On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:47:34 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> > 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.

If today's law changed to;

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's front-foot lands in their delivery stride***, 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.

Here's what I would complain about;

1. More clarification in the wording is needed regarding what David and I have discussed at length - is a batsman who leaves early (liable to be run out) then made safe (ie can't be run out) if the bowler's front foot subsequently lands? We now know with today's Law they ARE then safe, but I don't think it's clear enough.

I really can't think of any other flaws with this proposed change.
There *might* be some issues with bowlers saying "I pulled out of my delivery stride so my front foot landing didn't count", but those same issues exist today (a bowler could say it wasn't their delivery swing so the ball never reached the highest point). It occurs to me these issues are possible as a bowler IS allowed to pull out of their delivery stride eg they realise their front-foot is over the line.
If these issues are real, they're equal and real in both versions of the Law.
However my proposed change will still benefit from the clarity (front foot landing vs expect to release ball).

The final part, "whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered" seemed strange but it's then for when the bowler attempts a run out THEN delivers the ball THEN appeals for the run out.

On 1/5/2023 2:47 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> 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.
>

No cricket fan, player, umpire, official are as obsessed as you are with
the mankad law.

Charlie Dean and other batters have been "CHEATING" for a long time.

Even a monkey can be EASILY TAUGHT to STAY in the fucking crease UNTIL
the ball is released from bowler's hands.

Charlie Dean OR for that matter ANY other international batter read the
law and "DECIDED", that they can leave the crease once the bowler's hand
"REACHED THE VERTICAL".

IF, that's the case, then batters would be WATCHING bowlers hands, but
they WEREN'T looking the bowlers AT ALL.....

This is a fucking joke, REALLY.....

>> 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.
>

How many bowlers deceived or tricked batters in the entire history of
international cricket?

Compare that with HOW MANY BATTERS "CHEATED" by leaving the crease early
and taking ADVANTAGE of bowlers' GENEROSITY.

>> 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.

For your information, MCC told the deceptive cheating batters FOUR
months ago to STAY IN THE fucking CREASE "UNTIL" the ball is released
from the bowler's hands.

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
"MCC's message to non-strikers continues to be to remain in their ground
until they have seen the ball leave the bowler's hand.

Four months ago MCC said "Stay in the fucking crease UNTIL the ball is
released from bowlers hands"

Yesterday, MCC said "when the bowlers' hand reaches VERTICAL POINT".

As I proved many times before, western whites are a RACE of fucking
jokers. Their intelligence is THE MOST OVER RATED thing in the Universe.

> 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.

You are STUCK on bowlers deceiving batters, when IN REALITY, it is the
BATTERS who have been CHEATING in the entire history of cricket by
taking ADVANTAGE of bowlers' GENEROSITY.

You and the rest of the uksc'ers have NO ANSWER for this writer's
ANALYSIS and "CORRECT CONCLUSION" that the "ONUS" is on the BATTERS "NOT
TO CHEAT".

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

We Indians should IMPOSE on the CONFUSED GENDER, CONFUSED THINKING
Western Whites whose mere existence CREATES PROBLEMS for every human on
the planet.

I hope you and the rest of the uksc'ers get out of the mindset that
"your opinion about mankads is right", and PROCESS the "REALITY" and
CHANGE your views.

On 05/01/2023 09:35, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> 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.

As it is the MCC who make the Laws, they are best placed to know what
they meant by them.

--
David North

On 05/01/2023 09:13, 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.
> 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.

We now know (apparently) that if the "expected to release" point is
reached before the wicket is broken, the non-striker cannot be run out.
Whether the non-striker left his ground before or after that point
doesn't actually matter.

That being the case, ISTM that the exact position of the "expected to
release" point isn't critical, because if the bowler reaches the highest
point in their delivery swing, they are extremely unlikely not to reach
the point, a bit further on, where most of us would expect them to
release the ball. Neither are they likely to break the wicket between
those two points unless they are less than two feet tall!

--
David North

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 18:45:41 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>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.

