Human intelligence is THE MOST OVER RATED thing on this planet.

Humans have OPINIONS. That's all.

Yes I HATE human species for being NARROW MINDED and EMOTIONAL.

Nobody wants to IMPLEMENT the EASIEST, SIMPLEST and FAIREST SOLUTION i.e
tell the FUCKING MONKEY IQed batters to fucking STAY in the crease UNTIL
the ball is RELEASED from bowlers hands.

Isa Guha DOESN'T UNDERSTAND that she is asking the Umpire to be SUPER
HUMAN in watching bowlers' arm crossing the vertical/highest position,
watching bowlers foot not crossing the line, watching bat/foot of
non-striker crossing the line AND also WATCH the ANGLE of delivery
SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Pak bowler mankading Rwandan batter is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED.

Batters should just STOP CHEATING.

It's a fucking T20 game ffs where EVERY RUN counts.

=======================================================================

https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/watch-pakistans-zaib-un-nisa-runs-rwandas-sharila-niyomuhoza-out-at-non-strikers-end-in-u-19-wc-match-8383708/

‘Mankading getting out of hand’: Russell, Guha, Vaughan weigh in as
Pakistan’s Zaib-un-Nisa runs out Rwanda batter at non-striker’s end

The 17-year-old was bowling the 20th over and spotted Sharila leaving
the crease early and took the bails off to give Pakistan their eighth
wicket.

Pakistan pacer Zaib-un-Nisa was the latest player to be in the limelight
after she ran out Rwanda’s Sharila Niyomuhoza at the non-striker’s end.
The 17-year-old was bowling the 20th over and spotted Sharila leaving
the crease early and took the bails off to give Pakistan their eighth
wicket.

The run-out has sparked a fresh row with former England captain Michael
Vaughan,ex-English all-rounder-turned-commentator Isa Guha and former
England wicketkeeper Jack Russell weighing up their opinions.

“I like the Mitch Starc idea of – Get the umpire to check every ball,
just with the front foot no ball, and if deemed to be stealing ground
then deducted penalty runs. Takes it completely out of the hands of the
players.” wrote Guha on the Twitter.

On the other hand, Russell called for a law change to ban the Mankad
once and for all.

“It’s getting out of hand, it’s not good for the game,” said Russell.

Russell was also in favour of taking runs off the board if batter’s
continued to push the boundaries in order to sneak an extra yard or two.

“Completely deficient of any actual skill in taking a wicket,” opined
Simon Hughes, a BBC sport analyst and former county cricketer.

This is the latest incident in the ongoing dispute regarding the
dismissal with various people having various opinions on it. Recently,
leg-spinner Adam Zampa’s attempt to run out non-striker Tom Rogers in
the Big Bash League caused a fair bit of controversy, although the third
umpire ruled “not out”.

Zampa’s arm had reached the very final point of release. The MCC had
then clarified that the bowler is not entitled to go all the way around
in the bowling action and then run out the non-striker.

The cat is out of the bag, and we're going to get one controversy a week going forward.

Best case is batsmen are trained better. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GROUND.

But even that will be tainted - bowlers will still try to trick the non-strikers, and that's going to cause a lot of bad blood.

It's.... yukky.

Penalty runs might be worth trying. The problem is in game matches runs don't matter. The important thing is getting the striker off strike. eg Day 5 of a Test, going for a draw, #11 on strike.

On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 13:24:04 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> The cat is out of the bag, and we're going to get one controversy a week going forward.
>
> Best case is batsmen are trained better. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GROUND.
>
> But even that will be tainted - bowlers will still try to trick the non-strikers, and that's going to cause a lot of bad blood.
>
> It's.... yukky.
>
> Penalty runs might be worth trying. The problem is in game matches runs don't matter. The important thing is getting the striker off strike. eg Day 5 of a Test, going for a draw, #11 on strike.

I think that would be solved by returning the batters to their original ends.

On 1/17/2023 5:24 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> The cat is out of the bag, and we're going to get one controversy a week going forward.
>
> Best case is batsmen are trained better. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GROUND.
>
> But even that will be tainted - bowlers will still try to trick the non-strikers, and that's going to cause a lot of bad blood.

The concept of trickery doesn't exist and will NEVER ARISE if batsman
waits until the ball is RELEASED from bowler's hand.

It is VERY SIMPLE.

>
> It's.... yukky.
>
> Penalty runs might be worth trying.

Makes umpiring more complicated and also wastes time WITH NO BENEFIT and
doesn't solve the problem.

