On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 6:13:34 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com 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.

look at the side on footage at https://www.cricket.com.au/video/adam-zampa-mankad-tom-rogers-melbourne-stars-renegades-derby-mcg-bbl12-big-bash-highlights/2023-01-03 (it starts about 40 seconds in) Zampa continues his delivery action until the arm has not only passed the vertical but it's past the horizontal, there's no effing way of arguing that he hasn't gone past "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" unless his normal delivery goes backwards
Seeing as he's clearly fucked up with the straight laws of the game how does him fucking up mean that the instructions haven't been passed on to players?

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:36:08 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> there's no effing way of arguing that he hasn't gone past "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball"

that certainly could be argued if he pulled out of his delivery and his hand didn't reach the point where it would normally release the ball. For example if in his normal delivery his hand is higher.
I'm not familiar with his action, so can't say. His hand looks quite high, though, most probably on its normal path.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 1:01:42 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:36:08 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> > there's no effing way of arguing that he hasn't gone past "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball"
> that certainly could be argued if he pulled out of his delivery and his hand didn't reach the point where it would normally release the ball. For example if in his normal delivery his hand is higher.
> I'm not familiar with his action, so can't say. His hand looks quite high, though, most probably on its normal path.

Have a fucking look at the video in the link FFS
That comment has nothing to do with the reality of what happened.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 06:19:04 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 1:01:42 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:36:08 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > there's no effing way of arguing that he hasn't gone past "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball"
>> that certainly could be argued if he pulled out of his delivery and his hand didn't reach the point where it would normally release the ball. For example if in his normal delivery his hand is higher.
>> I'm not familiar with his action, so can't say. His hand looks quite high, though, most probably on its normal path.
>
>Have a fucking look at the video in the link FFS
>That comment has nothing to do with the reality of what happened.

I wonder why someone who believes that the only thing to worry about
is the front foot landing is drivelling on about arm positions. It
couldn't be that determining whether a bowler was engaged in deception
is more complicated than a simpleton wishes to concede, could it?

Cheers,

Mike

On 1/7/2023 3:53 AM, David North wrote:
> 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_.

You think Deepti is okay in mankading , since her arm NEVER REACHED the
vertical position, but WHINING CUNT James Anderson and Sam Billings
still COMPLAINED EXACTLY the OPPOSITE for the SAME REASON, that she
didn't have any intention to bowl the ball.

None of you are understanding the points I made.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the bowler to be SUPERHUMAN to watch their
own foot for no ball, watch non-striker's foot/bat and action, focus on
the front view THINKING about what ball to bowl, where to land it, how
to get the batsman out, EVERYTHING SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Non-striker's BRAIN is COMPLETELY FREE.

So, the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT.

Batter can EASILY WAIT, "until" the ball is released from bowlers hand
and then LEAVE THE CREASE since they will have PLENTY OF TIME from the
MOMENT ball is released, it reaches the batter and batter plays a shot.

Non-striker is already 4 to 5 feet away from the crease with just the
bat inside the crease AND another 6 to 8 feet by the time the ball
reaches the batter and a shot is played.

So, effectively the non-striker is getting "at least" 10 feet advantage.

> 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.
>

Not true.

Since some players and fans already complained that Deepti had NO
intention of bowling the ball, and since there was a CONTROVERSY and
ARGUMENTS on either side, ICC, Umpires and MCC would have CLARIFIED to
the cricket fraternity about that "VERTICAL POSITION" if they THOUGHT or
had an IDEA about it.

MCC stated about this VERTICAL POSITION a few days ago, after Zampa's
incident, as an "AFTERTHOUGHT".

Did you NOTICE that SOME humans thought Deepti's bowling action is OKAY
to affect mankading and SOME humans thought EXACTLY the "opposite" that
she had NO intention of bowling the ball?

What can you conclude from it?

Human perception, reflexes and JUDGMENT skills vary, based on their
BIASES and hence there will ALWAYS be arguments and controversies UNLESS
the cricket administrators ADOPT and IMPLEMENT what I suggested ie.
SIMPLE NON-CONTROVERSIAL LOGICAL and FAIR solution for all parties.