That was not intended to suggest trial periods and the like. All Law
changes, just about, are occasioned because in practice, the Law fails
the test of delivering the desired result. The hard cases which occur
in practice are the ones which test the adequacy of the Law. After 150
years, the HTB Law needed tweaking when Michael Vaughan put his hand
on the ball on the ground and was (correctly) given out, but the
resultant furore led to some clarification. Rarely-used Laws are much
less likely to be 100% clear than something like lbw which is used
every innings.

As the soon-to-be New Zealand supporter keeps telling us, this is
because of T20. In f-c cricket, nobody really cares about the odd run
here or there, and batters generally aren't taking the piss. In T20, a
single run is often crucial and trying to steal one is de rigueur for
non-strikers, and that makes bowlers a lot more likely to want to stop
them. It was inevitable that mankadding would become more prevalent.

MCC responded to the increasing number of queries about whether
mankadding was legal by moving it to Law 38 to underline legality. Jzf
wasn't busy writing to them with his concerns, so they dealt with the
issues which actually had been brought to their attention. Nobody was
writing to MCC to ask their advice on mankadding in ways which
suggested that they needed to revisit the definition of when the
batter was safe, mostly because people were clear in their minds what
was intended and weren't spending their time dreaming up borderline
cases.

The people at MCC who propose Law changes consult extensively with the
World Cricket Committee, which consists mostly of former top players
who know a lot about cricket in practice. They don't tend to be
obsessive nerds whose only interest in the Laws is how to make them as
unworkable as possible.

Cheers,

Mike

On 05/01/2023 09:11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> 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?

Presumably the ICC, like the MCC, does not want the bowler to be able to
go through their action without releasing the ball in the hope that the
non-striker will be fooled into leaving their ground. Neither do I,
because I want to watch cricket, not a silly cat-and-mouse game at the
non-striker's end. I don't want the non-striker to leave their ground
before the point when the bowler would normally release the ball, and if
they do so, they deserve to get run out, but neither do I particularly
want the non-striker to have to watch like a hawk to make sure that the
bowler does actually release the ball.

--
David North

On 1/6/2023 9:53 AM, David North wrote:
> On 05/01/2023 09:35, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> As it is the MCC who make the Laws, they are best placed to know what
> they meant by them.
>

When did MCC make this particular mankad law? The approximate actual date.

How long did they WAIT "before" telling the cricket fraternity three
days ago that bowlers expected release is VERTICAL POSITION, that too
AFTER an aussie umpire RULED IT SO on his own, the previous day.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:39:17 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Presumably the ICC, like the MCC, does not want the bowler to be able to
>go through their action without releasing the ball in the hope that the
>non-striker will be fooled into leaving their ground. Neither do I,
>because I want to watch cricket, not a silly cat-and-mouse game at the
>non-striker's end. I don't want the non-striker to leave their ground
>before the point when the bowler would normally release the ball, and if
>they do so, they deserve to get run out, but neither do I particularly
>want the non-striker to have to watch like a hawk to make sure that the
>bowler does actually release the ball.

I agree with that, and I think that is the clear intention of the
current Law. The exact technical details are clearly being debated, so
the Law does not necessarily fulfil the intention perfectly.

What is the purpose of a Law on mankadding? Generally speaking Laws
specify things people must do or people must not do, and then over
time hedge it around with qualifications because what people must do
or not do is sometimes unrealistic or seems wildly unfair.

This Law is clearly not intended to make mankadding illegal:
mankadding is legal because batters are bastards who will steal runs
if they aren't stopped.

The qualifications have to be added in when bowlers start playing
silly buggers and ruining the game.

Umpires can see when bowlers are playing silly buggers, whether there
are specific criteria or not.

The problem with "arm reaching the vertical" is that it means that a
bowler who spots a batter two yards out of his ground after he's
started the arm's upswing is almost certain not to be able to execute
a mankad because his arm will necessarily go up and may well reach the
vertical through natural momentum. Especially if he plonks his foot
down early because he's going to turn and shy at the stumps.

In other circumstances, sure, the arm reaching the vertical is pretty
incontrovertible evidence that the bowler holding on to the ball was
playing silly buggers.

