https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a756a5dc

3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.

Crowd was booing. That's what we love to see at cricket, right?

On 1/3/2023 5:22 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a756a5dc
>
> 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
>
> Crowd was booing. That's what we love to see at cricket, right?

3rd umpire is an idiot.

He interpreted the law he WAY he wanted.

This is another proof, people (NOT you Jack, I am saying in GENERAL)
just want to EMOTE and ARGUE about every silly little thing INSTEAD of
coming up with the "SIMPLEST SOLUTION".

As long as the ball is in bowlers hand, non-strikers are LIABLE to be
run out if they LEAVE the CREASE.

This simple SENTENCE added to ICC laws, removes all arguments,
confusions and ambiguities.

ICC is a fucking joke.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a756a5dc
>
> 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
>
> Crowd was booing. That's what we love to see at cricket, right?

well the answer is simple........either make it illegal but the umpire will remove the run if they leave the crease too early

or

let it be known to all that the cricket body is encouraging people to "Mankad" the cheats ie. make it well know that people leaving early are cheating

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 4:21:17 PM UTC+10, wlsut...@gmail.com wrote:
> well the answer is simple........either make it illegal but the umpire will remove the run if they leave the crease too early

Sometimes a non-striker's main goal is to get back on strike. They don't care so much about the single.
So penalty runs, and taking away that run, don't entirely solve the issue.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a756a5dc
>
> 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.

Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what they said...
>
> Crowd was booing. That's what we love to see at cricket, right?

When did the crowd start booing?
When Zampa tried the mankad?

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a756a5dc
> >
> > 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
> Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what they said...

But "the vertical" is not when a bowler would be expected to deliver the ball. It's past that. I've not seen the replay. Not that it matters. If the umpire is going to give reasons, as the TV umpire does, they should follow the Laws.

> > Crowd was booing. That's what we love to see at cricket, right?
> When did the crowd start booing?
> When Zampa tried the mankad?

My bad. That was a criticism of the entire thing, not the 3rd ump's decision.

The new-ish Mankad Laws increased the bowler's ability to do deceptive Mankads. This causes bad blood, and results in said boo-ing.
You don't get boo-ing after a catch, or a bowled, or a (normal) run out.
We pretty much ONLY get boo-ing after a Mankad.
Part of that is the historical status of the dismissal, but a big part is the nature of them.

On 1/4/2023 6:50 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a756a5dc
>>>
>>> 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
>> Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what they said...
>
> But "the vertical" is not when a bowler would be expected to deliver the ball. It's past that. I've not seen the replay. Not that it matters. If the umpire is going to give reasons, as the TV umpire does, they should follow the Laws.
>
>
>>> Crowd was booing. That's what we love to see at cricket, right?
>> When did the crowd start booing?
>> When Zampa tried the mankad?
>
> My bad. That was a criticism of the entire thing, not the 3rd ump's decision.
>
> The new-ish Mankad Laws increased the bowler's ability to do deceptive Mankads. This causes bad blood, and results in said boo-ing.
> You don't get boo-ing after a catch, or a bowled, or a (normal) run out.
> We pretty much ONLY get boo-ing after a Mankad.
> Part of that is the historical status of the dismissal, but a big part is the nature of them.
>

The non-striker should have been declared out.

Adam Zampa mankad run out Tom Rogers during BBL Match | Melbourne Stars
vs Melbourne Renegades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvw32lUtsM

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 04:06:02 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a756a5dc
>>
>> 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
>
>Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what they said...
>>
>> Crowd was booing. That's what we love to see at cricket, right?
>
>When did the crowd start booing?
>When Zampa tried the mankad?

I'm mildly intrigued by the notion that crowd reaction should
determine the Laws.

What is preposterous is the idea that wording the Law slightly
differently is likely to change the crowd's reaction. I realise I may
be wrong, but I'm not entirely convinced that the crowd were up in
arms because the words the umpire used do not appear precisely in the
Law.