If you or other fans here CAN'T come up with a BETTER solution than what
I suggested, then you all should ACCEPT it as the BEST SOLUTION and END
the argument.

On 1/7/2023 5:20 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> 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

I am cutting and pasting from my response to David North.

You think Deepti is okay in mankading , since her arm NEVER REACHED the
vertical position, but WHINING CUNT James Anderson and Sam Billings
still COMPLAINED EXACTLY the OPPOSITE for the SAME REASON, that she
didn't have any intention to bowl the ball.

None of you are understanding the points I made.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the bowler to be SUPERHUMAN to watch their
own foot for no ball, watch non-striker's foot/bat and action, focus on
the front view THINKING about what ball to bowl, where to land it, how
to get the batsman out, EVERYTHING SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Non-striker's BRAIN is COMPLETELY FREE.

So, the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT.

Batter can EASILY WAIT, "until" the ball is released from bowlers hand
and then LEAVE THE CREASE since they will have PLENTY OF TIME from the
MOMENT ball is released, it reaches the batter and batter plays a shot.

Non-striker is already 4 to 5 feet away from the crease with just the
bat inside the crease AND another 6 to 8 feet by the time the ball
reaches the batter and a shot is played.

So, effectively the non-striker is getting "at least" 10 feet advantage.

>>
>> 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?

Mankading controversies have been there and discussed, for a long time
where as Neser's catch is very unusual and hence NOT discussed.

On 1/7/2023 4:49 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> 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.

Humans are nothing but "emotional animals".

So, there will ALWAYS be controversies about this issue and hence
ICC/MCC must do what's best....i.e tell the GREEDY CHEATING BATTERS that
they are liable to be run out AS LONG AS the ball is still in bowlers'
hands.

CASE CLOSED.

Once this is IMPLEMENTED, there WON'T be ANY controversies, ofcourse
excluding the abnormal ones like if the ball slips from bowlers hands
during the action, batter leaving at the same time and the ball hitting
the stumps on its own OR bowler picking up the ball and knocking down
the stumps etc.

But those are ABNORMAL cases.

>Anything else, I would submit, will lead to
> manifestly unfair results.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:25:32 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I wonder why someone who believes that the only thing to worry about
> is the front foot landing is drivelling on about arm positions.

Because today's Laws consider the arm position. Duh.

On 1/7/2023 3:41 AM, David North wrote:
> 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.
>

So, ICC had 5 years to CLARIFY and DEFINE "exactly what point/moment" is
considered as expected point of delivery, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

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

On 1/7/2023 5:36 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 6:13:34 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com 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.
>
> look at the side on footage at https://www.cricket.com.au/video/adam-zampa-mankad-tom-rogers-melbourne-stars-renegades-derby-mcg-bbl12-big-bash-highlights/2023-01-03 (it starts about 40 seconds in) Zampa continues his delivery action until the arm has not only passed the vertical but it's past the horizontal, there's no effing way of arguing that he hasn't gone past "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball" unless his normal delivery goes backwards
> Seeing as he's clearly fucked up with the straight laws of the game how does him fucking up mean that the instructions haven't been passed on to players?

You know I am NOT australian.

Adam Zampa is NOT Indian either.

I don't watch ozzie BBL and hence have NO favorite teams or players.

This PROVES I have NO biases for or against Zampa.

So, here is completely UNBIASED analysis.

1. Zampa has NO way of knowing WHEN is the expected point of release

2. Nobody told Zampa or other bowlers what it is, since 2017 when the
law was enacted.

3. None of the fans here KNEW that the expected point is the HIGHEST or
VERTICAL position, until an ozzie umpire ruled it that way, a few days
ago with his own "personal interpretation".

4. Which means YOU CANNOT complain and ACCUSE Zampa of ANYTHING,
regardless of whether his hand went to horizontal.

5. The ONUS is on BATTERS who are CHEATING by taking advantage of
bowlers' GENEROSITY in the entire cricket history

6. So, the law should be such that BATTERS are STOPPED from CHEATING.

7. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for bowlers to KEEP AN EYE on batters'
foot/bat and ACTION, and REACT in a FRACTION OF SECOND to stop in the
middle of their action BEFORE crossing the HIGHEST POSITION and affect a
mankad.