So I'd guess that "arm reaching the vertical" is one of the various
phrases in Tom Smith explaining how an umpire ought to deal with
mankads and the possibility that the bowler's not playing fair. No one
piece of evidence is conclusive but equally, no more than one piece of
evidence need be conclusive.

Mr Nitpicker will recoil in disgust at the suggestion that umpires'
opinions about what constitutes cheating are likely to be far more
reliable than a spreadsheet with tickboxes specifying things to the
nearest millimetre, but I'd be a lot more confident in the decision if
the square leg and bowler's end umpires had a discussion about what
they've seen than for people to pore over rulebooks.

Cheers,

Mike

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 4:43:39 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> That being the case, ISTM that the exact position of the "expected to
> release" point isn't critical, because if the bowler reaches the highest
> point in their delivery swing, they are extremely unlikely not to reach
> the point, a bit further on, where most of us would expect them to
> release the ball. Neither are they likely to break the wicket between
> those two points unless they are less than two feet tall!

I agree with all that.

I still don't like vague Laws.

If umpires are to treat (and rule based on) "expected to deliver" as meaning "reaching vertical", then I wish the laws just said the latter.

Expected to Deliver == lots of doubt as to exact meaning. Bad for non-strikers.
Reaching Vertical == little doubt. An almost black and white event
Front-foot landing == essentially zero doubt. Black and white. Something that has been adjudged by umpires for 100+ years, and (at the grassroots level) are already watching for.

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 5:47:49 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> How long did they WAIT "before" telling the cricket fraternity three
> days ago that bowlers expected release is VERTICAL POSITION, that too
> AFTER an aussie umpire RULED IT SO on his own, the previous day.

Personally I find the MCC saying "their long held advice that expected to deliver == vertical position" is bullshit.

I've never;
1. seen a cricketing commentator mention this
2. seen it mentioned in this ng

I think the MCC are, slowly, starting to realise how vague "expect to release" is and are trying to cover their backsides.

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 5:11:39 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> All Law
> changes, just about, are occasioned because in practice, the Law fails
> the test of delivering the desired result. The hard cases which occur
> in practice are the ones which test the adequacy of the Law. After 150
> years, the HTB Law needed tweaking when Michael Vaughan put his hand
> on the ball on the ground and was (correctly) given out, but the
> resultant furore led to some clarification.

I thought the MCC didn't make Law changes based on furores.

These Mankads are causing more furores than the HTB Law.
A big part of that is historical perceptions of Mankads. That will hopefully change over time.
Another big part, though, is because of the deception/trickery the bowlers are performing to "force" a mankad.
That can be cleaned up by cleaning up the Law.

> The people at MCC who propose Law changes consult extensively with the
> World Cricket Committee, which consists mostly of former top players
> who know a lot about cricket in practice. They don't tend to be
> obsessive nerds whose only interest in the Laws is how to make them as
> unworkable as possible.

Anyone who thinks changing the safe point to "when bowler's front foot lands in delivery stride" is "unworkable" is a fucking, clueless idiot.

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:47:37 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 5:47:49 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > How long did they WAIT "before" telling the cricket fraternity three
> > days ago that bowlers expected release is VERTICAL POSITION, that too
> > AFTER an aussie umpire RULED IT SO on his own, the previous day.
> Personally I find the MCC saying "their long held advice that expected to deliver == vertical position" is bullshit.
>
> I've never;
> 1. seen a cricketing commentator mention this

Considering the number of commentators who show they don't know the straighforwards rules that doesn't mean anything

> 2. seen it mentioned in this ng

How many of us have seen the communications from the ICC to their umpires?
>
> I think the MCC are, slowly, starting to realise how vague "expect to release" is and are trying to cover their backsides.

What are your other obsessions?

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:02:56 AM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> Considering the number of commentators who show they don't know the straighforwards rules that doesn't mean anything

Have YOU ever seen it mentioned elsewhere? Before this week?

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:02:56 AM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> What are your other obsessions?

In this ng? Mainly limited to making the sport I love better. See my posts re DRS issues.

