England's women in tears after losing the series to a Mankad.
When I was umpiring the decision would have been not out but the law
has changed since then (I think it must have). The bowler broke the
wicket after front foot contact and surely would have reasonably been
expected to deliver the ball.

I'd expect a bit of media debate around this dismissal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60456702

max.it

In message <fsiuihlbne33uqns70dq1rm35n0op9vkvq@4ax.com>, max. it
<max@tea.time> writes
>
>England's women in tears after losing the series to a Mankad.
>When I was umpiring the decision would have been not out but the law
>has changed since then (I think it must have).

I think Nasser Hussain said it had been.

> The bowler broke the
>wicket after front foot contact and surely would have reasonably been
>expected to deliver the ball.
>
>I'd expect a bit of media debate around this dismissal.
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60456702
>
>max.it

If it was done without first warning the batter, then it seems a bit
ruthless. In defence of the bowler, though, Dean wasn't just a foot or
two out of her ground when the wicket was broken but more like a couple
of yards.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

Hey MH, I am right again!

When the MCC changed the Mankad laws I complained, and was told to shut up.
I said the new rule was vague, and would lead to more deception, and more upset players, and more controversy.

They should change the law to (in effect) batsman can leave safely when front-foot lands. Black and white. No weasel words. Most umpires are watching for this anyway.
It's still later than the old safe point - delivery stride IIRC, so cuts down on the unfair advantage non-striker gets by leaving "early".

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 5:33:43 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> If it was done without first warning the batter, then it seems a bit
> ruthless.

The warning is dead. A relic. It's no longer expected of elite cricketers.

It's nice, sure, but so is walking.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 20:28:50 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <fsiuihlbne33uqns70dq1rm35n0op9vkvq@4ax.com>, max. it
><max@tea.time> writes
>>
>>England's women in tears after losing the series to a Mankad.
>>When I was umpiring the decision would have been not out but the law
>>has changed since then (I think it must have).
>
>I think Nasser Hussain said it had been.
>
>> The bowler broke the
>>wicket after front foot contact and surely would have reasonably been
>>expected to deliver the ball.
>>
>>I'd expect a bit of media debate around this dismissal.
>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60456702
>>
>>max.it
>
>If it was done without first warning the batter, then it seems a bit
>ruthless. In defence of the bowler, though, Dean wasn't just a foot or
>two out of her ground when the wicket was broken but more like a couple
>of yards.

Saggers was trained after me and I don't know if it was the law at the
time or if he had to 'rejig' his know how but he must feel just the
same as me and that is a more shitty decision to have to make now than
it was before.

I liked the back foot delivery stride law better. It punished the
early running and there was no risk of the bowler being accused of
deception.
We were taught to listen for the first foot contact (back foot), not
just for the Mankad but as just another way to figure out what's going
during a delivery. Your accomplice or colleague depending on how the
teams see it is the eyes in the back of your head when you are
standing at the bowlers end.

OT: You're a holiday person John. Have you ever been to Potter's
resort in Norfolk?
I haven't had a holiday since 1988 at the Hells Angels bash in Kent;
I got sunstroke and my bike blew up, but the time is coming (when my
oul Staffordshire terrier dies) that I will be able to go for a wee
away break and I've spotted Potters as a possible venue.

max.it

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 7:26:29 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> I liked the back foot delivery stride law better. It punished the
> early running

It let the runner safely/legally leave the crease too early. A change from that was/is needed.

>and there was no risk of the bowler being accused of deception.

Yes. We need a return to that.

"when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" is a dog's breakfast of a Law.

In message <q9suihdr40aj4l7kdbs38n76mtoon2j6s4@4ax.com>, max. it
<max@tea.time> writes
>OT: You're a holiday person John. Have you ever been to Potter's
>resort in Norfolk?

No, I confess I've never even heard of it.

>
> I haven't had a holiday since 1988

Wow! That's far too long.

> at the Hells Angels bash in Kent; I got sunstroke and my bike blew up,

I can understand how that might make you holiday-phobic!

> but the time is coming (when my oul Staffordshire terrier dies) that I
>will be able to go for a wee away break and I've spotted Potters as a
>possible venue.