>
The problem is in game matches runs don't matter. The important thing is
getting the striker off strike. eg Day 5 of a Test, going for a draw,
#11 on strike.
>

The idea is to STOP non-strikers taking advantage by leaving the crease
early.

End of story.

As it is, the game is far too tilted in favor of batsmen compared to
bowlers.

On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 07:43:50 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
>
> Isa Guha DOESN'T UNDERSTAND that she is asking the Umpire to be SUPER
> HUMAN in watching bowlers' arm crossing the vertical/highest position,
> watching bowlers foot not crossing the line, watching bat/foot of
> non-striker crossing the line AND also WATCH the ANGLE of delivery
> SIMULTANEOUSLY.

The bowler's-end umpire does not need to watch the arm. The square-leg umpire can do that, and should already be doing so to ensure that the bowling action is legitimate. Apparently it does not matter whether the non-striker was out of their ground at the moment the arm reached the highest point, in which case all the square-leg umpire would have to judge is whether the arm passed the highest point before the wicket was broken, which should be very obvious in almost every case.

On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 13:35:54 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/17/2023 5:24 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> > The cat is out of the bag, and we're going to get one controversy a week going forward.
> >
> > Best case is batsmen are trained better. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GROUND.
> >
> > But even that will be tainted - bowlers will still try to trick the non-strikers, and that's going to cause a lot of bad blood.
> The concept of trickery doesn't exist and will NEVER ARISE if batsman
> waits until the ball is RELEASED from bowler's hand.
>
> It is VERY SIMPLE.
> >
> > It's.... yukky.
> >
> > Penalty runs might be worth trying.
> Makes umpiring more complicated and also wastes time WITH NO BENEFIT and
> doesn't solve the problem.

I think the penalty runs idea would only really work where there is a 3rd umpire who is already checking for no-balls, as the on-field umpire probably won't spot it a lot of the time.

However, ISTM that in those matches, the batters are more likely to stop doing it if they lose 5 runs every time than if they get run out very occasionally if the bowler spots that they are doing it and decides to run them out, but get away with it the rest of the time.

>On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 13:24:04 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The cat is out of the bag, and we're going to get one controversy a week going forward.
>>
>> Best case is batsmen are trained better. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GROUND.
>>
>> But even that will be tainted - bowlers will still try to trick the non-strikers, and that's going to cause a lot of bad blood.

You appear to believe that the "bad blood" is because bowlers are busy
trying to trick batters. Bollocks. It's because the bowlers are
attempting (and often succeeding) mankads. A lot of people have some
quasi-religious objection to mankadding, and they tend to be quite
vocal about it. The only way you will get rid of the booing is to
outlaw mankads and thereby legalise cheating by batters.

If I were umpiring, I would be incredibly suspicious about a mankad
attempted very near the beginning of a batter's innings. On the other
hand, if I can see the batter taking the piss four balls out of six,
I'd nowadays be waiting for the mankad attempt.

I know your view is that umpires are stupid idiots who know nothing (a
typical batter's view) and shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on
anything, but when we are talking about a situation in which one
player is cheating (as in 99% of cases), it *is* a matter of informed
opinion whether the attempt to execute the run out was a proper one.
By definition, the bowler does not do what one would normally expect;
the permutations of where he stops, if he stops, turns, starts his
action, doesn't start his action etc, along with whether the batter
has been obviously misbehaving already, will all provide information
to umpires from which they can reach a sensible conclusion.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 05:53:10 -0800 (PST), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 13:35:54 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/17/2023 5:24 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> > The cat is out of the bag, and we're going to get one controversy a week going forward.
>> >
>> > Best case is batsmen are trained better. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GROUND.
>> >
>> > But even that will be tainted - bowlers will still try to trick the non-strikers, and that's going to cause a lot of bad blood.
>> The concept of trickery doesn't exist and will NEVER ARISE if batsman
>> waits until the ball is RELEASED from bowler's hand.
>>
>> It is VERY SIMPLE.
>> >
>> > It's.... yukky.
>> >
>> > Penalty runs might be worth trying.
>> Makes umpiring more complicated and also wastes time WITH NO BENEFIT and
>> doesn't solve the problem.
>
>I think the penalty runs idea would only really work where there is a 3rd umpire who is already checking for no-balls, as the on-field umpire probably won't spot it a lot of the time.
>
>However, ISTM that in those matches, the batters are more likely to stop doing it if they lose 5 runs every time than if they get run out very occasionally if the bowler spots that they are doing it and decides to run them out, but get away with it the rest of the time.

