MCC New Code of Laws

[StephenZA]

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 are backing up to far. Can't you get it through your thick head that Broad knew the dismissal

And that's the issue 'the stigma', not the law. not it moving into the run out section of the rules... that fact that people still want to put a stigma on it when it should never have had that stigma in the first place. Ultimately batsmen should stay in their crease and that is their responsibility.

I understand why the stigma existed, because it was made to feel 'wrong' and its really just about batsmen feeling hard done by because they lost concentration and did not get out in a 'proper' cricketing manner, but objectively its just not wrong.

 

[Xix2565]

Broad regarding it as unfair is kind of an issue. I don't see why one form of dismissal should get that stigma vs literally everything else.

 

[Line and Length]

And that's the issue 'the stigma', not the law. not it moving into the run out section of the rules... that fact that people still want to put a stigma on it when it should never have had that stigma in the first place. Ultimately batsmen should stay in their crease and that is their responsibility.

I understand why the stigma existed, because it was made to feel 'wrong' and its really just about batsmen feeling hard done by because they lost concentration and did not get out in a 'proper' cricketing manner, but objectively its just not wrong.

Firstly you are using my inadvertently posted incomplete draft as a quote (my fault, not yours). I subsequently edited and completed my post and added an explanation.
Secondly, the stigma was attached to"Mankad" dismissals whereby a bowler feigned delivery and took off the bails as the batsman moved a short distance out of the crease (in anticipation of a delivery).
Finally, I agree that there is nothing 'wrong' about a "Mankad" - it's just that I was brought up and played in a different era.

 

[cnerd123]

Stop being so sanctimonious. Broad fully understands what has happened.

Broad gets paid millions of pounds to be a professional in the sport and has a platform like no others. I don't think it's expecting too much to ask him to understand the laws of the game before he mouths off on them. He's an idiot, and I doubt he understands what has happened.

I don't mind if people like the mankad or not, that's besides the discussion. Everyone's free to have their opinion on all the laws. I also don't mind if regular fans were confused. The Laws are confusing and most people don't spend much time, if any, reading them. But you can't be a highly-paid and long term professional in the space like Broad and then go around spreading misinformation. I think it's fair game to call him specifically an idiot for not knowing this.

 

[Line and Length]

Broad regarding it as unfair is kind of an issue. I don't see why one form of dismissal should get that stigma vs literally everything else.

It's not an issue. It's a perception.

 

[Xix2565]

It's not an issue. It's a perception.

Considering Mankading unfair is a perception and not an issue? What?

 

[Line and Length]

Broad gets paid millions of pounds to be a professional in the sport and has a platform like no others. I don't think it's expecting too much to ask him to understand the laws of the game before he mouths off on them. He's an idiot, and I doubt he understands what has happened.

I don't mind if people like the mankad or not, that's besides the discussion. Everyone's free to have their opinion on all the laws. I also don't mind if regular fans were confused. The Laws are confusing and most people don't spend much time, if any, reading them. But you can't be a highly-paid and long term professional in the space like Broad and then go around spreading misinformation. I think it's fair game to call him specifically an idiot for not knowing this.

You are being far too judgemental. Broad isn't spreading misinformation. He is expressing his opinion. I believe he fully understands the particular Law and is simply pointing out that moving it from one section to another of the Laws of Cricket doesn't change the Law nor his perception of the Law and his attitude towards it. What's hard to understand about that? Isn't he allowed to express his views?

 

[cnerd123]

You are being fat too judgemental. Broad isn't spreading misinformation. He is expressing his opinion. I believe he fully understands the particular Law and is simply pointing out that moving it from one section to another of the Laws of Cricket doesn't change the Law nor his perception of the Law and his attitude towards it. What's hard to understand about that? Isn't he allowed to express his views?

His views are fine but it's very clear reading his tweet that he had no idea why the Mankad law was under Law 41 to begin with. If you want to interpret his words differently then fine, that's up to you, but I think it's unambiguous. He thought it was under unfair play because it had something to do with the fairness of the dismissal and that moving it to Law 38 'legitimises' it. This isn't the case at all and extremely far from the truth.