Cheers,

Mike

In message <116e70ef-50c3-4780-8c4f-bdca8c3fb3ean@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com
>wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a
>> >756a5dc
>> >
>> > 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
>> Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what they said...
>
>But "the vertical" is not when a bowler would be expected to deliver
>the ball. It's past that. I've not seen the replay.
<snip>

I've seen a still photo showing his arm had gone about 45 degrees past
the vertical without releasing the ball, before he went on to do the
mankad. It looked an unfair attempt to get the batsman out of his ground
to me.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:21:44 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <116e70ef-50c3-4780-8c4f-bdca8c3fb3ean@googlegroups.com>,
>jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>>On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com
>>wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a
>>> >756a5dc
>>> >
>>> > 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
>>> Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what they said...
>>
>>But "the vertical" is not when a bowler would be expected to deliver
>>the ball. It's past that. I've not seen the replay.
><snip>
>
>I've seen a still photo showing his arm had gone about 45 degrees past
>the vertical without releasing the ball, before he went on to do the
>mankad. It looked an unfair attempt to get the batsman out of his ground
>to me.

The Law mentions when the bowler would normally have been expected to
release the ball. By taking the arm past the vertical, the bowler has
gnerated a perfectly reasonable expectation in the mind of the batter
that the ball will be delivered imminently and that he is free to
start leaving his ground.

Cheers,

Mike

On 1/4/2023 8:21 AM, John Hall wrote:
> In message <116e70ef-50c3-4780-8c4f-bdca8c3fb3ean@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+10,
>> hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11,
>>> jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a
>>> >756a5dc
>>> >
>>> > 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words
>>> that aren't in the Laws.
>>> Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what
>>> they said...
>>
>> But "the vertical" is not when a bowler would be expected to deliver
>> the ball. It's past that. I've not seen the replay.
> <snip>
>
> I've seen a still photo showing his arm had gone about 45 degrees past
> the vertical without releasing the ball, before he went on to do the
> mankad. It looked an unfair attempt to get the batsman out of his ground
> to me.

This is exactly why I said ALL of your perception abilities are WAY
INFERIOR to mine.

Non-striker already LEFT the crease when Zampa's arm was still at 45
degrees BEHIND his back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvw32lUtsM

You are all TOO human for me.

On 1/4/2023 8:42 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:21:44 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <116e70ef-50c3-4780-8c4f-bdca8c3fb3ean@googlegroups.com>,
>> jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a
>>>>> 756a5dc
>>>>>
>>>>> 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
>>>> Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what they said...
>>>
>>> But "the vertical" is not when a bowler would be expected to deliver
>>> the ball. It's past that. I've not seen the replay.
>> <snip>
>>
>> I've seen a still photo showing his arm had gone about 45 degrees past
>> the vertical without releasing the ball, before he went on to do the
>> mankad. It looked an unfair attempt to get the batsman out of his ground
>> to me.
>
> The Law mentions when the bowler would normally have been expected to
> release the ball. By taking the arm past the vertical, the bowler has
> gnerated a perfectly reasonable expectation in the mind of the batter
> that the ball will be delivered imminently and that he is free to
> start leaving his ground.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

None of you will make great lawyers or investigators, because of poor
perception and analytical abilities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvw32lUtsM

I would have declared the non-striker out.

Quite simple and easy.

ICC already told cricket players PUBLICLY a few months ago, that batsmen
can leave the crease AT THEIR OWN RISK of getting out, UNTIL the ball is
released from bowler's hand.

I don't understand WHY cricket players and fans both DON'T understand
this SIMPLE LOGIC and SOLUTION.

On 1/4/2023 8:42 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:21:44 +0000, John Hall <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <116e70ef-50c3-4780-8c4f-bdca8c3fb3ean@googlegroups.com>,
>> jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a
>>>>> 756a5dc
>>>>>
>>>>> 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
>>>> Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what they said...
>>>
>>> But "the vertical" is not when a bowler would be expected to deliver
>>> the ball. It's past that. I've not seen the replay.
>> <snip>
>>
>> I've seen a still photo showing his arm had gone about 45 degrees past
>> the vertical without releasing the ball, before he went on to do the
>> mankad. It looked an unfair attempt to get the batsman out of his ground
>> to me.
>
> The Law mentions when the bowler would normally have been expected to
> release the ball. By taking the arm past the vertical, the bowler has
> gnerated a perfectly reasonable expectation in the mind of the batter
> that the ball will be delivered imminently and that he is free to
> start leaving his ground.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Stop and watch at 0.16/17 of the video or in 0.75 or 0.50 speed.