On 1/6/2023 11:39 AM, David North wrote:
> On 05/01/2023 09:11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Presumably the ICC, like the MCC, does not want the bowler to be able to
> go through their action without releasing the ball in the hope that the
> non-striker will be fooled into leaving their ground. Neither do I,
> because I want to watch cricket, not a silly cat-and-mouse game at the
> non-striker's end. I don't want the non-striker to leave their ground
> before the point when the bowler would normally release the ball, and if
> they do so, they deserve to get run out, but neither do I particularly
> want the non-striker to have to watch like a hawk to make sure that the
> bowler does actually release the ball.
>

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

Adding this one line to the LAW will ELIMINATE EVERY emotion and useless
argument from the game, fans, officials, players for good.

There WON'T be a cat and mouse game like you all wrongly "imagine",
because THIS LINE will make batters STOP LEAVING THE CREASE before the
ball is released.

Batters DON'T have to watch the bowlers like a hawk.

Peripheral vision is enough for the non-striker to PERCEIVE that the
ball is released from the hand, when the ball is in the air.

Batters DON'T have to WATCH the bowler's hand.

There is still "plenty of time" for the non-striker to LEAVE the crease,
after the ball is released, reaches the batter and batter defends or
strikes the ball.

Even a monkey can be EASILY TAUGHT to STAY in the fucking crease UNTIL
the ball is released from bowler's hands.

The "ONUS" is on the non-striker BATTERS "NOT TO CHEAT", NOT the bowlers
whose job this shitty law and interpretation is making MORE COMPLICATED
by "EXPECTING" him to keep an eye on non-striker's feet OR bat, WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY "focusing on his FRONT VIEW" towards the batter, thinking
about what ball to bowl, where to bowl, not to land his front foot
beyond the line and how to get the batsman out AND also if his bowling
arm CROSSED the vertical position.

Bowler is performing an ACTION (bowling to a PLAN) and his brain is
completely occupied with "ALL these FACTORS", WHILE the non-striker's
brain is COMPLETELY FREE.

Umpires have to watch the bowlers foot, non-strikers bat or foot,
whether bowlers arm CROSSED the vertical position ALL SIMULTANEOUSLY,
WHILE also using his brain TO THINK about and CALCULATE the bowlers
ANGLE of delivery to accurately adjudicate LBWs after the ball is bowled.

In simple parlance, it is called DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY to the
"LEAST BURDENED entity", which in this case is the NON-striker whose
brain is COMPLETELY FREE of any THINKING and STRESS.

All of your suggestions and ideas in this issue will make bowlers,
batters, umpires, fans, officials lives "UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED and
CONFUSED."

I will be really scared if ANY of you are on my jury, because NONE OF
YOU have good judgement, analytical skills, CLARITY OF VISION and THOUGHT.

I don't understand WHY NONE OF YOU can see these things which are AS
EASY AS adding 2+2 for me.

Human species really SCARE me because all of you are finding these
simple and logical explanations and especially "SOLUTIONS" in a simple
issue, "very difficult" to understand and more importantly "ACCEPT" them
as the BEST SOLUTIONS.

I PROCESS "REALITY" while all of you think and analyze like your brains
are programmed in the past.

I was born on the WRONG PLANET.

On 1/6/2023 4:13 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:39:17 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Presumably the ICC, like the MCC, does not want the bowler to be able to
>> go through their action without releasing the ball in the hope that the
>> non-striker will be fooled into leaving their ground. Neither do I,
>> because I want to watch cricket, not a silly cat-and-mouse game at the
>> non-striker's end. I don't want the non-striker to leave their ground
>> before the point when the bowler would normally release the ball, and if
>> they do so, they deserve to get run out, but neither do I particularly
>> want the non-striker to have to watch like a hawk to make sure that the
>> bowler does actually release the ball.
>
> I agree with that, and I think that is the clear intention of the
> current Law. The exact technical details are clearly being debated, so
> the Law does not necessarily fulfil the intention perfectly.
>
> What is the purpose of a Law on mankadding? Generally speaking Laws
> specify things people must do or people must not do, and then over
> time hedge it around with qualifications because what people must do
> or not do is sometimes unrealistic or seems wildly unfair.
>
> This Law is clearly not intended to make mankadding illegal:
> mankadding is legal because batters are bastards who will steal runs
> if they aren't stopped.
>
> The qualifications have to be added in when bowlers start playing
> silly buggers and ruining the game.