A search has turned up their website, and I must say it looks fantastic.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Saturday, September 24, 2022 at 7:29:25 PM UTC+1, max.it wrote:
> England's women in tears after losing the series to a Mankad.
> When I was umpiring the decision would have been not out but the law
> has changed since then (I think it must have). The bowler broke the
> wicket after front foot contact and surely would have reasonably been
> expected to deliver the ball.
>
> I'd expect a bit of media debate around this dismissal.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60456702
>
> max.it

The main problem with the Mankad is not the question whether it is technically legitimate (it is) but moral. What is needed is for that form of dismissal to become commonplace. Batsmen should have it drilled into them that if you leave popping crease at the bowler's end before the ball is delivered you render yourself likely to be run out. RH

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 7:28:30 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> The main problem with the Mankad is not the question whether it is technically legitimate (it is) but moral. What is needed is for that form of dismissal to become commonplace. Batsmen should have it drilled into them that if you leave popping crease at the bowler's end before the ball is delivered you render yourself likely to be run out. RH

Yes, a player can absolutely "play it safe" and leave "well" after legally being allowed to eg once they see the ball in the air.

But the Law is unclear exactly when it's legal to leave the crease. That makes it a bit hard for players who want to leave as soon as they have the right to.

"max.it" wrote in message
news:q9suihdr40aj4l7kdbs38n76mtoon2j6s4@4ax.com...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 20:28:50 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <fsiuihlbne33uqns70dq1rm35n0op9vkvq@4ax.com>, max. it
><max@tea.time> writes
>>

>OT: You're a holiday person John. Have you ever been to Potter's
>resort in Norfolk?
>I haven't had a holiday since 1988 at the Hells Angels bash in Kent;
?I got sunstroke and my bike blew up, but the time is coming (when my
>oul Staffordshire terrier dies) that I will be able to go for a wee
>away break and I've spotted Potters as a possible venue.

It's about 25m away from me, although never been there. However went to the
old Holimarine Corton several times as a kid (now Broadland Sands) so know
the area fairly well.

Has a good reputation; hosts a lot of events like the World Bowls so check
what's on the week you want to go

The Bowlers are probably pretty quiet but if there's a soul weekend - they
don't finish until very late

Warners Corton a few miles away also has a good reputation - more adult
focussed.

I think you live in NI - if thinking of flying be aware it's a long way from
Stansted and public transport isn't great to get there. However the
Yarmouth to Lowestoft runs outside the camp, and there will be shops in the
camp and in the village (1/2 mile from memory?)

James

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 11:20:12 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 7:28:30 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The main problem with the Mankad is not the question whether it is technically legitimate (it is) but moral. What is needed is for that form of dismissal to become commonplace. Batsmen should have it drilled into them that if you leave popping crease at the bowler's end before the ball is delivered you render yourself likely to be run out. RH
> Yes, a player can absolutely "play it safe" and leave "well" after legally being allowed to eg once they see the ball in the air.
>
> But the Law is unclear exactly when it's legal to leave the crease. That makes it a bit hard for players who want to leave as soon as they have the right to.

Yes, it needs a new law. RH

On 24/09/2022 19:29, max.it wrote:
>
> England's women in tears after losing the series to a Mankad.
> When I was umpiring the decision would have been not out but the law
> has changed since then (I think it must have). The bowler broke the
> wicket after front foot contact and surely would have reasonably been
> expected to deliver the ball.

The bowler doesn't need to break the wicket before she "would normally
have been expected to release the ball". That is when the non-striker
can leave the crease without being liable to be run out.

Dean left her crease fractionally before Sharma's front foot landed, so
would still have been out if the Law was as Jack would like it.

The expression on Sharma's face as she breaks the wicket is notable. She
doesn't exactly look happy about it, and she doesn't even appear to
appeal, although she does hold the ball up. It's as if she has been told
to try it, but doesn't really want to.