Zampa's hand was around 45 degrees BEHIND his back, when the non-striker
left ALREADY left the crease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvw32lUtsM

On 1/4/2023 8:21 AM, John Hall wrote:
> In message <116e70ef-50c3-4780-8c4f-bdca8c3fb3ean@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+10,
>> hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11,
>>> jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a
>>> >756a5dc
>>> >
>>> > 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words
>>> that aren't in the Laws.
>>> Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what
>>> they said...
>>
>> But "the vertical" is not when a bowler would be expected to deliver
>> the ball. It's past that. I've not seen the replay.
> <snip>
>
> I've seen a still photo showing his arm had gone about 45 degrees past
> the vertical without releasing the ball, before he went on to do the
> mankad. It looked an unfair attempt to get the batsman out of his ground
> to me.

Stop and watch at 0.16/17 of the video or at 0.75/0.50 speed.

Zampa's hand was around 45 degrees BEHIND his back, when the non-striker
ALREADY left the crease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvw32lUtsM

I can PERCEIVE these things VERY EASILY because of my THIRD EYE/ESP.

On 1/4/2023 6:50 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 10:06:03 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 12:22:10 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/adam-zampas-botched-mankad-attempt-in-big-bash-sparks-furore/news-story/a8bec1140714bed315dbb242a756a5dc
>>>
>>> 3rd ruled Zampa’s bowling arm had gone “past the vertical”. Words that aren't in the Laws.
>> Gee, if only there was an implication that could be made from what they said...
>
> But "the vertical" is not when a bowler would be expected to deliver the ball. It's past that. I've not seen the replay. Not that it matters. If the umpire is going to give reasons, as the TV umpire does, they should follow the Laws.
>
>
>>> Crowd was booing. That's what we love to see at cricket, right?
>> When did the crowd start booing?
>> When Zampa tried the mankad?
>
> My bad. That was a criticism of the entire thing, not the 3rd ump's decision.
>
> The new-ish Mankad Laws increased the bowler's ability to do deceptive Mankads. This causes bad blood, and results in said boo-ing.
> You don't get boo-ing after a catch, or a bowled, or a (normal) run out.
> We pretty much ONLY get boo-ing after a Mankad.
> Part of that is the historical status of the dismissal, but a big part is the nature of them.
>

Third umpire is a fucking joker to declare that Zampa's hand already
crossed the vertical, when non-striker left the crease.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 2:28:13 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> I've seen a still photo showing his arm had gone about 45 degrees past
> the vertical without releasing the ball, before he went on to do the
> mankad. It looked an unfair attempt to get the batsman out of his ground
> to me.

I've not said the decision was bad. I'm saying the articulated reasons for the decision are bad.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 3:22:24 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Non-striker already LEFT the crease when Zampa's arm was still at 45
> degrees BEHIND his back.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvw32lUtsM

https://youtu.be/TRvw32lUtsM?t=16

You're absolutely right.

Which means this decision is actually a bad one.

Or....

It re-open a previously discussed issue around the new Mankad Laws....

If the batsman "forever safe" once the point of "expected to release the ball" has been reached ie even if they left the crease prior to that point.
The 3rd ump HAD this footage (showing non-striker leaving crease well before "expected to release the ball") and but gave it Not Out on that point happening.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 2:20:36 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I'm mildly intrigued by the notion that crowd reaction should
> determine the Laws.

If you think about it more, it's a perfectly acceptable position.

Cricket dies without fans.

Besides, it's not just the fans, my previous vid on the shit Mankad laws showed players fighting over it.

On 1/4/2023 12:11 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 3:22:24 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Non-striker already LEFT the crease when Zampa's arm was still at 45
>> degrees BEHIND his back.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvw32lUtsM
>
> https://youtu.be/TRvw32lUtsM?t=16
>
> You're absolutely right.
>
> Which means this decision is actually a bad one.

What makes it "EVEN WORSE" is the TV Umpire actually "saw the video
frame by frame" and made the decision NOT OUT.