This is a completely stupid idea. MCC's *advice* to batters is to stay
in their crease because otherwise they are vulnerable. If they didn't
want batters ever to move early, they would have put that in the Law,
not merely advised players.

The batter has the right to gamble that he won't be run out, as he has
when taking a sharp single after the ball has been hit. It is not the
umpire's job to penalise him - it is the bowler's.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 13:24:04 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Penalty runs might be worth trying.

The technology is there and I think you're right.

Every time a batsman leaves the crease before the bowler has released the ball, the bowling side gets a ten run bonus. Depending on who has batted first, either the bowling side gets 10 runs added to their original total or the batting side gets 10 runs deducted.

That can't be too difficult to implement?

On 1/17/2023 5:53 AM, David North wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 13:35:54 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/17/2023 5:24 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> The cat is out of the bag, and we're going to get one controversy a week going forward.
>>>
>>> Best case is batsmen are trained better. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GROUND.
>>>
>>> But even that will be tainted - bowlers will still try to trick the non-strikers, and that's going to cause a lot of bad blood.
>> The concept of trickery doesn't exist and will NEVER ARISE if batsman
>> waits until the ball is RELEASED from bowler's hand.
>>
>> It is VERY SIMPLE.
>>>
>>> It's.... yukky.
>>>
>>> Penalty runs might be worth trying.
>> Makes umpiring more complicated and also wastes time WITH NO BENEFIT and
>> doesn't solve the problem.
>
> I think the penalty runs idea would only really work where there is a 3rd umpire who is already checking for no-balls, as the on-field umpire probably won't spot it a lot of the time.
>
> However, ISTM that in those matches, the batters are more likely to stop doing it if they lose 5 runs every time than if they get run out very occasionally if the bowler spots that they are doing it and decides to run them out, but get away with it the rest of the time.
>

Batters will of course get away a couple of times, which will allow the
bowlers to NOTICE it and then run the batter out next time.

Trust me, these penalty runs idea will
-delay the game,
-make it more complicated and burden the umpires, batters and bowlers,
-bowlers will be deliberately looking to mankad the batter out every
ball because 5 RUNS penalty is a LOT
-and hence game will become a complete mess.

On 1/17/2023 6:16 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 05:53:10 -0800 (PST), David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 13:35:54 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 1/17/2023 5:24 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> The cat is out of the bag, and we're going to get one controversy a week going forward.
>>>>
>>>> Best case is batsmen are trained better. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GROUND.
>>>>
>>>> But even that will be tainted - bowlers will still try to trick the non-strikers, and that's going to cause a lot of bad blood.
>>> The concept of trickery doesn't exist and will NEVER ARISE if batsman
>>> waits until the ball is RELEASED from bowler's hand.
>>>
>>> It is VERY SIMPLE.
>>>>
>>>> It's.... yukky.
>>>>
>>>> Penalty runs might be worth trying.
>>> Makes umpiring more complicated and also wastes time WITH NO BENEFIT and
>>> doesn't solve the problem.
>>
>> I think the penalty runs idea would only really work where there is a 3rd umpire who is already checking for no-balls, as the on-field umpire probably won't spot it a lot of the time.
>>
>> However, ISTM that in those matches, the batters are more likely to stop doing it if they lose 5 runs every time than if they get run out very occasionally if the bowler spots that they are doing it and decides to run them out, but get away with it the rest of the time.
>
> This is a completely stupid idea. MCC's *advice* to batters is to stay
> in their crease because otherwise they are vulnerable. If they didn't
> want batters ever to move early, they would have put that in the Law,
> not merely advised players.
>
> The batter has the right to gamble that he won't be run out, as he has
> when taking a sharp single after the ball has been hit. It is not the
> umpire's job to penalise him - it is the bowler's.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Exactly.

Game will become boring too if you don't let batters gamble at their own
risk.

On 1/17/2023 5:39 AM, David North wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 07:43:50 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Isa Guha DOESN'T UNDERSTAND that she is asking the Umpire to be SUPER
>> HUMAN in watching bowlers' arm crossing the vertical/highest position,
>> watching bowlers foot not crossing the line, watching bat/foot of
>> non-striker crossing the line AND also WATCH the ANGLE of delivery
>> SIMULTANEOUSLY.
>
> The bowler's-end umpire does not need to watch the arm. The square-leg umpire can do that,

It is NOT possible for the square leg umpire to watch the bowler's hand
crossing vertical/highest position for fast bowlers because it happens
SO FAST in the blink of an eye.

