On 05/01/2023 06:06, jack fredricks wrote:
> 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.

Well, we now have an example that shows how at least one international
umpire interprets it.

--
David North

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 4:43:42 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> Well, we now have an example that shows how at least one international
> umpire interprets it.

I'm still open to the idea the umpire just made a mistake (regardless of his interpretation)

:)

On 1/4/2023 4:25 PM, Hamish Laws 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

Normally would have been expected to release the ball is when the ball
leaves the bowler's hand.

End of story.

- Fans, players and umpires are interpreting the law any which way they
like and want.

- It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the bowlers whose mind is already
preoccupied with
what ball to bowl
where to bowl
keep his foot behind the line to avoid NO-BALL
thinking and planning how to get the batter out etc
to PROCESS fractions of seconds while his bowling hand is in action,
while watching the batter's foot and then running him out.

Look at all the fans here who DON'T even know HOW to THINK about the
MOST BASIC things, EXPECTING the bowler to be and do a super human
thing, while giving a PASS to the LOW IQ narrow minded greedy batter who
can do the "SIMPLEST OF THINGS" without even USING his brain 0.1% i.e to
keep his bat inside the fucking crease UNTIL the ball is RELEASED from
the bowlers hand.

Even fucking MONKEYS can be EASILY TRAINED to keep the fucking bat
inside the crease UNTIL the ball is released from bowler's hand.

THAT SIMPLE.

This ANALYSIS is so fucking "SIMPLE and REALISTIC" but YET TOOO
COMPLICATED for all of you AND the dumbfuck umpires and ICC clowns.

Another proof that, Human intelligence is THE MOST OVER RATED thing on
the planet.

I hate myself for being BORN on the WRONG fucking planet.

On 1/4/2023 10:43 PM, David North wrote:
> On 05/01/2023 06:06, jack fredricks wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, we now have an example that shows how at least one international
> umpire interprets it.
>

Yes, a typical low IQ brainwashed human who DOESN'T even have BASIC
COMMON SENSE and DOESN'T know even the BASICS of "HOW TO THINK".

Normally would have been expected to release the ball is when the ball
leaves the bowler's hand.

End of story.

- Fans, players and umpires are interpreting the law any which way they
like and want.

- It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the bowlers whose mind is already
preoccupied with
what ball to bowl
where to bowl
keep his foot behind the line to avoid NO-BALL
thinking and planning how to get the batter out etc
to PROCESS fractions of seconds while his bowling hand is in action,
while watching the batter's foot and then running him out.

The batter ALREADY has an "ADVANTAGE over the bowler" with a SECOND of
time to LEAVE THE CREASE, "AFTER the ball is released, it reaches the
batter, and batter strikes or defend the ball".

Look at all the fans here who DON'T even know HOW to THINK about the
MOST BASIC things, EXPECTING the bowler to be and do a super human
thing, while giving a PASS to the LOW IQ narrow minded greedy batter who
can do the "SIMPLEST OF THINGS" without even USING his brain 0.1% i.e to
keep his bat inside the fucking crease UNTIL the ball is RELEASED from
the bowlers hand.

Even fucking MONKEYS can be EASILY TRAINED to keep the fucking bat
inside the crease UNTIL the ball is released from bowler's hand.

THAT SIMPLE.

This ANALYSIS is so fucking "SIMPLE and REALISTIC" but YET TOOO
COMPLICATED for all of you AND the dumbfuck umpires and ICC clowns.

Another proof that, Human intelligence is THE MOST OVER RATED thing on
the planet.

I hate myself for being BORN on the WRONG fucking planet.

Clown Richard Dixon got all the white folks on rsc to gang up on me
PRIVATELY in the last few days.

Just an observation. NOT that I give a fuck.

On 1/4/2023 1:21 PM, 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?
>
> 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".
>

There is NO analogy between this issue and DRS.

It is VERY SIMPLE for any batter NOT TO KNOW when it is safe to leave
the crease.

It's called COMMON SENSE.

"In the 17th over of South Africa's second innings, Starc pulled out of
his delivery stride when he saw de Bruyn was backing up well out of his
crease. "Stay in the crease, it's not that hard," he was heard saying
over the stump microphone. "

People are still just NOT getting this SIMPLE THING.