How many times did bowlers play silly buggers and ruin the game SO FAR,
compared to HOW MANY non-strikers CHEATED by leaving the crease EARLY in
international cricket's history?

>
> Umpires can see when bowlers are playing silly buggers, whether there
> are specific criteria or not.
>

NO, they CAN'T, because they are all humans with very poor perception
abilities.

Humans have OPINIONS and EMOTIONS.

Nothing more.

What if the bowler notices the batter leaving the crease early three
times in a row and hence DECIDES and EXECUTES the mankad the next ball,
BUT the batter for some reason DOESN'T LEAVE the crease?

HOW will the umpire DETERMINE IF the bowler is playing silly bugger.

None of you are understanding EVEN the "simplest of things".

NO WONDER, all of you find it EXTREMELY COMPLICATED when I describe with
columns and videos, HOW all of your brains are ILLEGALLY chipped and
LINKED to NSA GCHQ Supercomputer AI more than 15+ years ago WITHOUT your
knowledge and consent.

> The problem with "arm reaching the vertical" is that it means that a
> bowler who spots a batter two yards out of his ground after he's
> started the arm's upswing is almost certain not to be able to execute
> a mankad because his arm will necessarily go up and may well reach the
> vertical through natural momentum. Especially if he plonks his foot
> down early because he's going to turn and shy at the stumps.
>
> In other circumstances, sure, the arm reaching the vertical is pretty
> incontrovertible evidence that the bowler holding on to the ball was
> playing silly buggers.
>

Have you guys EVER bowled in the real world?

Do you even know HOW DIFFICULT it would be for bowlers to KEEP AN EYE on
non-strikers bat or foot on the ground, while also making sure his own
front foot DOESN'T land beyond the line AND ALSO keep his EYES FOCUSED
on the batter and the pitch SIMULTANEOUSLY and anticipating batter's
moves AND bowling accurately the ball he wanted to bowl and land it
exactly where he wanted to land?

> So I'd guess that "arm reaching the vertical" is one of the various
> phrases in Tom Smith explaining how an umpire ought to deal with
> mankads and the possibility that the bowler's not playing fair. No one
> piece of evidence is conclusive but equally, no more than one piece of
> evidence need be conclusive.
>

It's NOT the bowlers who are NOT playing fair.

It is the BATTERS who are CHEATING all the time.

All of you NEED to GET OUT OF THE MINDSET in this mankading issue,
created by some emotional idiots BACK IN THE 1960s when Vinoo Mankad
played, and ADAPT to the CURRENT standards, factors applicable to the
issue, just like you complain about the lunatic RH NOT adapting to
changing cricket standards.

The THOUGHT PROCESS of cricket officials, players, fans in the 1960s was
WRONG in Mankad issue and HENCE we should completely REMOVE it from our
brains and ACCEPT the NEW THINKING that the ONUS is on the BATTER, NOT
TO CHEAT especially T20s and ODIs where the outcome could be decided by
that one run.

> Mr Nitpicker will recoil in disgust at the suggestion that umpires'
> opinions about what constitutes cheating are likely to be far more
> reliable than a spreadsheet with tickboxes specifying things to the
> nearest millimetre, but I'd be a lot more confident in the decision if
> the square leg and bowler's end umpires had a discussion about what
> they've seen than for people to pore over rulebooks.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

On 1/6/2023 5:02 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:47:37 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 5:47:49 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> How long did they WAIT "before" telling the cricket fraternity three
>>> days ago that bowlers expected release is VERTICAL POSITION, that too
>>> AFTER an aussie umpire RULED IT SO on his own, the previous day.
>> Personally I find the MCC saying "their long held advice that expected to deliver == vertical position" is bullshit.
>>
>> I've never;
>> 1. seen a cricketing commentator mention this
>
> Considering the number of commentators who show they don't know the straighforwards rules that doesn't mean anything
>
>> 2. seen it mentioned in this ng
>
> How many of us have seen the communications from the ICC to their umpires?