8. You are basically asking bowlers to be SUPER HUMAN while letting the
batters go scot-free and NOT even asking them to have AT LEAST MONKEY IQ.

9. You are all STUCK on "old ways of thinking" and are finding it HARD
to ADAPT to the NEW JUSTIFIED and FAIR thinking.

It's because humans DON'T have the ability to REMOVE incorrect
information or lies and REPLACE them with NEW INFORMATION or FACTS/TRUTH
etc.

I can do in a SECOND....yes, LIGHTNING FAST any time, any where when I
come across NEW FACTS which prove that my current knowledge or
information in my brain is WRONG/INCORRECT.

I will tell you the REASON, in the next few days WHY I have this AMAZING
extraordinary perception ability.

10. There is NOTHING WRONG in humans being wrong in their opinions/views
etc BUT there is EVERYTHING WRONG in NOT CORRECTING themselves when
necessary.

11.

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

If you have ANY counter-arguments about his column, please post them.

IF NOT, then please CONVINCE yourself that what the columnist said is
FAIR and hence LAW should be made/amended accordingly.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 14:25:29 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 06:19:04 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
><hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 1:01:42 AM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 11:36:08 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > there's no effing way of arguing that he hasn't gone past "when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball"
>>> that certainly could be argued if he pulled out of his delivery and his hand didn't reach the point where it would normally release the ball. For example if in his normal delivery his hand is higher.
>>> I'm not familiar with his action, so can't say. His hand looks quite high, though, most probably on its normal path.
>>
>>Have a fucking look at the video in the link FFS
>>That comment has nothing to do with the reality of what happened.
>
>I wonder why someone who believes that the only thing to worry about
>is the front foot landing is drivelling on about arm positions. It
>couldn't be that determining whether a bowler was engaged in deception
>is more complicated than a simpleton wishes to concede, could it?

I can also conceive of ways in which a bowler might execute a mankad
before entering the delivery stride, and that in some cases it could
be the result of deception rather than noticing an egregiously cheeky
batter leaving the crease way too early. In which case, how precisely
would one apply a Law about arm positions or front feet landing?

Whatever list of criteria you come up with, I suspect that there is
going to be a devious way around them if a bowler is ingenious enough
even though any fool can see what he's done is unfair.

The pursuit of a definitive "line" without the umpire's opinions
entering into the matter is a chimera and will be as successful as
hunting the Snark. That doesn't mean there isn't scope for
clarification of the current Law, but that jzf's goal is logically
impossible to reach.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:49:11 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I can also conceive of ways in which a bowler might execute a mankad
> before entering the delivery stride, and that in some cases it could
> be the result of deception rather than noticing an egregiously cheeky
> batter leaving the crease way too early. In which case, how precisely
> would one apply a Law about arm positions or front feet landing?

I'm not sure if I understand you.

If the bowler hasn't yet entered their delivery stride and the non-striker leaves the crease... the non-striker is liable to be run out.

The safe point, for the non-striker, isn't reached.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:49:11 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> The pursuit of a definitive "line" without the umpire's opinions
> entering into the matter is a chimera and will be as successful as
> hunting the Snark. That doesn't mean there isn't scope for
> clarification of the current Law, but that jzf's goal is logically
> impossible to reach.

Today's Law and my proposed change both have "safe points";
1. expected to release
2. front-foot lands

You'll find this little law here;

21.5 Fair delivery – the feet
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the feet, in the delivery stride
(21.5.1 snipped)
21.5.2 the bowler’s front foot must land with some part of the foot, whether grounded or raised
- on the same side of the imaginary line joining the two middle stumps as the return crease described in 21.5.1, and
- behind the popping crease.
If the bowler’s end umpire is not satisfied that all of these three conditions have been met, he/she shall call and signal No ball.

My proposed change uses this same assessment. Nice and easy.

At the grassroots level it's also significantly better than today's Law.
Today umpires have to watch for no-ball, quickly change focus on bowling arm to see if "expect to release" is reached (they've no idea if a mankad is about to happen, but have to be ready in case it does), then quickly focus on the striker.
Under my proposed change they do what they've done prior to this change;
1. watch font foot for no ball (and mankad safe point)
2. watch striker

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:49:11 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> That doesn't mean there isn't scope for
> clarification of the current Law, but that jzf's goal is logically
> impossible to reach.

