On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 19:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>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?

They're allowed to leave their crease any time they like. Of course,
if they insist on doing it while the bowler has the ball in his hand,
they put themselves in considerable danger of being out.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 22:41:36 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:53:25 +0100, max.it <m...@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.

Yes, but if the bowler does that and gets him out, what isn't normal is for the bowler to look stony-faced, not appeal and walk away shrugging as if he's not proud of what he's done.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 06:00:55 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 22:41:36 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:53:25 +0100, max.it <m...@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.
>
>Yes, but if the bowler does that and gets him out, what isn't normal is for the bowler to look stony-faced, not appeal and walk away shrugging as if he's not proud of what he's done.

The bowler has said that it was a plan after warning the batsman
several times and complaining to the umpires.
The English captain has said that is all lies. She wasn't there so she
shouldn't really comment or at least not throw around accusations of
lying which can only have came to her 2nd hand at best. Some people
just never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

max.it

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 06:00:55 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 22:41:36 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:53:25 +0100, max.it <m...@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.
>
>Yes, but if the bowler does that and gets him out, what isn't normal is for the bowler to look stony-faced, not appeal and walk away shrugging as if he's not proud of what he's done.

It's pretty clear that this was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. If, as
the team maintain, they had already repeatedly warned Dean about
excessive backing-up, that expression could also betoken "I didn't
really want to do this, but you left us no option".

Cheers,

Mike

On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:02:44 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 06:00:55 -0700 (PDT), David North
><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 22:41:36 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:53:25 +0100, max.it <m...@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.
>>
>>Yes, but if the bowler does that and gets him out, what isn't normal is for the bowler to look stony-faced, not appeal and walk away shrugging as if he's not proud of what he's done.
>
>It's pretty clear that this was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. If, as
>the team maintain, they had already repeatedly warned Dean about
>excessive backing-up, that expression could also betoken "I didn't
>really want to do this, but you left us no option".
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

"A detailed analysis by ESPNcricinfo's Peter Della Penna, who checked
every delivery of England's innings since Dean's arrival at the
crease, showed that she had left the crease early 72 times, before
being dismissed on the 73rd occasion."

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/deepti-sharma-charlie-dean-run-out-eng-w-vs-ind-w-2022-3rd-odi-deepti-says-it-was-a-plan-1336620

max.it

On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 11:46:02 +0100, "James Heaton"
<heatonandmoore@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>"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

I was thinking more about ferry and driving, probably in my van. I
have a great little car but it's petrol engine and it has a small fuel
tank. At least in my van I can carry enough spare fuel to get the trip
done.
Alternative is Teapot Lane in Co. Leitrim, I've been threatening to go
there for years.

max.it

On 26/09/2022 16:26, max.it wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:02:44 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 06:00:55 -0700 (PDT), David North
>> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 22:41:36 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:53:25 +0100, max.it <m...@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.
>>>
>>> Yes, but if the bowler does that and gets him out, what isn't normal is for the bowler to look stony-faced, not appeal and walk away shrugging as if he's not proud of what he's done.
>>
>> It's pretty clear that this was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. If, as
>> the team maintain, they had already repeatedly warned Dean about
>> excessive backing-up, that expression could also betoken "I didn't
>> really want to do this, but you left us no option".
>
> "A detailed analysis by ESPNcricinfo's Peter Della Penna, who checked
> every delivery of England's innings since Dean's arrival at the
> crease, showed that she had left the crease early 72 times, before
> being dismissed on the 73rd occasion."
>
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/deepti-sharma-charlie-dean-run-out-eng-w-vs-ind-w-2022-3rd-odi-deepti-says-it-was-a-plan-1336620

That's great work. Clearly Dean needed the lesson that she's been taught.

--
David North

On 25/09/2022 23:07, jack fredricks wrote:
> 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.