--
David North

On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:45 UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 24/09/2022 19:29, max.it wrote:
> >
> > England's women in tears after losing the series to a Mankad.
> > When I was umpiring the decision would have been not out but the law
> > has changed since then (I think it must have). The bowler broke the
> > wicket after front foot contact and surely would have reasonably been
> > expected to deliver the ball.
> The bowler doesn't need to break the wicket before she "would normally
> have been expected to release the ball". That is when the non-striker
> can leave the crease without being liable to be run out.
>
> Dean left her crease fractionally before Sharma's front foot landed, so
> would still have been out if the Law was as Jack would like it.
>
> The expression on Sharma's face as she breaks the wicket is notable. She
> doesn't exactly look happy about it, and she doesn't even appear to
> appeal, although she does hold the ball up. It's as if she has been told
> to try it, but doesn't really want to.
>
> --
> David North

To all the Brits whining about this decision, I suggest you go look at the footage of the dismissal - the batsman/woman/person/whatever was a good 8 or 9 feet down the track when he/she/it was run out.

Taking the Mickey big time.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 20:28:50 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <fsiuihlbne33uqns70dq1rm35n0op9vkvq@4ax.com>, max. it
><max@tea.time> writes
>>
>>England's women in tears after losing the series to a Mankad.
>>When I was umpiring the decision would have been not out but the law
>>has changed since then (I think it must have).
>
>I think Nasser Hussain said it had been.
>
>> The bowler broke the
>>wicket after front foot contact and surely would have reasonably been
>>expected to deliver the ball.
>>
>>I'd expect a bit of media debate around this dismissal.
>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60456702
>>
>>max.it
>
>If it was done without first warning the batter, then it seems a bit
>ruthless. In defence of the bowler, though, Dean wasn't just a foot or
>two out of her ground when the wicket was broken but more like a couple
>of yards.

MCC moved the mankad from the Unfair Play Law to the Run Out Law
precisely to try and destigmatise mankadding, making it clear that
it's the same as any "normal" run out.

I therefore don't see why bowlers should [now] warn batters that
they're going to get Mankadded if they carry on leaving their ground
before delivery any more than the keeper should warn batters who take
guard with their bat and feet outside the crease that they're liable
to be stumped. Batters are entitled to take risks, but not then to
complain if it gets them out.

Looking at the tweets from various England players on the subject, the
bowlers seem to disapprove of mankadding while the batters think it's
entirely reasonable. Which I find mildly interesting: batters consider
it a hazard of playing aggressively while bowlers have scruples, quite
possibly because they don't get to add a mankadding wicket to their
career total.

In general, I'm in favour of mankadding, and I've absolutely no
complaint about Deepti Shah - indeed I'd commend her.

I assume that jzf will be able to dream up a whole raft of bizarre
circumstances in which it would be a bit off to break the wicket
before delivery and appeal - perhaps a gull attacking the non-striker
and driving them out of their crease during he bowler's run-up - but
that doesn't mean that the Law is wrong or deficient: it just means
that anything can and probably will at some point happen on a cricket
field and that when something weird happens, the umpires need to apply
Law 43.

Cheers,

Mike

On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 1:46:45 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> Dean left her crease fractionally before Sharma's front foot landed, so
> would still have been out if the Law was as Jack would like it.

Current Law is;
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.

SafePointLaw == as per that Law
SafePointJack == what I think the Law should be changed to - when front foot lands

There are 2 main ways to interpret 41.16.1;
a) if a batter leaves crease before SafePointLaw they are then *forever* in danger of being Run Out (until next Dead Ball). Even if the SafePointLaw is reached.
b) if a batter leaves crease before SafePointLaw they are in danger of being Run Out UNTIL SafePointLaw is reached.

You seem to be interpreting the Law as A.

I interpret it as B. So even if a batter leaves "fractionally before the foot lands" (given SafePointJack), they would ultimately be safe as the front-foot DID land, ending any chance for a Mankad run out.

Given SafePointJack, the deception in Mankads would change from "faux delivery" to "faux front-foot landing", which is much harder to achieve. Batters would still have that black and white point in time when it's safe to leave the crease.
They don't have that today.

"when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball".

My son is learning cricket. How on earth to I explain to him what this means?! I can't even work it out myself. Why is it so VAGUE?
Obviously I'll be teaching him what they teach in Indoor Cricket, where Mankads have always been legal and encouraged - don't leave until you see the ball in flight.