My goals are;

1. punishing batsmen who leave early to get an advantage
2. the stigma around mankads to go
3. everyone involved (umpire, non-striker, bowler) knowing clearly when a mankad can and can't happen
4. minimising trickery by the bowler to enact a mankad
5. reducing controversy and discontentment around mankads (by players and fans)

Today's Laws fail at #3, which gives the bowler an opportunity to do #4, which leads to #5.

#4 is significantly harder to fake than today's arm swing.
#5 will still exist even after my change due to #2, but it will be less. And over time, hopefully, go away.

On 07/01/2023 22:34, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:49:11 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I can also conceive of ways in which a bowler might execute a mankad
>> before entering the delivery stride, and that in some cases it could
>> be the result of deception rather than noticing an egregiously cheeky
>> batter leaving the crease way too early. In which case, how precisely
>> would one apply a Law about arm positions or front feet landing?
>
> I'm not sure if I understand you.
>
> If the bowler hasn't yet entered their delivery stride and the non-striker leaves the crease... the non-striker is liable to be run out.
>
> The safe point, for the non-striker, isn't reached.

Indeed, but if the non-striker turns away from the bowler, and the
bowler then aborts the delivery before entering the delivery stride and
waits, the non-striker, assuming that the bowler had continued with the
delivery, might well leave their ground after the time when they were
expecting the bowler to release the ball. In that case, the non-striker
has been deceived.

--
David North

On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 06:11:27 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 07/01/2023 22:34, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:49:11 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> I can also conceive of ways in which a bowler might execute a mankad
>>> before entering the delivery stride, and that in some cases it could
>>> be the result of deception rather than noticing an egregiously cheeky
>>> batter leaving the crease way too early. In which case, how precisely
>>> would one apply a Law about arm positions or front feet landing?
>>
>> I'm not sure if I understand you.
>>
>> If the bowler hasn't yet entered their delivery stride and the non-striker leaves the crease... the non-striker is liable to be run out.
>>
>> The safe point, for the non-striker, isn't reached.
>
>Indeed, but if the non-striker turns away from the bowler, and the
>bowler then aborts the delivery before entering the delivery stride and
>waits, the non-striker, assuming that the bowler had continued with the
>delivery, might well leave their ground after the time when they were
>expecting the bowler to release the ball. In that case, the non-striker
>has been deceived.

Exactly.

As has been repeatedly stated, the safe point is when the bowler
releases the ball. That does not need further definition or
clarification. Attempts to define some other "safe point" either break
the principle that the batter is only safe if he doesn't leave the
crease before the ball is delivered or are just making it more
complicated to no useful purpose.

The batter has no actual right to leave the crease before that. Under
the present Law, if they choose to take that risk, it's the umpire's
job to judge whether the batter had reasonable justification for the
belief that the ball would be delivered at the appropriate time.

An example of reasonable justification would be that the arm had
reached its highest point. That was what was considered conclusive in
the recent case. That does not mean that the only criterion is whether
the arm had reached its highest point, nor does it mean that the arm
reaching its highest point is definitive in every case. (see above,
where it makes no sense whatsoever.)

An attempt to draft a Law which accurately describes the situations in
which a mankad should be deemed an unfair attempt to trick the batter
would take about four pages, since it would have to list a number of
possible events in sequence and say which ones would support the
deception theory and which wouldn't, depending on how exactly the
bowler had behaved, and why some won't be relevant.

And the only possible way of judging that with the present state of AI
technology is by human observation.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:11:30 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 07/01/2023 22:34, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:49:11 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> I can also conceive of ways in which a bowler might execute a mankad
> >> before entering the delivery stride, and that in some cases it could
> >> be the result of deception rather than noticing an egregiously cheeky
> >> batter leaving the crease way too early. In which case, how precisely
> >> would one apply a Law about arm positions or front feet landing?
> >
> > I'm not sure if I understand you.
> >
> > If the bowler hasn't yet entered their delivery stride and the non-striker leaves the crease... the non-striker is liable to be run out.
> >
> > The safe point, for the non-striker, isn't reached.
> Indeed, but if the non-striker turns away from the bowler, and the
> bowler then aborts the delivery before entering the delivery stride and
> waits, the non-striker, assuming that the bowler had continued with the
> delivery, might well leave their ground after the time when they were
> expecting the bowler to release the ball. In that case, the non-striker
> has been deceived.