Oh, I agree that it's impossible to judge accurately the expected time
of release, and even the 3rd umpire with a slow motion replay would have
difficulty in a borderline case, but this was anything but a borderline
case. As I said previously, Dean had left the crease before the front
foot landed, so well before the ball would have been delivered, but by
the time the wicket was broken, I reckon the ball would have been at, or
at least most of the way to, the striker's end.

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

I don't think any international umpire could be that wrong.

--
David North

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 06:52:07 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 26/09/2022 16:26, max.it wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:02:44 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>> wrote:

>>>
>>> It's pretty clear that this was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. If, as
>>> the team maintain, they had already repeatedly warned Dean about
>>> excessive backing-up, that expression could also betoken "I didn't
>>> really want to do this, but you left us no option".
>>
>> "A detailed analysis by ESPNcricinfo's Peter Della Penna, who checked
>> every delivery of England's innings since Dean's arrival at the
>> crease, showed that she had left the crease early 72 times, before
>> being dismissed on the 73rd occasion."
>>
>> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/deepti-sharma-charlie-dean-run-out-eng-w-vs-ind-w-2022-3rd-odi-deepti-says-it-was-a-plan-1336620
>
>That's great work. Clearly Dean needed the lesson that she's been taught.

Those figures should absolutely absolve Sharma from any accusation of
failing to observe the spirit of the game. And should also put paid to
dickering about whether the Law should be adjusted for some illusory
precision.

The immediate reaction of some bowlers on seeing just the incident was
that it was very poor and they wouldn't have done it. But if a batter
has been leaving the crease early for an hour and a half and the
fielding side get fed up with it, the precise technicalities of whose
foot was where seem absurdly petty as a bone of contention.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, 27 September 2022 at 07:53:20 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >
> >That's great work. Clearly Dean needed the lesson that she's been taught.
> Those figures should absolutely absolve Sharma from any accusation of
> failing to observe the spirit of the game. And should also put paid to
> dickering about whether the Law should be adjusted for some illusory
> precision.
>
> The immediate reaction of some bowlers on seeing just the incident was
> that it was very poor and they wouldn't have done it. But if a batter
> has been leaving the crease early for an hour and a half and the
> fielding side get fed up with it, the precise technicalities of whose
> foot was where seem absurdly petty as a bone of contention.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Yeah England sound like the motorist who's been caught speeding.

If you don't speed, you don't get caught.

If you don't leave your crease until the ball leaves the bowler's hand, you don't get Mankaded.

Reminds me of the age-old classic: when can you tell a British Airways flight full of Brits lands in Sydney? The whining goes on long after the engines have been turned off.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 25/09/2022 23:07, jack fredricks wrote:
> > 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.
> Oh, I agree that it's impossible to judge accurately the expected time
> of release, and even the 3rd umpire with a slow motion replay would have
> difficulty in a borderline case, but this was anything but a borderline
> case.

If the 3rd umpire can't work it out with the aid of replays, how on earth is a non-striker suppose to work it out.

As I've said above, this particular run out didn't involve a lot of deception. And, with the news that she'd left the crease ~70 early, she absolutely deserved to be run out.

But this entire mankad issue has "exploded" since the MCC change.
This run out, which was totally deserved and is one of the most justified mankads I've seen, has created VAST volumes of commentary. The reddit cricket forum had 1000s of comments.

There have been far more rancorous run outs like this one;
https://youtu.be/Qtsw4SUeIsI?t=55

It will continue until the Law is cleaned up. All it needs is a black and white, easy to define, safe time to leave the crease.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 6:52:10 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 26/09/2022 16:26, max.it wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:02:44 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 06:00:55 -0700 (PDT), David North
> >> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 22:41:36 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2022 21:53:25 +0100, max.it <m...@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.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, but if the bowler does that and gets him out, what isn't normal is for the bowler to look stony-faced, not appeal and walk away shrugging as if he's not proud of what he's done.
> >>
> >> It's pretty clear that this was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. If, as
> >> the team maintain, they had already repeatedly warned Dean about
> >> excessive backing-up, that expression could also betoken "I didn't
> >> really want to do this, but you left us no option".
> >
> > "A detailed analysis by ESPNcricinfo's Peter Della Penna, who checked
> > every delivery of England's innings since Dean's arrival at the
> > crease, showed that she had left the crease early 72 times, before
> > being dismissed on the 73rd occasion."
> >
> > https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/deepti-sharma-charlie-dean-run-out-eng-w-vs-ind-w-2022-3rd-odi-deepti-says-it-was-a-plan-1336620
> That's great work.

