On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 16:02:07 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
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

In reality when you're non striker you hear the thump of the bowler's
feet and then there's a blurr of arms and legs and the ball is bowled
somewhere in there.
You have to decide yourself when it is or isn't safe to leave your
ground. I can't think of a worse lack of attention for the non striker
to be at than deciding if the bowler's arm is vertical yet.

The all new protractor-bat system.
Complete with audio and visual alert when the bowler's arm is vertical
MCC legal
Mankad safe.
Uses 4 AAA (not supplied)

max.it

On 1/8/2023 9:55 AM, max.it wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2023 16:02:07 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
> 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
>
> In reality when you're non striker you hear the thump of the bowler's
> feet and then there's a blurr of arms and legs and the ball is bowled
> somewhere in there.
> You have to decide yourself when it is or isn't safe to leave your
> ground. I can't think of a worse lack of attention for the non striker
> to be at than deciding if the bowler's arm is vertical yet.
>
> The all new protractor-bat system.
> Complete with audio and visual alert when the bowler's arm is vertical
> MCC legal
> Mankad safe.
> Uses 4 AAA (not supplied)
>
>
> max.it

LOL...

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:02:10 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> 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.

No it doesn't.

> 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?

Because faking landing your foot during delivery stride is much harder to do than faking a full swing and delivery.

It's also requires very little interpretation compared to "expected to release".
It's also an interpretation that has been in cricket 100+ years, and doesn't need explaining.

On 1/8/2023 2:04 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:02:10 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
>> 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?
>
> Because faking landing your foot during delivery stride is much harder to do than faking a full swing and delivery.

How many bowlers cheated in mankading in the entire cricket's history?

>
> It's also requires very little interpretation compared to "expected to release".
> It's also an interpretation that has been in cricket 100+ years, and doesn't need explaining.

What, cricket fraternity thought and implemented for the last 100+ years
about mankading is "DEAD WRONG".

The ONUS is on the BATTER, NOT TO CHEAT.

Answer THIS SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD question.

HOW MANY bowlers cheated, and HOW MANY non-striker batters CHEATED by
leaving the crease EARLY in ENTIRE CRICKET's HISTORY?

It's a fucking NO-BRAINER.

Just one batter Charlie Dean CHEATED 70+ times in JUST ONE INNING.

Rogers CHEATED in MS vs MR T20 game.

SINCE batters CHEATING is ABNORMALLY MORE PREVALENT, almost to the point
99.5% to 0.5%, we should put the ONUS on the batter NOT TO CHEAT.

We should REALIZE this FACT and "INTROSPECT and forcibly change our
views/opinions", and ACCEPT the "NEW REALIZED REALITY".

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:37 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > Because faking landing your foot during delivery stride is much harder to do than faking a full swing and delivery.
> How many bowlers cheated in mankading in the entire cricket's history?

I don't like to call either transgression cheating (bowler deception, batsman leaving early).
It's within the Laws, but against the Spirit.

More and more, recently.

On 1/8/2023 10:22 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:12:37 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> Because faking landing your foot during delivery stride is much harder to do than faking a full swing and delivery.
>> How many bowlers cheated in mankading in the entire cricket's history?
>
> I don't like to call either transgression cheating (bowler deception, batsman leaving early).
> It's within the Laws, but against the Spirit.
>
> More and more, recently.

You DODGED a straightforward question because you JUST CAN'T ACCEPT that
the THINKING of entire cricket fraternity for the last 100+ years in
mankading issue is DEAD WRONG.

How many bowlers cheated in mankading in the entire cricket's history?

The ONUS is on the BATTER, NOT TO CHEAT.

Answer THIS SIMPLE STRAIGHT FORWARD question.

HOW MANY bowlers cheated, and HOW MANY non-striker batters CHEATED by
leaving the crease EARLY in ENTIRE CRICKET's HISTORY?

It's a fucking NO-BRAINER.

Just one batter Charlie Dean CHEATED 70+ times in "JUST ONE INNING".

It is UNBELIEVABLE that fans are NOT FOCUSING on that "PURE FACT".

Rogers CHEATED in MS vs MR T20 game.

SINCE batters CHEATING is ABNORMALLY MORE PREVALENT, almost to the point
99.5% to 0.5%, we should put the ONUS on the batter NOT TO CHEAT.

Non-strikers BATTERS DECEIVED and CHEATED, BOWLERS DIDN'T.

We should REALIZE this FACT and "INTROSPECT and forcibly change our
views/opinions", and ACCEPT the "NEW REALIZED REALITY".