*Official* IPL 2019

[Bijed]

https://twitter.com/Tanushreddy2424/status/1110392125508718593

Butler is a repeat offender (or victim depending on perspective).

Fwiw, I thought Buttler had no one to blame but himself in the SL incident, but I didn't like what happened yesterday at. Not so much because he was given out, even though I don't think the laws were correctly applied (I can deal with umpiring errors going against players I like, though my feelings are obviously not the important consideration) but just because it felt wrong and I wouldn't want to see it happening with any sort of regularity. Equally, I don't think people are wrong if they would be happy to see things like this happening more often, people can enjoy the same sport in different ways.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

And watching until the ball is, y'know, released—or close to it—will prevent any tricks

Bingo.

Ball was nowhere near release; he had not even begun to swing his arm around.

"Close to it" would be when the arm is in the position on the superimposed ("blue Ashwin") image in this post—from where one could reasonably expect a bowler cannot stop going to the point of relase, not when it is down by his side.

"Close to it" is really a sop to those who believe a batsman cannot be expected to watch the ball all the way because he has got to concentrate on whether to say, "no," or, "no run," for a negative call. It is a possible crutch for someone who just cannot bring themselves to do it properly, and does not violate the idea that it is the release of the ball itself that matters. One could use 'close enough' if one does not want to watch all that way, it does not change the fact that the instant referred to by the laws is the release of the ball from the hand.

 

[mr_mister]

Ball was nowhere near release; he had not even begun to swing his arm around.

"Close to it" would be when the arm is in the position on the superimposed ("blue Ashwin") image in this post—from where one could reasonably expect a bowler cannot stop going to the point of relase, not when it is down by his side.

"Close to it" is really a sop to those who believe a batsman cannot be expected to watch the ball all the way because he has got to concentrate on whether to say, "no," or, "no run," for a negative call. It is a possible crutch for someone who just cannot bring themselves to do it properly, and does not violate the idea that it is the release of the ball itself that matters. One could use 'close enough' if one does not want to watch all that way, it does not change the fact that the instant referred to by the laws is the release of the ball from the hand.

I disagree with your view of what 'close to it' is.

 

[harsh.ag]

But yeah, regardless of this, Mr Prez's still showed that Buttler was inside the crease just after the action was abandoned by Ashwin. Could be legally declared a dead ball right there and then.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Another point:

The law uses the term:

release​

in the phrase, "the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball."

My interpretation is that it refers to the action of the bowler letting go of the ball, so the instant of the hand coming into that position is what is meant.


If instead the law had used the term

deliver​

or some other word, I believe that the case of Ashwin not going through with his bowling action meaning the law was incorrectly interpreted by the umpire and it should have been not out, or what I might call the 'Feet' argument, would be much stronger, because that would be a much wider scope to interpret the word.



Those arguing against the Mankading seem to be intrepreting 'instant of release' as,

"instant of proceeding towards letting go of the ball,"​

whereas my interpretation is,

"instant of letting go of the ball,"​

a much narrower timeframe.

 

[harsh.ag]

Not really, as this is an expectation independent of one's position as a non-striker, striker, umpire, fielder, spectator, match referee, ball-boy, groundsman, commentator, Trent Copeland, scoreboard operator, server at the pizza stand, janitor, etc.

More clearly, it does not say, "from the point where the batsman assumes that the bowler, who having not actually started the swing of his arm, will begin to do so and therefore bring the ball to the point where it can be expected to be released."

Btw, if the standard is so objective and not based on the non-striker's expectations, then what is your view on why the law simply doesn't state something more specific like "up until the moment the bowling action is complete in its fullness"?

 

[NotMcKenzie]

I disagree with your view of what 'close to it' is.

Then batsmen'll have to put up with watching the ball out of the hand if they believe that coming over the top of the shoulder is not a helpful 'time-adder' [to fit other things] from where they can be resonably certain—in a physical sense, not in terms of the law—that the bowler will definitely proceed to or through the point of release.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Btw, if the standard is so objective and not based on the non-striker's expectations, then what is your view on why the law simply doesn't state something more specific like "up until the moment the bowling action is complete in its fullness"?