he used a microscope! on every delivery! crikey thats beyond dedication.

>Clearly Dean needed the lesson that she's been taught.
>

seeing the glut of t20s going on with the WC coming up, which batter would
we like to see taught a similar lesson? My choices would be SS, Kohli
and Warner. But perhaps unlike ms dean they always keep their bat grounded
in the crease..

mike

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 9:22:17 PM UTC+10, mike wrote:
> > > https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/deepti-sharma-charlie-dean-run-out-eng-w-vs-ind-w-2022-3rd-odi-deepti-says-it-was-a-plan-1336620
> > That's great work.
> he used a microscope! on every delivery! crikey thats beyond dedication.

It is! However I'd really like to know which point in time he used to determine if she'd left the crease early or not.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:11:43 PM UTC+10, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > On 25/09/2022 23:07, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Oh, I agree that it's impossible to judge accurately the expected time
> > of release, and even the 3rd umpire with a slow motion replay would have
> > difficulty in a borderline case, but this was anything but a borderline
> > case.
> If the 3rd umpire can't work it out with the aid of replays, how on earth is a non-striker suppose to work it out.

Gee, if only there was some sign for the non-striker that the bowler would have normally delivered the ball.
Maybe delivering the ball?
>
> As I've said above, this particular run out didn't involve a lot of deception. And, with the news that she'd left the crease ~70 early, she absolutely deserved to be run out.
>
> But this entire mankad issue has "exploded" since the MCC change.
> This run out, which was totally deserved and is one of the most justified mankads I've seen, has created VAST volumes of commentary. The reddit cricket forum had 1000s of comments.
>
I'd call rubbish on that, every mankad I've ever seen has had lots of commentary. It might be more visible now but that doesn't prove much.

> There have been far more rancorous run outs like this one;
> https://youtu.be/Qtsw4SUeIsI?t=55
>
> It will continue until the Law is cleaned up. All it needs is a black and white, easy to define, safe time to leave the crease.

Once the ball has been delivered means you won't get Mankaded (you might be run out off a straight drive...)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 21:42:36 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:11:43 PM UTC+10, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> > On 25/09/2022 23:07, jack fredricks wrote:
>> > > 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.
>> > Oh, I agree that it's impossible to judge accurately the expected time
>> > of release, and even the 3rd umpire with a slow motion replay would have
>> > difficulty in a borderline case, but this was anything but a borderline
>> > case.
>> If the 3rd umpire can't work it out with the aid of replays, how on earth is a non-striker suppose to work it out.
>
>Gee, if only there was some sign for the non-striker that the bowler would have normally delivered the ball.
>Maybe delivering the ball?
>>
>> As I've said above, this particular run out didn't involve a lot of deception. And, with the news that she'd left the crease ~70 early, she absolutely deserved to be run out.
>>
>> But this entire mankad issue has "exploded" since the MCC change.
>> This run out, which was totally deserved and is one of the most justified mankads I've seen, has created VAST volumes of commentary. The reddit cricket forum had 1000s of comments.
>>
>I'd call rubbish on that, every mankad I've ever seen has had lots of commentary. It might be more visible now but that doesn't prove much.
>
>> There have been far more rancorous run outs like this one;
>> https://youtu.be/Qtsw4SUeIsI?t=55
>>
>> It will continue until the Law is cleaned up. All it needs is a black and white, easy to define, safe time to leave the crease.
>
>Once the ball has been delivered means you won't get Mankaded (you might be run out off a straight drive...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPCtF28-fsc

max.it

In message <6019bbd3-1fb9-4a7f-b9ef-86811cd8a22bn@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes
>Once the ball has been delivered means you won't get Mankaded (you
>might be run out off a straight drive...)