If ICC communicated to umpires about VERTICAL POSITION rule, then either
ICC or MCC or Umpires would have publicly SAID SO, during Deepti's
mankading Charlie Dean a few months ago.

BUT none of them COMMENTED or CLARIFIED publicly and HENCE it didn't happen.

Quite simple conclusion.

>>
>> I think the MCC are, slowly, starting to realise how vague "expect to release" is and are trying to cover their backsides.
>
> What are your other obsessions?

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 5:08:25 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> If ICC communicated to umpires about VERTICAL POSITION rule, then either
> ICC or MCC or Umpires would have publicly SAID SO, during Deepti's
> mankading Charlie Dean a few months ago.

Also, the teams and players would know. Zampa wouldn't have swung his arm to the vertical position.

On 1/6/2023 11:13 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 5:08:25 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> If ICC communicated to umpires about VERTICAL POSITION rule, then either
>> ICC or MCC or Umpires would have publicly SAID SO, during Deepti's
>> mankading Charlie Dean a few months ago.
>
> Also, the teams and players would know. Zampa wouldn't have swung his arm to the vertical position.
>

Exactly.

Plz DON'T remove other comments in the thread, because some times the
context will be LOST, and there is NO harm to keep them anyway.

On 06/01/2023 19:47, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 9:53 AM, David North wrote:
>> On 05/01/2023 09:35, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> As it is the MCC who make the Laws, they are best placed to know what
>> they meant by them.
>>
>
>
>
> When did MCC make this particular mankad law? The approximate actual date.

It was introduced in the 2017 Code, which came into effect on 1 Oct 2017.

Previously the bowler was only permitted to attempt to run out the
non-striker "before entering his delivery stride".

--
David North

On 07/01/2023 07:08, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 5:02 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:47:37 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 5:47:49 AM UTC+10,
>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> How long did they WAIT "before" telling the cricket fraternity three
>>>> days ago that bowlers expected release is VERTICAL POSITION, that too
>>>> AFTER an aussie umpire RULED IT SO on his own, the previous day.
>>> Personally I find the MCC saying "their long held advice that
>>> expected to deliver == vertical position" is bullshit.
>>>
>>> I've never;
>>> 1. seen a cricketing commentator mention this
>>
>> Considering the number of commentators who show they don't know the
>> straighforwards rules that doesn't mean anything
>>
>>> 2. seen it mentioned in this ng
>>
>> How many of us have seen the communications from the ICC to their
>> umpires?
>
>
>
> If ICC communicated to umpires about VERTICAL POSITION rule, then either
> ICC or MCC or Umpires would have publicly SAID SO, during Deepti's
> mankading Charlie Dean a few months ago.

I doubt it, because Deepti aborted her action well before the highest
point - actually when her arm was more or less vertically _downwards_.
As with most Mankad attempts, no-one, whatever their interpretation,
would have thought she had reached the point where she was "expected to
release" the ball, so there would have been no need to mention exactly
where that point is.

--
David North

On 07/01/2023 07:13, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 5:08:25 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> If ICC communicated to umpires about VERTICAL POSITION rule, then either
>> ICC or MCC or Umpires would have publicly SAID SO, during Deepti's
>> mankading Charlie Dean a few months ago.
>
> Also, the teams and players would know.

Would they? Are all teams and players familiar with all details of
umpire training? I very much doubt it.