Does a batsman who pays NO ATTENTION to the "safe point" (either expect to release or front foot landing) deserve to be given a "safe point"?

I'd not be upset if such a batsman was run out. I'd just laugh at them.

Running, including leaving when allowed, is a skill. If you close your eyes, too bad.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:41:15 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> As has been repeatedly stated, the safe point is when the bowler
> releases the ball

The Law says the safe point is when the bowler reaches "expect to release the ball".

Yes, "ball actually released" is certainly a safer point.

On 08/01/2023 07:23, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:11:30 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On 07/01/2023 22:34, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:49:11 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>> I can also conceive of ways in which a bowler might execute a mankad
>>>> before entering the delivery stride, and that in some cases it could
>>>> be the result of deception rather than noticing an egregiously cheeky
>>>> batter leaving the crease way too early. In which case, how precisely
>>>> would one apply a Law about arm positions or front feet landing?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if I understand you.
>>>
>>> If the bowler hasn't yet entered their delivery stride and the non-striker leaves the crease... the non-striker is liable to be run out.
>>>
>>> The safe point, for the non-striker, isn't reached.
>> Indeed, but if the non-striker turns away from the bowler, and the
>> bowler then aborts the delivery before entering the delivery stride and
>> waits, the non-striker, assuming that the bowler had continued with the
>> delivery, might well leave their ground after the time when they were
>> expecting the bowler to release the ball. In that case, the non-striker
>> has been deceived.
>
> Does a batsman who pays NO ATTENTION to the "safe point" (either expect to release or front foot landing) deserve to be given a "safe point"?
>
> I'd not be upset if such a batsman was run out. I'd just laugh at them.
>
> Running, including leaving when allowed, is a skill. If you close your eyes, too bad.

You are the one who has mentioned deceptive Mankads most often here.
What deceptive actions by the bowler would you be upset about that could
not be countered by the non-striker paying attention?

--
David North

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 6:49:33 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> You are the one who has mentioned deceptive Mankads most often here.

The deception is pretending to bowl, to make the non-striker think they can safely leave the crease. A bowler can only really do this deception if they've enter their delivery stride.
Stopping before you enter your delivery stride is not, IMO, deceptive. It's not *pretending* to bowl, or attempting to make the batsman think you've bowled.

The bowler is actually allowed to perform the run out prior to delivery stride. The law allows for this. ISTM that's for particularly egregious non-strikers.

> What deceptive actions by the bowler would you be upset about that could
> not be countered by the non-striker paying attention?

Waiting until the ball is in flight counters all risk of being run out.
But it does nothing to stop bad blood. So I would still be upset about that.
How horrible would cricket be if we took a "bowler can do anything they want, it's up to the batsman to watch the ball"?
There would be so many shenanigans going on.

The batsman has responsibility, but so does the bowler.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 8:08:16 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> The batsman has responsibility, but so does the bowler.

Which reminds of of Law 41.5.1, which covers "fake fielding" (eg pretending to throw at a ball you don't have).

These Laws aren't technically need if one simply says "the batsman should pay attention".
But they're Laws, quite possibly because of The Spirit of Cricket.

We want cricket played a certain way. A pleasant way.

Allowing bowler deception and telling the batsman to "just watch closer" won't lead to pleasant cricket.

On 08/01/2023 10:08, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 6:49:33 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> You are the one who has mentioned deceptive Mankads most often here.
>
> The deception is pretending to bowl, to make the non-striker think they can safely leave the crease. A bowler can only really do this deception if they've enter their delivery stride.
> Stopping before you enter your delivery stride is not, IMO, deceptive. It's not *pretending* to bowl, or attempting to make the batsman think you've bowled.
>
> The bowler is actually allowed to perform the run out prior to delivery stride. The law allows for this.

Yes, I know - as long as the umpires don't consider the action unfair.
If the non-striker has not left their ground when the bowler stops, and
the bowler has no particular reason to believe that the non-striker
would have left their ground before the bowler released the ball if they
had proceeded with the delivery as normal (such as having left early on
previous deliveries), then ISTM that the fairness of the action is at
least highly questionable.