STAY in the fucking CREASE UNTIL the ball is RELEASED.....It's NOT THAT
HARD.

On 03/01/2023 13:22, 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?

Here's the MCC statement on the incident:

===
MCC HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL QUERIES REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED RUNNING OUT OF
THE NON-STRIKER IN A BIG BASH LEAGUE GAME BETWEEN MELBOURNE RENEGADES
AND MELBOURNE STARS TODAY.

The bowler, Adam Zampa, attempted to Run out the non-striker, Tom
Rogers, who was given not out by the umpires.

Law 38.3 states:

“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.”

The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to release
the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in that
bowler’s action.

The non-striker is no longer able to be Run out in this way after the
bowler has reached the highest point in his/her action. This is so that
the bowler cannot pretend to bowl the ball in order to tempt the
non-striker out of his/her ground, go through his/her action, and then
come all the way round and attempt a Run out.

The umpires correctly gave the non-striker (Rogers) not out, as the
bowler (Zampa) had not attempted the Run out before going past the point
at which he would normally be expected to release the ball.

As with all incidents regarding the running out of the non-striker, MCC
would like to re-iterate that the best way for non-strikers to prevent
being Run out is to remain in their ground until they see the ball
released by the bowler.
===

https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-statement-on-run-out-at-non-striker-s-end-in-t

If "The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to
release the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in
that bowler’s action", where has that definition appeared previously,
and why didn't they put it in the Laws?

As for "so that the bowler cannot pretend to bowl the ball in order to
tempt the non-striker out of his/her ground ...", that doesn't explain
why a non-striker who has already left their ground before the "highest
point" should no longer be liable to be run out once that point is reached.

--
David North

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:08:58 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > 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
> Normally would have been expected to release the ball is when the ball leaves the bowler's hand.

The law explicitly says "expected to", not "actually does".

This is for, you know, Mankad attempts (when the bowler doesn't release the ball, but instead attempts a run out).

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:46:47 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> There is NO analogy between this issue and DRS.

Putting aside for now ICC playing condition vs MCC Law...

I absolutely believe there is, or will be as things get worse, a similarity between Mankads and DRS.

DRS came in because fans were pissed off that time and time again simple TV replays (all we had for a while) showed clear umpiring mistakes. The result? Fans got pissed off.
As an India, you should be well aware of this. Remember Bucknor and Sydney? Waaaaa, Sydney?

Fans getting pissed off is not good for the sport.
No one gets pissed off when a beautiful delivery bowls a batsman.
No one gets pissed off when a great catch is taken.

So, so many Mankads result in news articles about fans being angry, players crying, coaches getting pissed off.

There WILL be another change to Mankad laws. They'll be cleaned up. It's just a question of when.

On 1/5/2023 12:00 AM, David North wrote:
> On 03/01/2023 13:22, 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?
>
> Here's the MCC statement on the incident:
>
> ===
> MCC HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL QUERIES REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED RUNNING OUT OF
> THE NON-STRIKER IN A BIG BASH LEAGUE GAME BETWEEN MELBOURNE RENEGADES
> AND MELBOURNE STARS TODAY.
>
> The bowler, Adam Zampa, attempted to Run out the non-striker, Tom
> Rogers, who was given not out by the umpires.
>
> Law 38.3 states:
>
> “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.”
>
> The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to release
> the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in that
> bowler’s action.
>
> The non-striker is no longer able to be Run out in this way after the
> bowler has reached the highest point in his/her action. This is so that
> the bowler cannot pretend to bowl the ball in order to tempt the
> non-striker out of his/her ground, go through his/her action, and then
> come all the way round and attempt a Run out.
>
> The umpires correctly gave the non-striker (Rogers) not out, as the
> bowler (Zampa) had not attempted the Run out before going past the point
> at which he would normally be expected to release the ball.
>
> As with all incidents regarding the running out of the non-striker, MCC
> would like to re-iterate that the best way for non-strikers to prevent
> being Run out is to remain in their ground until they see the ball
> released by the bowler.
> ===
>
> https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-statement-on-run-out-at-non-striker-s-end-in-t
>
> If "The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to
> release the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in
> that bowler’s action", where has that definition appeared previously,
> and why didn't they put it in the Laws?
>
> As for "so that the bowler cannot pretend to bowl the ball in order to
> tempt the non-striker out of his/her ground ...", that doesn't explain
> why a non-striker who has already left their ground before the "highest
> point" should no longer be liable to be run out once that point is reached.
>