--
David North

On 07/01/2023 00:13, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:39:17 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Presumably the ICC, like the MCC, does not want the bowler to be able to
>> go through their action without releasing the ball in the hope that the
>> non-striker will be fooled into leaving their ground. Neither do I,
>> because I want to watch cricket, not a silly cat-and-mouse game at the
>> non-striker's end. I don't want the non-striker to leave their ground
>> before the point when the bowler would normally release the ball, and if
>> they do so, they deserve to get run out, but neither do I particularly
>> want the non-striker to have to watch like a hawk to make sure that the
>> bowler does actually release the ball.
>
> I agree with that, and I think that is the clear intention of the
> current Law. The exact technical details are clearly being debated, so
> the Law does not necessarily fulfil the intention perfectly.
>
> What is the purpose of a Law on mankadding? Generally speaking Laws
> specify things people must do or people must not do, and then over
> time hedge it around with qualifications because what people must do
> or not do is sometimes unrealistic or seems wildly unfair.
>
> This Law is clearly not intended to make mankadding illegal:
> mankadding is legal because batters are bastards who will steal runs
> if they aren't stopped.
>
> The qualifications have to be added in when bowlers start playing
> silly buggers and ruining the game.
>
> Umpires can see when bowlers are playing silly buggers, whether there
> are specific criteria or not.
>
> The problem with "arm reaching the vertical" is that it means that a
> bowler who spots a batter two yards out of his ground after he's
> started the arm's upswing is almost certain not to be able to execute
> a mankad because his arm will necessarily go up and may well reach the
> vertical through natural momentum. Especially if he plonks his foot
> down early because he's going to turn and shy at the stumps.
>
> In other circumstances, sure, the arm reaching the vertical is pretty
> incontrovertible evidence that the bowler holding on to the ball was
> playing silly buggers.
>
> So I'd guess that "arm reaching the vertical" is one of the various
> phrases in Tom Smith explaining how an umpire ought to deal with
> mankads and the possibility that the bowler's not playing fair. No one
> piece of evidence is conclusive but equally, no more than one piece of
> evidence need be conclusive.

It's notable that MCC's statement used the phrase "highest point",
rather than "vertical". That deals better with bowlers such as Lasith
Malinga, who arm never reached the vertical.

--
David North

On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 12:11:46 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 07/01/2023 00:13, Mike Holmans wrote:

>>
>> So I'd guess that "arm reaching the vertical" is one of the various
>> phrases in Tom Smith explaining how an umpire ought to deal with
>> mankads and the possibility that the bowler's not playing fair. No one
>> piece of evidence is conclusive but equally, no more than one piece of
>> evidence need be conclusive.
>
>It's notable that MCC's statement used the phrase "highest point",
>rather than "vertical". That deals better with bowlers such as Lasith
>Malinga, who arm never reached the vertical.

Indeed.

The more I think about this, the more impossible it seems to come up
with an exact "line" which would be definitive in every case, no
matter how weird the bowler's action or the physical constraints
involved in aborting an action which has begun.

If the aim is to prevent bowlers cheating, then the most reliable
determinant will be human observation of their precise actions in the
particular cases. Anything else, I would submit, will lead to
manifestly unfair results.

Cheers,

Mike

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 6:08:25 PM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/6/2023 5:02 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:47:37 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 5:47:49 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>> How long did they WAIT "before" telling the cricket fraternity three
> >>> days ago that bowlers expected release is VERTICAL POSITION, that too
> >>> AFTER an aussie umpire RULED IT SO on his own, the previous day.
> >> Personally I find the MCC saying "their long held advice that expected to deliver == vertical position" is bullshit.
> >>
> >> I've never;
> >> 1. seen a cricketing commentator mention this
> >
> > Considering the number of commentators who show they don't know the straighforwards rules that doesn't mean anything
> >
> >> 2. seen it mentioned in this ng
> >
> > How many of us have seen the communications from the ICC to their umpires?
> If ICC communicated to umpires about VERTICAL POSITION rule, then either
> ICC or MCC or Umpires would have publicly SAID SO, during Deepti's
> mankading Charlie Dean a few months ago.

Here's a video of that dismissal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR9cmXBOmFM

Considering how little the delivery arm moved the "past the point of where they would have delivered the ball" comes into it about as much as the rules on the boundary catches does for a slips catch so I don't see any reason to expect that it would have been discussed by the commentators
>
> BUT none of them COMMENTED or CLARIFIED publicly and HENCE it didn't happen.

Before the Neser catch how many times have we seen catches where the player throws the ball back before they cross the boundary without commentators pointing out that the fielder could jump in the air outside the field of play on a 2nd touch?