I would certainly consider it less fair than what Zampa did. AFAICS, he
didn't pretend to bowl to make Rogers think he could safely leave the
crease - he didn't need to, because Rogers had already left.

> ISTM that's for particularly egregious non-strikers.

I agree - it's not for bowlers to try to catch out non-strikers who
would not otherwise have left early.

>> What deceptive actions by the bowler would you be upset about that could
>> not be countered by the non-striker paying attention?
>
> Waiting until the ball is in flight counters all risk of being run out.
> But it does nothing to stop bad blood. So I would still be upset about that.
> How horrible would cricket be if we took a "bowler can do anything they want, it's up to the batsman to watch the ball"?

Exactly - I'm certainly not suggesting that.

> There would be so many shenanigans going on.
>
> The batsman has responsibility, but so does the bowler.

Agreed, and I think the batsman should reasonably be able to expect the
bowler to bowl the ball as normal, if the batsman has been keeping up
their part of the bargain, regardless of whether the batsman actually
watches the bowler or not, or for how long.

--
David North

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:25:38 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co..uk wrote:
> On 08/01/2023 10:08, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 6:49:33 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet..co.uk wrote:
> >> You are the one who has mentioned deceptive Mankads most often here.
> >
> > The deception is pretending to bowl, to make the non-striker think they can safely leave the crease. A bowler can only really do this deception if they've enter their delivery stride.
> > Stopping before you enter your delivery stride is not, IMO, deceptive. It's not *pretending* to bowl, or attempting to make the batsman think you've bowled.
> >
> > The bowler is actually allowed to perform the run out prior to delivery stride. The law allows for this.
> Yes, I know - as long as the umpires don't consider the action unfair.
> If the non-striker has not left their ground when the bowler stops, and
> the bowler has no particular reason to believe that the non-striker
> would have left their ground before the bowler released the ball if they
> had proceeded with the delivery as normal (such as having left early on
> previous deliveries), then ISTM that the fairness of the action is at
> least highly questionable.

The ball becomes live when the bowler's run up starts (ignoring no run up).
Between then and the "safe point" the non-striker's duty is to stay in their crease.

Then, in this scenario the bowler stops their run-up and waits for the non-strikers to leave the crease.
The non-striker hasn't witnessed the "safe point", as it hasn't happened - it's illegal for them to leave their ground.

If this pause by the bowler is to be considered deception, then it should be considered the mildest of such.

If I was the umpire I'd warn the bowler for time-wasting. It could also be Dead Ball under;

20.4.2.10 the ball does not leave the bowler’s hand for any reason other than an attempt to run out the nonstriker under Law 38.3 (Non-striker leaving his/her ground early).
NB: during this pause the bowler is *waiting* for the non-striker to leave their ground, therefore they are not attempting a run out.

> > The batsman has responsibility, but so does the bowler.
> Agreed, and I think the batsman should reasonably be able to expect the
> bowler to bowl the ball as normal, if the batsman has been keeping up
> their part of the bargain, regardless of whether the batsman actually
> watches the bowler or not, or for how long.

Run ups vary. In length and duration. As a batsman, I not even really sure when a run-up starts. I don't watch the bowler. I'm watching the striker and the fielders. I know a bowler is bowling because everything changes... fielders stop moving, batsman's stance solidifies, I hear the bowler. The first time I see the bowler is in the delivery stride - I watch their front-foot. Then I watch the ball in flight, as I start to back up.

But I'd have no idea if the time between run up starting and bowler entering delivery stride varied. I'd not stop to think "hey, the ball should've been delivered by now, it's safe for me to leave".