Just IMAGINE if the ICC clowns said in the laws, "the batter is liable
to be run out if he leaves the crease, as long as the ball is still in
bowlers hands", HOW MANY arguments and emotions of cricket fans,
players, umpires would have been AVOIDED in the last FEW YEARS.

Just a SIMPLE logical "line".

Hard to believe that cricket fans and umpires EXPECT bowler to do
"superhuman things" while NOT asking the greedy batter to do the
"SIMPLEST THING" possible.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:00:04 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 03/01/2023 13:22, 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?
> Here's the MCC statement on the incident:
>
> ===
> MCC HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL QUERIES REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED RUNNING OUT OF
> THE NON-STRIKER IN A BIG BASH LEAGUE GAME BETWEEN MELBOURNE RENEGADES
> AND MELBOURNE STARS TODAY.
>
> The bowler, Adam Zampa, attempted to Run out the non-striker, Tom
> Rogers, who was given not out by the umpires.
>
> Law 38.3 states:
>
> “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.”
>
> The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to release
> the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in that
> bowler’s action.
>
> The non-striker is no longer able to be Run out in this way after the
> bowler has reached the highest point in his/her action. This is so that
> the bowler cannot pretend to bowl the ball in order to tempt the
> non-striker out of his/her ground, go through his/her action, and then
> come all the way round and attempt a Run out.
>
> The umpires correctly gave the non-striker (Rogers) not out, as the
> bowler (Zampa) had not attempted the Run out before going past the point
> at which he would normally be expected to release the ball.
>
> As with all incidents regarding the running out of the non-striker, MCC
> would like to re-iterate that the best way for non-strikers to prevent
> being Run out is to remain in their ground until they see the ball
> released by the bowler.
> ===
>
> https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-statement-on-run-out-at-non-striker-s-end-in-t
>
> If "The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to
> release the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in
> that bowler’s action", where has that definition appeared previously,
> and why didn't they put it in the Laws?
>
> As for "so that the bowler cannot pretend to bowl the ball in order to
> tempt the non-striker out of his/her ground ...", that doesn't explain
> why a non-striker who has already left their ground before the "highest
> point" should no longer be liable to be run out once that point is reached.

That's a very helpful press release from the MCC, thanks for finding it and posting the link

This is the first time I've ever heard of the MCC's definition of "expected to release" as being "highest point" (I would add that close to ZERO bowlers release the ball at the highest point, typical MCC). Whilst I don't read much on the MCC website, I do read almost every article I can on Mankads, and I've never seen this mentioned.

I'm glad the MCC acknowledges the issue about deception/trickery that I for so long have said is the real bad part about Mankads. Many here have said this isn't possible and isn't an issue. It clearly is. It's this deception that leads to aggravation, something cricket can do without.

I do wish the Law said "highest point", as it's a billion times clearer than as it stands.

And yes, this clears up the interpretation regarding "is a non-striker who was liable to be run out still liable if that point is reached". Good to know.

thanks again.

Armed with this new knowledge that a non-striker can't be run out once the bowler's hand reaches the *highest point* in their delivery action, I predict the following is now going to happen;

1. teams will be given this info, if they haven't already (I assume they haven't... I'd love to ask Zampa)
2. bowlers will continue their deceptive/trickery Mankads by pulling in their bowling arm during the delivery action (like a chicken wing). This lets them complete as much of the delivery as possible before making the non-striker safe.
3. everyone will continue to get upset at these deceptive Mankads
4. 5-10 years from now the MCC will see the light and change the "safe point" to when the bowler's front foot lands in the delivery stride. This is something that is almost impossible to fake. It requires no interpretation that isn't already happening eg front-foot no ball rulings.