"Bowling action" could include follow through and is a less specific thing to delineate (and something occuring over a much long period of time) compared to release.

Edit:

To be fair, I have not looked up the Laws' definition of 'bowling action' or 'action', but I think the endpoint of a bowling action is more open to dispute (does it really stop when the ball is released?), whereas 'ball in play' is defined and 'release', if not defined, is pretty self-explanatory.

 

[weldone]

Not really, as this is an expectation independent of one's position as a non-striker, striker, umpire, fielder, spectator, match referee, ball-boy, groundsman, commentator, Trent Copeland, scoreboard operator, server at the pizza stand, janitor, etc.

 

[mr_mister]

It's funny to me that 90% of famous player tweets/takes I've seen (from both bowlers and batsmen) are condemning this. I hate to be the guy who claims the fans opinion is inferior to the professionals, but when it's nearly unanimous...

 

[weldone]

But yeah, regardless of this, Mr Prez's still showed that Buttler was inside the crease just after the action was abandoned by Ashwin. Could be legally declared a dead ball right there and then.

Show me a demo how to perform a Mankad dismissal without abandoning the action. By this logic, all Mankad dismissals happen after the ball 'could be declared a dead ball'.

 

[mr_mister]

Show me a demo how to perform a Mankad dismissal without abandoning the action. By this logic, all Mankad dismissals happen after the ball 'could be declared a dead ball'.

When the batsman is out of his crease before youve reached the crease to bowl.

 

[harsh.ag]

Show me a demo how to perform a Mankad dismissal without abandoning the action. By this logic, all Mankad dismissals happen after the ball 'could be declared a dead ball'.

You and I are done, asshole. Don't reply to me.

 

[weldone]

When the batsman is out of his crease before youve reached the crease to bowl.

Then also you have to abandon your action. If you take the bails off in full flow of your action, you may lose a finger lol.

 

[weldone]

You and I are done, asshole. Don't reply to me.

^lol, what a meltdown

Joker

 

[NotMcKenzie]

It's funny to me that 90% of famous player tweets/takes I've seen (from both bowlers and batsmen) are condemning this. I hate to be the guy who claims the fans opinion is inferior to the professionals, but when it's nearly unanimous...

It's the Mankading thing, something that has usually been received with widespread hostility however the laws or playing conditions defined it.


Also, I suspect ignorance may play a part. Do you really expect Shane Warne to know anything about what has been happening with the laws, f'r'instance?

 

[mr_mister]

Then also you have to abandon your action. If you take the bails off in full flow of your action, you may lose a finger lol.

There's a run up, delivery stride and bowling action. The mankading attempt imo should occur before the delivery stride(the final step) to allow the batsman to do a tiny bit of backing up. Normally the stride and arm movements(bowling action) occur at the same time or in one motion at least.

If it's extended to the ball release, the amount of backing up you can do is like, half a step. I'm personally not against backing up but for those who are I guess this is already too much.

 

[weldone]

The mankading attempt imo should occur before the delivery stride(the final step) to allow the batsman to do a tiny bit of backing up. Normally the stride and arm movements(bowling action) occur at the same time.

If it's extended to the ball release, the amount of backing up you can do is like, half a step. I'm personally not against backing up but for those who are I guess this is already too much.

This is exactly what was changed in the new version of the law.

 

[mr_mister]

It's the Mankading thing, something that has usually been received with widespread hostility however the laws or playing conditions defined it.


Also, I suspect ignorance may play a part. Do you really expect Shane Warne to know anything about what has been happening with the laws, f'r'instance?

Warne not so much but plenty of more composed and wise people have spoken against it as well.

 

[Borges]

Let us have more Mankading. Mankading is good; more Mankading is better; widespread Mankading is ideal.
Clobber all the cheats who consciously break the law and try to gain an unfair advantage, in the hope (based on experience) that they would be able to get away with it.