I'm describing a batsman not actively watching the bowler.
A batsman actively watching who still left early is committing batsman-suicide.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 08:49:30 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 08/01/2023 07:23, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:11:30 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 07/01/2023 22:34, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:49:11 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>> I can also conceive of ways in which a bowler might execute a mankad
>>>>> before entering the delivery stride, and that in some cases it could
>>>>> be the result of deception rather than noticing an egregiously cheeky
>>>>> batter leaving the crease way too early. In which case, how precisely
>>>>> would one apply a Law about arm positions or front feet landing?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if I understand you.
>>>>
>>>> If the bowler hasn't yet entered their delivery stride and the non-striker leaves the crease... the non-striker is liable to be run out.
>>>>
>>>> The safe point, for the non-striker, isn't reached.
>>> Indeed, but if the non-striker turns away from the bowler, and the
>>> bowler then aborts the delivery before entering the delivery stride and
>>> waits, the non-striker, assuming that the bowler had continued with the
>>> delivery, might well leave their ground after the time when they were
>>> expecting the bowler to release the ball. In that case, the non-striker
>>> has been deceived.
>>
>> Does a batsman who pays NO ATTENTION to the "safe point" (either expect to release or front foot landing) deserve to be given a "safe point"?
>>
>> I'd not be upset if such a batsman was run out. I'd just laugh at them.
>>
>> Running, including leaving when allowed, is a skill. If you close your eyes, too bad.
>
>You are the one who has mentioned deceptive Mankads most often here.
>What deceptive actions by the bowler would you be upset about that could
>not be countered by the non-striker paying attention?

The argument for changing the Law to specify some other safe point
than when the ball is released is somewhat amusing, in that the reason
for wanting some different "safe point" is that it presumes the batter
is not watching the bowler. Since he is not watching the bowler, how
does a different definition of a safe point impinge upon his
decision-making since he won't see whether the bowler has reached that
point either?

Cheers,

Mike

On 1/8/2023 8:02 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 08:49:30 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 08/01/2023 07:23, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:11:30 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>>> On 07/01/2023 22:34, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 4:49:11 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>>> I can also conceive of ways in which a bowler might execute a mankad
>>>>>> before entering the delivery stride, and that in some cases it could
>>>>>> be the result of deception rather than noticing an egregiously cheeky
>>>>>> batter leaving the crease way too early. In which case, how precisely
>>>>>> would one apply a Law about arm positions or front feet landing?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if I understand you.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the bowler hasn't yet entered their delivery stride and the non-striker leaves the crease... the non-striker is liable to be run out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The safe point, for the non-striker, isn't reached.
>>>> Indeed, but if the non-striker turns away from the bowler, and the
>>>> bowler then aborts the delivery before entering the delivery stride and
>>>> waits, the non-striker, assuming that the bowler had continued with the
>>>> delivery, might well leave their ground after the time when they were
>>>> expecting the bowler to release the ball. In that case, the non-striker
>>>> has been deceived.
>>>
>>> Does a batsman who pays NO ATTENTION to the "safe point" (either expect to release or front foot landing) deserve to be given a "safe point"?
>>>
>>> I'd not be upset if such a batsman was run out. I'd just laugh at them.
>>>
>>> Running, including leaving when allowed, is a skill. If you close your eyes, too bad.
>>
>> You are the one who has mentioned deceptive Mankads most often here.
>> What deceptive actions by the bowler would you be upset about that could
>> not be countered by the non-striker paying attention?
>
> The argument for changing the Law to specify some other safe point
> than when the ball is released is somewhat amusing, in that the reason
> for wanting some different "safe point" is that it presumes the batter
> is not watching the bowler. Since he is not watching the bowler, how
> does a different definition of a safe point impinge upon his
> decision-making since he won't see whether the bowler has reached that
> point either?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Jack, who is obsessed with this mankad law is NOT understanding that ALL
his theories and arguments DON'T SOLVE the problem, rather they make
bowlers, umpires, fans, officials, batters lives more miserable,
confused and chaotic.

I am disappointed with myself that I DIDN'T think all these years UNTIL
this columnist pointed out that the fundamental problem with mankad law is:

- It's the batter who is CHEATING and NOT the bowler.

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

But once I read the column, I knew he is right and the ONUS should be on
the BATTER, NOT TO CHEAT.

It is NOT humanly possible for even the UMPIRE to keep an eye on
bowler's foot, bowler's hand crossing the highest/vertical point,
non-striker's bat or foot SIMULTANEOUSLY, while ALSO watching the ANGLE
of the delivery and where the ball landed, to adjudicate LBWs.

Especially with FAST BOWLERS, it is even more difficult for the Umpires.