 

[StephenZA]

Firstly you are using my inadvertently posted incomplete draft as a quote (my fault, not yours). I subsequently edited and completed my post and added an explanation.
Secondly, the stigma was attached to"Mankad" dismissals whereby a bowler feigned delivery and took off the bails as the batsman moved a short distance out of the crease (in anticipation of a delivery).
Finally, I agree that there is nothing 'wrong' about a "Mankad" - it's just that I was brought up and played in a different era.

And that's the point... people are not arguing about whether its fair or not, they accept it is written in the rules, has always been there, and is actually the batters responsibility to stay in his crease... the argument is that this stigma existed and still exists, the stigma that should probably never have existed in the first place.

 

[Line and Length]

Considering Mankading unfair is a perception and not an issue? What?

Read it in context. You said "Broad regarding it as unfair is kind of an issue." This is Broad's perception of Mankading. You, and others, are making an issue of his opinion.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I tend to agree that Broad’s tweet indicates that he feels the law makers have had a change of stance on the Mankadding act itself. Only he really knows what he meant of course.

 

[Line and Length]

His views are fine but it's very clear reading his tweet that he had no idea why the Mankad law was under Law 41 to begin with. If you want to interpret his words differently then fine, that's up to you, but I think it's unambiguous. He thought it was under unfair play because it had something to do with the fairness of the dismissal and that moving it to Law 38 'legitimises' it. This isn't the case at all and extremely far from the truth.

Your interpretation of Broad's tweet differs from mine.
He clearly indicated he knew the dismissal was 'legitimate' before it was moved. He was simply saying moving it doesn't change his view.
If you can't accept his opinion, or his right to express his views about a Law (no matter which section it is listed under) then that is your right. However, it doesn't give you the right denigrate him as you have done.

 

[harsh.ag]

@Line and Length
cnerd's interpretation of Broad's tweet is much more reasonable than yours.

Doesn't mean Broad is an idiot etc but yeah

 

[cnerd123]

Hey if Broad doesn't want to be called an idiot he should stop tweeting bad takes on cricket. Comes with the territory etc.

 

[Line and Length]

There's a few CW members here who would fail any basic comprehension test I used to set as a teacher.

 

[Spikey]

In regards to the crossing change, I would have thought the obvious way to do things is what they've done. Simplify it for all levels of the game, and then the ICC can bring in a playing condition allowing for the old law to be used at international level

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1501519403279597570

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?

If Stuart Broad's worst ever ball he bowls ends up taking a wicket, does he hand it back because it was a horribly performed skill?

 

[Line and Length]

Stuart Broad

@StuartBroad8
So the Mankad is no longer unfair & is now a legitimate dismissal.

Tongue-in-cheek English humour taken literally by some. He is simply pointing out that moving it is going to change some people's perception.

Hasn’t it always been a legitimate dismissal & whether it is unfair is subjective?

Clear indication that he was aware of the Law and questioning the need to move it. Clear indication that he knew and understood the Law before it was moved.

I think it is unfair & wouldn’t consider it, as IMO, dismissing a batter is about skill & the Mankad requires zero skill.

Personal opinion and view on a "Mankad" as a dismissal. He's not questioning the Law. He's commenting on the mode of dismissing.

His post needs to be considered in its entirety. Quoting sections to make a point is taking things out of context.

 

[Xix2565]

Read it in context. You said "Broad regarding it as unfair is kind of an issue." This is Broad's perception of Mankading. You, and others, are making an issue of his opinion.

Right but you're not really addressing the point at all. Broad is not right in his view of Mankading, is that too difficult to understand?

And sorry but humour doesn't translate well in text, especially tongue in cheek British humour that more often than not is neither tongue in cheek nor humorous. I don't think it's too much to call it out as dumb.

 

[Victor Ian]

There was nothing wrong with Broad's tweet - excusing the fact he used twitter. Anyone trying to belittle him for it has poor comprehension skills and has lost the ability to extend some leeway in expression. People insisting on all written things being perfectly presented live in deludaland.

 

[Line and Length]

Right but you're not really addressing the point at all. Broad is not right in his view of Mankading, is that too difficult to understand?

And sorry but humour doesn't translate well in text, especially tongue in cheek British humour that more often than not is neither tongue in cheek nor humorous. I don't think it's too much to call it out as dumb.

To say Broad is not right in his views of Mankading is judgmental. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Even you.

I'm sorry you don't appreciate/understand English tongue in cheek humour. It's your loss. Dumb? Not me (or Broad) . Where does that leave you?