On 1/5/2023 12:16 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:08:58 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> 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
>> Normally would have been expected to release the ball is when the ball leaves the bowler's hand.
>
> The law explicitly says "expected to", not "actually does".
>
> This is for, you know, Mankad attempts (when the bowler doesn't release the ball, but instead attempts a run out).

Who DEFINES "expected to"?

NOT a single bowler releases the ball when the hand is in "FULL VERTICAL
POSITION".

Fans, umpires, ICC and MCC clowns are INTERPRETING the law the WAY they
LIKE and WANT, without FOCUSING on the "REALITY".

All those jokers are EXPECTING bowlers TO DO "superhuman things", when
the jokers themselves are SO POOR in their own perception and analytical
abilities, whose brains couldn't even process a SIMPLE VIDEO frame by frame.

Human beings are an AMUSING and DISGUSTING species.

Sheeesh.....

On 1/5/2023 12:20 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:46:47 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> There is NO analogy between this issue and DRS.
>
> Putting aside for now ICC playing condition vs MCC Law...
>
> I absolutely believe there is, or will be as things get worse, a similarity between Mankads and DRS.
>
> DRS came in because fans were pissed off that time and time again simple TV replays (all we had for a while) showed clear umpiring mistakes. The result? Fans got pissed off.
> As an India, you should be well aware of this. Remember Bucknor and Sydney? Waaaaa, Sydney?
>
> Fans getting pissed off is not good for the sport.
> No one gets pissed off when a beautiful delivery bowls a batsman.
> No one gets pissed off when a great catch is taken.
>
> So, so many Mankads result in news articles about fans being angry, players crying, coaches getting pissed off.
>
> There WILL be another change to Mankad laws. They'll be cleaned up. It's just a question of when.

All ICC has to do is say this one fucking line, in the laws.

Batters are liable to be run out if they leave the crease, before the
bowler releases the ball from his hand.

CASE CLOSED.

What the fuck is the ICC waiting for?

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:08:36 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/5/2023 12:16 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:08:58 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>> 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
> >> Normally would have been expected to release the ball is when the ball leaves the bowler's hand.
> >
> > The law explicitly says "expected to", not "actually does".
> >
> > This is for, you know, Mankad attempts (when the bowler doesn't release the ball, but instead attempts a run out).
> Who DEFINES "expected to"?

The umpires in charge of the game.
If it's not clear to you, I HATE this part of the Law.
It's clearer now that we know "expected to" means "highest point".

> NOT a single bowler releases the ball when the hand is in "FULL VERTICAL
> POSITION".

I just said this.

MCC are bumpkins who might not even play cricket.

On 1/5/2023 12:28 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:00:04 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On 03/01/2023 13:22, 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?
>> Here's the MCC statement on the incident:
>>
>> ===
>> MCC HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL QUERIES REGARDING THE ATTEMPTED RUNNING OUT OF
>> THE NON-STRIKER IN A BIG BASH LEAGUE GAME BETWEEN MELBOURNE RENEGADES
>> AND MELBOURNE STARS TODAY.
>>
>> The bowler, Adam Zampa, attempted to Run out the non-striker, Tom
>> Rogers, who was given not out by the umpires.
>>
>> Law 38.3 states:
>>
>> “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.”
>>
>> The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to release
>> the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in that
>> bowler’s action.
>>
>> The non-striker is no longer able to be Run out in this way after the
>> bowler has reached the highest point in his/her action. This is so that
>> the bowler cannot pretend to bowl the ball in order to tempt the
>> non-striker out of his/her ground, go through his/her action, and then
>> come all the way round and attempt a Run out.
>>
>> The umpires correctly gave the non-striker (Rogers) not out, as the
>> bowler (Zampa) had not attempted the Run out before going past the point
>> at which he would normally be expected to release the ball.
>>
>> As with all incidents regarding the running out of the non-striker, MCC
>> would like to re-iterate that the best way for non-strikers to prevent
>> being Run out is to remain in their ground until they see the ball
>> released by the bowler.
>> ===
>>
>> https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-statement-on-run-out-at-non-striker-s-end-in-t
>>
>> If "The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to
>> release the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in
>> that bowler’s action", where has that definition appeared previously,
>> and why didn't they put it in the Laws?
>>
>> As for "so that the bowler cannot pretend to bowl the ball in order to
>> tempt the non-striker out of his/her ground ...", that doesn't explain
>> why a non-striker who has already left their ground before the "highest
>> point" should no longer be liable to be run out once that point is reached.
>
> That's a very helpful press release from the MCC, thanks for finding it and posting the link
>
> This is the first time I've ever heard of the MCC's definition of "expected to release" as being "highest point" (I would add that close to ZERO bowlers release the ball at the highest point, typical MCC). Whilst I don't read much on the MCC website, I do read almost every article I can on Mankads, and I've never seen this mentioned.
>
> I'm glad the MCC acknowledges the issue about deception/trickery that I for so long have said is the real bad part about Mankads. Many here have said this isn't possible and isn't an issue. It clearly is. It's this deception that leads to aggravation, something cricket can do without.
>
> I do wish the Law said "highest point", as it's a billion times clearer than as it stands.
>
> And yes, this clears up the interpretation regarding "is a non-striker who was liable to be run out still liable if that point is reached". Good to know.
>
> thanks again.
>

