries more visible from the centre anyway.

I have a small quibble with the timed out law - the batsmen should have to be ready to face with in three minutes so long as the bowler is ready to bowl. It would incentivise the fielding side to set the field quickly rather than agonising over it.

 

[SteveNZ]

It's also woeful they didn't write a law that the ball itself has to touch/ cross the boundary. Would save a **** load of time and uncertainty. You dive full stretch and pull off a great piece of fielding only to give up four because your big toe glanced against the rope while you parried the ball away. Stupid law.

I think the issue is around the boundary moving/being moved. You'd have to paint it on, I presume

 

[Shady Slim]

It's also woeful they didn't write a law that the ball itself has to touch/ cross the boundary. Would save a **** load of time and uncertainty. You dive full stretch and pull off a great piece of fielding only to give up four because your big toe glanced against the rope while you parried the ball away. Stupid law.

if i didn't want to concede four runs i would simply get to the ball fast enough that i don't have to risk toe dragging the boundary tbqh

 

[Line and Length]

There's a difference between an alleged "ignorance of the laws" and playing within the spirit of the game. True, a batsman leaving early might be taking an unfair advantage but, in most cases, they are anticipating the bowler's delivery. I believe a single warning is the best option and, if the unfair advantage continues to be taken, then a Mankad is warranted. As a bowler and a Test player, Broad would be aware of the laws of the game and part of his Tweet is "Hasn’t it always been a legitimate dismissal & whether it is unfair is subjective?" How can this comment make him an "idiot" or be taken as "ignorance"?
I have played almost 300 games and umpired over 150 and share Broad's views on a "Mankad". It's a legitimate dismissal but, IMO, unfair to execute without a prior warning.
I find it ridiculous that you cast such judgement on a man based on a Tweet which, when read carefully, indicates he was aware that it has always been a legitimate dismissal.

 

[Chewie]

the purpose of the internet is casting judgement on people

 

[honestbharani]

TIL cheating is ok as long as you anticipate not being caught doing it and it deserves a warning once before you actually face consequences for it.

 

[StephenZA]

There's a difference between an alleged "ignorance of the laws" and playing within the spirit of the game. True, a batsman leaving early might be taking an unfair advantage but, in most cases, they are anticipating the bowler's delivery. I believe a single warning is the best option and, if the unfair advantage continues to be taken, then a Mankad is warranted. As a bowler and a Test player, Broad would be aware of the laws of the game and part of his Tweet is "Hasn’t it always been a legitimate dismissal & whether it is unfair is subjective?" How can this comment make him an "idiot" or be taken as "ignorance"?
I have played almost 300 games and umpired over 150 and share Broad's views on a "Mankad". It's a legitimate dismissal but, IMO, unfair to execute without a prior warning.
I find it ridiculous that you cast such judgement on a man based on a Tweet which, when read carefully, indicates he was aware that it has always been a legitimate dismissal.

What you saying is that, even though backing up to far is illegal and considered 'unfair', was the batsmen's responsibility and everybody knew this; the bowler must be nice about it because... of history, or the old argument 'this is the way it was always done'?

And Broads tweet is that he does not understand the law because it implied that 'mankand' was legitimate but 'unfair' misunderstanding the law as written... hence the change.

 

[Line and Length]

@honestbharani Please read my posts more carefully if you wish to critique what I write. I said "batsman leaving early might be taking an unfair advantage but, in most cases, they are anticipating the bowler's delivery". If you wish to label "anticipating" as "cheating" then say so.
Perhaps I, along with Broad, are too much "old school".

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Cummins or someone just needs to Mankad like three guys in an innings or something then it will become normalised and we can finally move on.

 

[cnerd123]

I think the issue is around the boundary moving/being moved. You'd have to paint it on, I presume

That's part of it. People forget these Laws are meant to apply to all cricket, and not just professionals playing on TV in a Test-standard ground. A lot of cricket is played in venues where things like walls, fences, plastic cones or natural obstacles like trees/bushes/rocks serve as the boundary. In those cases it's quite possible for a player to use that boundary as leverage to catch the ball, or to discreetly knock the boundary out of the way while fielding. You even get cricket played in baseball venues by people who would have seen stuff like this on TV:

So the Law needs to be worded in a way that covers as many circumstances as possible, and so it's reasonable to write in that any contact between a player and the boundary while the ball in their hand = ball crossing the boundary. This also encourages safer cricket in a way, as there is no incentive for a player to crash into the boundary to save runs for their team.