West is full of brainwashed humans with hardly any ability to THINK
INDEPENDENTLY.

>
> Or....
>
> It re-open a previously discussed issue around the new Mankad Laws....
>
> If the batsman "forever safe" once the point of "expected to release the ball" has been reached ie even if they left the crease prior to that point.
> The 3rd ump HAD this footage (showing non-striker leaving crease well before "expected to release the ball") and but gave it Not Out on that point happening.

On 1/4/2023 12:13 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 2:20:36 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I'm mildly intrigued by the notion that crowd reaction should
>> determine the Laws.
>
> If you think about it more, it's a perfectly acceptable position.
>
> Cricket dies without fans.
>
> Besides, it's not just the fans, my previous vid on the shit Mankad laws showed players fighting over it.

Sorry bro.

That's NOT how it works.

Fans and players should GET USED to the laws.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:38:14 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> That's NOT how it works.
> Fans and players should GET USED to the laws.

DRS anyone?

Cricket history is full of Law changes to make cricket better for fans. eg Leg Theory, Bodyline.

My main beef with Mankad isn't related to that, but rather the non-striker has no fucking idea when it's *legally* safe to leave the crease. Yes, I know your response will be "when the bowler releases the ball".

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:21:33 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:38:14 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > That's NOT how it works.
> > Fans and players should GET USED to the laws.
> DRS anyone?

btw, I know this is not part of the Laws.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 4:22:24 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/4/2023 8:21 AM, John Hall wrote:
> > I've seen a still photo showing his arm had gone about 45 degrees past
> > the vertical without releasing the ball, before he went on to do the
> > mankad. It looked an unfair attempt to get the batsman out of his ground
> > to me.
> This is exactly why I said ALL of your perception abilities are WAY
> INFERIOR to mine.
>
> Non-striker already LEFT the crease when Zampa's arm was still at 45
> degrees BEHIND his back.
>

from the runout law
"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"

Even if he was halfway down the pitch before the bowler started their runup if the bowler goes through his action past the normally expected point of release before he attempts the runout it's not out

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:11:14 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 3:22:24 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > Non-striker already LEFT the crease when Zampa's arm was still at 45
> > degrees BEHIND his back.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvw32lUtsM
> https://youtu.be/TRvw32lUtsM?t=16
>
> You're absolutely right.
>
> Which means this decision is actually a bad one.
>
> Or....
>
> It re-open a previously discussed issue around the new Mankad Laws....
>
> If the batsman "forever safe" once the point of "expected to release the ball" has been reached ie even if they left the crease prior to that point.
> The 3rd ump HAD this footage (showing non-striker leaving crease well before "expected to release the ball") and but gave it Not Out on that point happening.

Read the fucking rule before you start whinging endlessly about it FFS.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 10:25:42 AM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 4:22:24 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > On 1/4/2023 8:21 AM, John Hall wrote:
> > > I've seen a still photo showing his arm had gone about 45 degrees past
> > > the vertical without releasing the ball, before he went on to do the
> > > mankad. It looked an unfair attempt to get the batsman out of his ground
> > > to me.
> > This is exactly why I said ALL of your perception abilities are WAY
> > INFERIOR to mine.
> >
> > Non-striker already LEFT the crease when Zampa's arm was still at 45
> > degrees BEHIND his back.
> >
> from the runout law
> "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"
> Even if he was halfway down the pitch before the bowler started their runup if the bowler goes through his action past the normally expected point of release before he attempts the runout it's not out

The thing is... that's MY reading of the Laws. (Excluding the part about being half-way down the pitch before bowler starting run up... I've not considered that interaction).

However, we've (David(?) and I) have discussed this particular part of the law a few times, and he thinks that if the bowler leaves prior to "normally expected to release", then the non-striker is "forever liable" to be run out, even if the bowler eventually does reach the "normally expected to release" point.

I'm like you - I think the non-striker is "forever safe" (my term) once the bowler reaches "normally expected to release".

FWIW, I think David's interpretation is perfectly fine. I obviously think my interpretation is perfectly fine.
This reinforces my point that the law is not clear.