On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 4:05:44 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I assume that jzf will be able to dream up a whole raft of bizarre
> circumstances

No need to dream up anything. Just have to look at the cricket media today to see news of how shite this new MCC Law is.
And it's going to continue until the MCC cleans it up.

Also, to be clear.
I have no problems with Mankads.
I have no problems with Mankads without a warning.

If a batter leaves too early they should be punished.

My issue is with the unclear Law, and how that unclear Law now introduces and encourages an element of deception into the game.
And, ultimately, that that deception is going to cause "bad blood" between teams and players and fans.
It's all made worse by knowing there's an easy fix - changing the safe point to "when front foot lands".

On 25/09/2022 16:51, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:45 UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On 24/09/2022 19:29, max.it wrote:
>>>
>>> England's women in tears after losing the series to a Mankad.
>>> When I was umpiring the decision would have been not out but the law
>>> has changed since then (I think it must have). The bowler broke the
>>> wicket after front foot contact and surely would have reasonably been
>>> expected to deliver the ball.
>> The bowler doesn't need to break the wicket before she "would normally
>> have been expected to release the ball". That is when the non-striker
>> can leave the crease without being liable to be run out.
>>
>> Dean left her crease fractionally before Sharma's front foot landed, so
>> would still have been out if the Law was as Jack would like it.
>>
>> The expression on Sharma's face as she breaks the wicket is notable. She
>> doesn't exactly look happy about it, and she doesn't even appear to
>> appeal, although she does hold the ball up. It's as if she has been told
>> to try it, but doesn't really want to.
>
> To all the Brits whining about this decision,

I don't see anyone here whining about it.

I suggest you go look at the footage of the dismissal - the
batsman/woman/person/whatever was a good 8 or 9 feet down the track when
he/she/it was run out.

Yes, but that was because it took a significant amount of time for the
bowler to stop, turn round, walk back to the wicket and break it. At the
moment when the ball would have been released if the bowler had gone
through with the delivery, which is when the non-striker could safely
leave her ground, she was nowhere near that far out of her crease.

--
David North

On 25/09/2022 20:09, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 1:46:45 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> Dean left her crease fractionally before Sharma's front foot landed, so
>> would still have been out if the Law was as Jack would like it.
>
> Current Law is;
> 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.
>
> SafePointLaw == as per that Law
> SafePointJack == what I think the Law should be changed to - when front foot lands
>
> There are 2 main ways to interpret 41.16.1;
> a) if a batter leaves crease before SafePointLaw they are then *forever* in danger of being Run Out (until next Dead Ball). Even if the SafePointLaw is reached.
> b) if a batter leaves crease before SafePointLaw they are in danger of being Run Out UNTIL SafePointLaw is reached.
>
> You seem to be interpreting the Law as A.
>
> I interpret it as B.

Under that interpretation, Dean should have been given not out, as the
wicket was clearly not broken before Sharma would have been expected to
release the ball.

--
David North

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 20:49:06 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/09/2022 20:09, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 1:46:45 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>> Dean left her crease fractionally before Sharma's front foot landed, so
>>> would still have been out if the Law was as Jack would like it.
>>
>> Current Law is;
>> 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.
>>
>> SafePointLaw == as per that Law
>> SafePointJack == what I think the Law should be changed to - when front foot lands
>>
>> There are 2 main ways to interpret 41.16.1;
>> a) if a batter leaves crease before SafePointLaw they are then *forever* in danger of being Run Out (until next Dead Ball). Even if the SafePointLaw is reached.
>> b) if a batter leaves crease before SafePointLaw they are in danger of being Run Out UNTIL SafePointLaw is reached.
>>
>> You seem to be interpreting the Law as A.
>>
>> I interpret it as B.
>
>Under that interpretation, Dean should have been given not out, as the
>wicket was clearly not broken before Sharma would have been expected to
>release the ball.

The Indian bowler made no effort at all to deliver the ball.
Had the bowler pulled up and held on to the ball then the umpire would
have signalled that the ball was dead.
I'm with David's suggestion that it was a Mankad on command and not
opportunistic by the bowler.