WHY the fuck should ICC umpires give a fuck about what MCC says and
their interpretations?

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> WHY the fuck should ICC umpires give a fuck about what MCC says and
> their interpretations?

I was actually talking about grassroots cricket. These laws apply there.

On 1/5/2023 12:42 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> Armed with this new knowledge that a non-striker can't be run out once the bowler's hand reaches the *highest point* in their delivery action, I predict the following is now going to happen;
>
> 1. teams will be given this info, if they haven't already (I assume they haven't... I'd love to ask Zampa)
> 2. bowlers will continue their deceptive/trickery Mankads by pulling in their bowling arm during the delivery action (like a chicken wing). This lets them complete as much of the delivery as possible before making the non-striker safe.
> 3. everyone will continue to get upset at these deceptive Mankads
> 4. 5-10 years from now the MCC will see the light and change the "safe point" to when the bowler's front foot lands in the delivery stride. This is something that is almost impossible to fake. It requires no interpretation that isn't already happening eg front-foot no ball rulings.
>

Sorry to burst your bubble.

None of these are gonna happen.

There is NO deception or trickery in Deepti's or Zampa's mankading
batters out.

It is just your personal emotions and perceptions.

It's the batters who are actually CHEATING in REALITY, NOT the bowlers.

Why is there stigma involved in running out a non-striker? Because it's
all about power
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.sport.cricket/c/75rlSZSPRv4/m/l7NHbG_eBQAJ

BCCI must take the INITIATIVE and IMPOSE on the fucking ICC, and add
that one line to the laws.

Wish I have power, I would have SOLVED this fucking problem years ago.

On 1/5/2023 1:22 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> WHY the fuck should ICC umpires give a fuck about what MCC says and
>> their interpretations?
>
> I was actually talking about grassroots cricket. These laws apply there.

Grassroots cricket in England.

Not in India, WI, Pak, SL, Bdesh, SA, NZ and Aus.

On 1/5/2023 1:13 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:08:36 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/5/2023 12:16 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 5:08:58 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>> Normally would have been expected to release the ball is when the ball leaves the bowler's hand.
>>>
>>> The law explicitly says "expected to", not "actually does".
>>>
>>> This is for, you know, Mankad attempts (when the bowler doesn't release the ball, but instead attempts a run out).
>> Who DEFINES "expected to"?
>
> The umpires in charge of the game.

But they are interpreting the WAY, they like and want INSTEAD of
thinking and analyzing WHAT IS FAIR and what is IMPOSSIBLE for bowlers
to do.

> If it's not clear to you, I HATE this part of the Law.

It is perfectly clear to me, because I have SIMPLE COMMON SENSE which
umpires, players, fans and ICC clowns DON'T have.

> It's clearer now that we know "expected to" means "highest point".

ICC DIDN'T say it.