 

[GIMH]

Pretty sure Broad gets paid because he's reasonably good at bowling.

Lol who wants 500 Test wickets when they could know the laws off by heart and umpire Hong Kong under 13s

 

[cnerd123]

There's a difference between an alleged "ignorance of the laws" and playing within the spirit of the game. True, a batsman leaving early might be taking an unfair advantage but, in most cases, they are anticipating the bowler's delivery. I believe a single warning is the best option and, if the unfair advantage continues to be taken, then a Mankad is warranted. As a bowler and a Test player, Broad would be aware of the laws of the game and part of his Tweet is "Hasn’t it always been a legitimate dismissal & whether it is unfair is subjective?" How can this comment make him an "idiot" or be taken as "ignorance"?

A) Not 'might be'. Actually is. The laws says so clearly.

B) Broad's tweet suggest that he thought the reason the Mankad runout was under Law 41 - Unfair Play was because of the fairness over the runout itself, which it was not. I presume that he thought there was a section called 'Running Out the Non Striker' that then said 'this used to be unfair but we've changed our mind'. The truth is that the reason it exists under Law 41 is because the batsman taking a start is what is unfair. The dismissal itself is a legitimate response to the batsman's unfair play.

The fact that people like Broad think this is why the law had to be moved. For Broad to not understand this is appalling given his experience and stature in the game. What his opinions on the dismissal are is irrelevant, it's perfectly fine to not like it, but for him to say "So the Mankad is no longer unfair & is now a legitimate dismissal" makes him sound like a bloody idiot. It was never unfair.

Pretty sure Broad gets paid because he's reasonably good at bowling.

he has a newspaper column doesn't he? Presume he gets paid for it, though I could see him doing it for free cuz he likes a platform to talk smack on

 

[Starfighter]

Stuart Broad is an idiot. It was the batter backing up before the ball was bowled that was considered unfair, hence the existence of the rule under Law 41 and not 38. The runout itself was a penalty to discourage that unfair action. It in of itself was never unfair.

How does someone play so much professional cricket and get paid for their opinion on it without even passing a cursory glance at the laws?

Considering that Broad doesn't seem to understand the conditions that have to be met for an LBW, I think the finer points of the laws are probably beyond him.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I doubt that many cricketers study or memorise laws in any great detail. I’d bet that a very large percentage of players and spectators didn’t even know the “Mankad” was in the unfair play category until it was moved, never mind that the “unfair” referred to the batsman seeking to gain an advantage rather than the dismissal itself. It’s a lot of discussion about something that in practical terms changes nothing.

 

[Line and Length]

B) Broad's tweet suggest that he thought the reason the Mankad runout was under Law 41 - Unfair Play was because of the fairness over the runout itself, which it was not. I presume that he thought there was a section called 'Running Out the Non Striker' that then said 'this used to be unfair but we've changed our mind'. The truth is that the reason it exists under Law 41 is because the batsman taking a start is what is unfair. The dismissal itself is a legitimate response to the batsman's unfair play.
The fact that people like Broad think this is why the law had to be moved. For Broad to not understand this is appalling given his experience and stature in the game. What his opinions on the dismissal are is irrelevant, it's perfectly fine to not like it, but for him to say "So the Mankad is no longer unfair & is now a legitimate dismissal" makes him sound like a bloody idiot. It was never unfair.

Stop being so sanctimonious. Broad fully understands what has happened. Their was a stigma attached to performing a "Mankad" while ignoring the fact that batsmen might be backing up too far. Can't you get it through your stubborn head that Broad knew the dismissal was legitimate but still regards it as an unfair (perhaps unsporting is a better word) means of dismissing someone. Moving the Law didn't change it.
You persist in describing batsmen taking an unfair advantage but in the majority of cases they are simply moving as they anticipate the bowler releasing the ball. To feign delivering a ball and catching a batsman a foot or so outside the crease is, IMO, outside the spirit of the game.
I have respected many of your previous views regarding aspects of cricket but your persistent denigration of Broad has lessened that respect.

 

[Line and Length]

above post edited as it was an incomplete draft inadvertently posted.