In my paper this morning, there was a letter from a reader with what
seemed at first sight a brilliant idea: that if a batter left their
crease before the bowler had released the ball the umpire should signal
one short. Thus there would no longer be any incentive for the batter to
leave their crease prematurely. But then I realised the big snag. The
umpire needs to be concentrating on what happens at the far end, as well
as (in matches without a third umpire) whether the bowler has
overstepped, and there's no way that they could be checking on whether
the batter has left their crease slightly prematurely. It would work for
international matches with a third umpire, though.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:44:52 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <6019bbd3-1fb9-4a7f-b9ef-86811cd8a22bn@googlegroups.com>,
>Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes
>>Once the ball has been delivered means you won't get Mankaded (you
>>might be run out off a straight drive...)
>
>In my paper this morning, there was a letter from a reader with what
>seemed at first sight a brilliant idea: that if a batter left their
>crease before the bowler had released the ball the umpire should signal
>one short. Thus there would no longer be any incentive for the batter to
>leave their crease prematurely. But then I realised the big snag. The
>umpire needs to be concentrating on what happens at the far end, as well
>as (in matches without a third umpire) whether the bowler has
>overstepped, and there's no way that they could be checking on whether
>the batter has left their crease slightly prematurely. It would work for
>international matches with a third umpire, though.

That would be a 'no bat' penalty. ;-)

max.it

On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 2:42:37 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:11:43 PM UTC+10, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 4:14:26 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> > > On 25/09/2022 23:07, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > Oh, I agree that it's impossible to judge accurately the expected time
> > > of release, and even the 3rd umpire with a slow motion replay would have
> > > difficulty in a borderline case, but this was anything but a borderline
> > > case.
> > If the 3rd umpire can't work it out with the aid of replays, how on earth is a non-striker suppose to work it out.
> Gee, if only there was some sign for the non-striker that the bowler would have normally delivered the ball.
> Maybe delivering the ball?

But that is NOT the point the law specifies.
I'm asking how is a player supposed to work out the Law itself.

But yes, as a coach, I'd tell my players to not leave until the ball is in the air.

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 4:53:42 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> In my paper this morning, there was a letter from a reader with what
> seemed at first sight a brilliant idea: that if a batter left their
> crease before the bowler had released the ball the umpire should signal
> one short. Thus there would no longer be any incentive for the batter to
> leave their crease prematurely. But then I realised the big snag. The
> umpire needs to be concentrating on what happens at the far end, as well
> as (in matches without a third umpire) whether the bowler has
> overstepped, and there's no way that they could be checking on whether
> the batter has left their crease slightly prematurely. It would work for
> international matches with a third umpire, though.

This is only a partial fix.

One unsolved issue is a non-striker leaving early because it's much more advantageous for them to be on strike. Eg tail-ender on strike, good batsman at non-striker's end, last over of a ODO.

There should be no sympathy for a non-striker who leaves too early.
There should, however, be sympathy for a non-striker who has no idea when they're allowed to legally leave the crease, or who gets "tricked" into leaving by a deceptive bowler.

On 30/09/2022 04:07, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 9:22:17 PM UTC+10, mike wrote:
>>>> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/deepti-sharma-charlie-dean-run-out-eng-w-vs-ind-w-2022-3rd-odi-deepti-says-it-was-a-plan-1336620
>>> That's great work.
>> he used a microscope! on every delivery! crikey thats beyond dedication.
>
> It is! However I'd really like to know which point in time he used to determine if she'd left the crease early or not.

When the bowler released the ball. Of course, it's one thing doing that
when the ball is actually released ...

--
David North