What MCC says is their interpretation for England.

>
>> NOT a single bowler releases the ball when the hand is in "FULL VERTICAL
>> POSITION".
>
> I just said this.
>
> MCC are bumpkins who might not even play cricket.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:35:10 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> ICC DIDN'T say it.
> What MCC says is their interpretation for England.

The ICC follow the MCC Laws of Cricket very closely.
If you know of any Laws the ICC don't follow I'd love to hear them.

On 1/5/2023 2:24 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:35:10 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> ICC DIDN'T say it.
>> What MCC says is their interpretation for England.
>
> The ICC follow the MCC Laws of Cricket very closely.
> If you know of any Laws the ICC don't follow I'd love to hear them.

Show me where ICC said they will follow MCC rule on Mankading.

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 8:56:11 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Show me where ICC said they will follow MCC rule on Mankading.

https://resources.pulse.icc-cricket.com/ICC/document/2022/11/03/a77313c1-1984-4800-a94d-2b43f69ee606/WTC2-Playing-Conditions-October-2022-1-.pdf

38.3 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early
38.3.1 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
by the bowler attempting to run him/her out. In these circumstances, the non- striker will be out Run out if he/she is
out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is broken by the bowler throwing the ball at the wicket or by the bowler’s
hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.

The wording of the MCC Law;

https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out

38.3 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early

38.3.1 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. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.

On 1/5/2023 3:33 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 8:56:11 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Show me where ICC said they will follow MCC rule on Mankading.
>
> https://resources.pulse.icc-cricket.com/ICC/document/2022/11/03/a77313c1-1984-4800-a94d-2b43f69ee606/WTC2-Playing-Conditions-October-2022-1-.pdf
>
> 38.3 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early
> 38.3.1 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
> by the bowler attempting to run him/her out. In these circumstances, the non- striker will be out Run out if he/she is
> out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is broken by the bowler throwing the ball at the wicket or by the bowler’s
> hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.
>
> The wording of the MCC Law;
>
> https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/run-out
>
> 38.3 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early
>
> 38.3.1 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. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.
>
>

So, basically the ICC clowns COPIED MCC law "WITHOUT even thinking"
whether the law is clear or not, whether players, umpires and fans will
interpret the law ANY WHICH WAY they LIKE or WANT, whether it will
create any controversies etc.

Despite many controversies so far, ICC hasn't made ANY amendments to the
law and make it crystal clear for the dumb emotional human species.

This is exactly why I said that BCCI should take the INITIATIVE and get
it done right away and make it CRYSTAL CLEAR with this SIMPLE fucking line:

Batter is liable to be run out if leaves his/her crease, as long as the
ball is still in bowlers hand and it is NOT released.

Quite SIMPLE to FOLLOW and ABIDE BY for all players, fans, umpires and
officials.

MCC's and 3rd umpire's interpretation that the bowler is expected to
release the ball right after his hand crosses the VERTICAL is STILL WRONG.

It would be impossible for bowlers to PROCESS so many things in split
second of time and HENCE the "ONUS" should be PUT on the batter whose
brain is COMPLETELY FREE and even monkey IQ is enough for them to KEEP
the fucking bat in the crease UNTIL the ball is released from bowler's
hands.

There is absolutely NOTHING to argue against what I said, and that's the
BEST POSSIBLE SIMPLE LOGICAL SOLUTION, which will satisfy every fan,
player, umpire and official to ADJUDICATE and ACCEPT.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:00:00 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>If "The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to
>release the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in
>that bowler’s action", where has that definition appeared previously,
>and why didn't they put it in the Laws?

I don't know where it previously appeared, and I don't know why they
didn't put it in the Laws, but on the latter point, I have a guess.

Mankadding has never been common. The methods of executing a mankad
are many, depending on exactly when and where the bowler decides to
pull out of his action. At least until very, very recently, mankadding
was essentially provoked by a batter repeatedly infringing - eg
Charlie Dean doing it 70-odd times before being mankadded. So quite a
few of them have been bowlers effectively stopping and casually
knocking the bails off from a standing position.