I have had a few Mankad type events when umpiring, none of which
involved a dismissal. Usually it was a bowler who could have run out
the non striker pulling up and almost asking if it was ok to break the
wicket.
I even had one of those throwing to the keeper incidents to decide on.
The difficult part of that was remembering to signal no ball before
dismissing the batsman, then warning the bowler for throwing informing
my colleague, both captains (or batsmen at the wickets) reporting the
incident to the league secretary and governing body, and the second
most difficult part was remembering which ball in the over it was ;-)

max.it

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:53:25 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>The Indian bowler made no effort at all to deliver the ball.
>Had the bowler pulled up and held on to the ball then the umpire would
>have signalled that the ball was dead.
>I'm with David's suggestion that it was a Mankad on command and not
>opportunistic by the bowler.

If a fielding captain notices that Zak Crawley regularly steers
back-of-a-length balls outside off to third slip, it's perfectly
normal for the captain to suggest that the bowler should try serving
up back-of-a-length outswingers when Crawley is facing. If a fielding
captain were to notice that Zak Crawley was regularly halfway down the
pitch by the time the bowler delivered the ball and thus vulnerable to
being run out, I don't see it as any less legitimate to suggest to the
bowler that mankadding Crawley would be a good way of getting him out.

Cheers,

Mike

On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 7:41:36 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> If a fielding captain notices that Zak Crawley regularly steers
> back-of-a-length balls outside off to third slip, it's perfectly
> normal for the captain to suggest that the bowler should try serving
> up back-of-a-length outswingers when Crawley is facing. If a fielding
> captain were to notice that Zak Crawley was regularly halfway down the
> pitch by the time the bowler delivered the ball and thus vulnerable to
> being run out, I don't see it as any less legitimate to suggest to the
> bowler that mankadding Crawley would be a good way of getting him out.

When Zac Crawley gets dismissed Caught he doesn't cry.

A Mankad involving deception is a very different beast to the application of other cricketing skills eg swing bowling

nb: not saying this particular Mankad was terribly deceptive.

On Monday, September 26, 2022 at 5:49:10 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> Under that interpretation, Dean should have been given not out, as the
> wicket was clearly not broken before Sharma would have been expected to
> release the ball.

When is that?

I'm still hoping someone will describe it to me.

Perhaps your interpretation of that time is different to the umpire's.

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 22:41:33 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:53:25 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>
>>The Indian bowler made no effort at all to deliver the ball.
>>Had the bowler pulled up and held on to the ball then the umpire would
>>have signalled that the ball was dead.
>>I'm with David's suggestion that it was a Mankad on command and not
>>opportunistic by the bowler.
>
>If a fielding captain notices that Zak Crawley regularly steers
>back-of-a-length balls outside off to third slip, it's perfectly
>normal for the captain to suggest that the bowler should try serving
>up back-of-a-length outswingers when Crawley is facing. If a fielding
>captain were to notice that Zak Crawley was regularly halfway down the
>pitch by the time the bowler delivered the ball and thus vulnerable to
>being run out, I don't see it as any less legitimate to suggest to the
>bowler that mankadding Crawley would be a good way of getting him out.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

It's legit for sure, and I don't have any problem with the mechanism
of the law involved or obedience required by the bowler, that's just
part of the game.
I just like the old back foot contact law - it works better if you
don't have television replays to help. with the decision.

max.it

On Sunday, September 25, 2022 at 5:45:00 AM UTC+10, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey MH, I am right again!
>
> When the MCC changed the Mankad laws I complained, and was told to shut up.
> I said the new rule was vague, and would lead to more deception, and more upset players, and more controversy.

Not seeing how this is deception, the delivery action was stopped massively before the release point.
As for more upset players and more controversy every mankad under every rule has had upset players and controversy
>
> They should change the law to (in effect) batsman can leave safely when front-foot lands. Black and white. No weasel words. Most umpires are watching for this anyway.
> It's still later than the old safe point - delivery stride IIRC, so cuts down on the unfair advantage non-striker gets by leaving "early".

Why should they be allowed to leave their crease before the ball's released?