The aim of the Law is very clear: batters should stay in their creases
until the ball is delivered, but bowlers are not allowed to hold on to
the ball rather than deliver it just so they can catch the batter out.

The Law as it stands has not been through much testing. It's a rare
event, and has had multiple forms. Players are more inclined to try
and use it nowadays, so it's now getting the stress-testing which
shows where the faultlines are. These recent discussions have in
effect suggested three different definitions of exactly when the
batter becomes immune, so it's already clear that whatever more exact
definition were in the current Law, jzf at least would be explaining
how it was totally inadequate.

As mankadding becomes more common, as it almost certainly will, he
will no doubt have endless fun picking holes in the wording of the Law
as it evolves.

However, it is delusional to maintain that specifying the moment when
the back foot lifts (or whatever) is going to stop people booing from
moral outrage that a mankad has been attempted. People don't like
mankads and will boo them. I don't like Steve Smith and would
certainly consider booing him, but I'm not advocating a change to the
Laws of Cricket to stop him happening.

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 4:45:44 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 08:00:00 +0000, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >If "The point at which the bowler would normally been expected to
> >release the ball has long been defined by MCC as the highest point in
> >that bowler’s action", where has that definition appeared previously,
> >and why didn't they put it in the Laws?
> I don't know where it previously appeared, and I don't know why they
> didn't put it in the Laws, but on the latter point, I have a guess.
>
> Mankadding has never been common. The methods of executing a mankad
> are many, depending on exactly when and where the bowler decides to
> pull out of his action. At least until very, very recently, mankadding
> was essentially provoked by a batter repeatedly infringing - eg
> Charlie Dean doing it 70-odd times before being mankadded.

Not sure if that's the best example as that happened recently. *After* the Law change.
We don't know if Dean was particularly egregious (I think she was) nor how big a part the new, confusing, Laws played in that.

> The aim of the Law is very clear: batters should stay in their creases
> until the ball is delivered, but bowlers are not allowed to hold on to
> the ball rather than deliver it just so they can catch the batter out.

And 3 (if not implied by your second point), to reduce deception/trickery.

> The Law as it stands has not been through much testing. It's a rare
> event, and has had multiple forms. Players are more inclined to try
> and use it nowadays, so it's now getting the stress-testing which
> shows where the faultlines are.

Oh, woe is Me(MCC). How could we have possibly known the new Laws had issues?!?! We need to play test them first...
The flaws in the new Laws were bloody obvious to me on day 1, and they should've been bloody obvious to the MCC.
All they had to do is watch 3 matches of Indoor Cricket, where Mankadding is simply part of the game (no stigma, no drama, it's a traditional skill). That would've proven to them that bowlers have a whole suite of methods to "trick" the non-striker out of the crease.
The rest is human nature. If those tricks imported into outdoor cricket, friction was bound to happen.

> These recent discussions have in
> effect suggested three different definitions of exactly when the
> batter becomes immune, so it's already clear that whatever more exact
> definition were in the current Law, jzf at least would be explaining
> how it was totally inadequate.

And this is the issue with the current Law.
No one bloody knows when the non-striker can leave the crease.
"Expect to release the ball" is vague.
Defining it as "highest point of delivery" is an improvement, but that's not actually in the Law.
It's still not as black and white as "front foot landing", though.

> As mankadding becomes more common, as it almost certainly will, he
> will no doubt have endless fun picking holes in the wording of the Law
> as it evolves.

So long as it evolves. As it is, it's a dog's breakfast.

> However, it is delusional to maintain that specifying the moment when
> the back foot lifts (or whatever)

oh god. PLEASE tell the MCC aren't considering this....

> is going to stop people booing from
> moral outrage that a mankad has been attempted. People don't like
> mankads and will boo them. I don't like Steve Smith and would
> certainly consider booing him, but I'm not advocating a change to the
> Laws of Cricket to stop him happening.

Yeah, the culture change will take time. I do applaud the MCC for attempting to shift the culture from "Mankads are bad" to "Mankads are totally acceptable". They should be acceptable, so long as deception/trickery by the bowler is minimised (ideally to the point of non-existence).

That's NOT going to happen under today's Laws, though.