A blur like max.it said.

Square leg umpire stands quite a distance at about 45 degree angle to
the bowling crease.

>>and should already be doing so to ensure that the bowling action is legitimate. Apparently it does not matter whether the non-striker was out of their ground at >>the moment the arm reached the highest point, in which case all the square-leg umpire would have to judge is whether the arm passed the highest point before the >>wicket was broken, which should be very obvious in almost every case.
>

No way would it be possible for square leg umpire to judge whether a
fast bowlers arm crossed the vertical/highest position while also
watching batters legs/bat behind the crease.

Even spinner Zampa's case was referred to 3rd umpire.

So, IF bowling and square leg umpires couldn't make the ruling even in
SPINNERS case, how difficult it would be in fast bowlers case, you can
IMAGINE.

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 12:06:49 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 13:24:04 UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The cat is out of the bag, and we're going to get one controversy a week going forward.
> >>
> >> Best case is batsmen are trained better. DO NOT LEAVE YOUR GROUND.
> >>
> >> But even that will be tainted - bowlers will still try to trick the non-strikers, and that's going to cause a lot of bad blood.
> You appear to believe that the "bad blood" is because bowlers are busy
> trying to trick batters. Bollocks. It's because the bowlers are
> attempting (and often succeeding) mankads. A lot of people have some
> quasi-religious objection to mankadding, and they tend to be quite
> vocal about it. The only way you will get rid of the booing is to
> outlaw mankads and thereby legalise cheating by batters.

I don't mind mankads. I think a batsman who leaves early SHOULD be punished.. No warning needed.

My beef is with today's laws that make it unclear to a batsman when they can legally leave the crease. Keep in mind that not everyone with access to the Laws (hopefully everyone who plays cricket) also has access to the MCC press release of a week ago where they explained that "expect to release" means "arm reached vertical".

These unclear Laws weaponise Mankads, as they give the bowler more weapons to trick the batsman out.

> If I were umpiring, I would be incredibly suspicious about a mankad
> attempted very near the beginning of a batter's innings.

Why? Mankads are completely legal and allowed, and not against the Spirit.
They're a legitimate dismissal on ball 1 of a Test.

> On the other
> hand, if I can see the batter taking the piss four balls out of six,
> I'd nowadays be waiting for the mankad attempt.
>
> I know your view is that umpires are stupid idiots who know nothing (a
> typical batter's view)

Not quite. Although their jobs could be made much easier by clearing up these Laws.

*** This part is also for David ***

A lot of cricket is played with 1 umpire. A lot with a square leg provided by the batting team (who are often told they can only make limited decisions). The Laws have to be followed in these games too.
Any time I mention Law changes I do so with grassroots cricket in mind.
ICC cricket can have complex Mankad regulations as they have replays and 2nd/3rd umps etc.
Grassroots has to be a lot simpler than that.
A grassroots umpire now has to watch;
1. back foot landing (they often don't bother, or only do once they get a feeling something is amiss)
2. front foot landing
3. arm swing to vertical
4. position of the non-striker
5. everything else

On 17/01/2023 17:43, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/17/2023 5:39 AM, David North wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 07:43:50 UTC,
>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Isa Guha DOESN'T UNDERSTAND that she is asking the Umpire to be SUPER
>>> HUMAN in watching bowlers' arm crossing the vertical/highest position,
>>> watching bowlers foot not crossing the line, watching bat/foot of
>>> non-striker crossing the line AND also WATCH the ANGLE of delivery
>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY.
>>
>> The bowler's-end umpire does not need to watch the arm. The square-leg
>> umpire can do that,
>
>
> It is NOT possible for the square leg umpire to watch the bowler's hand
> crossing vertical/highest position for fast bowlers because it happens
> SO FAST in the blink of an eye.
>
> A blur like max.it said.
>
> Square leg umpire stands quite a distance at about 45 degree angle to
> the bowling crease.
>
>
>
>
>>> and should already be doing so to ensure that the bowling action is
>>> legitimate. Apparently it does not matter whether the non-striker was
>>> out of their ground at >>the moment the arm reached the highest
>>> point, in which case all the square-leg umpire would have to judge is
>>> whether the arm passed the highest point before the >>wicket was
>>> broken, which should be very obvious in almost every case.
>>
>
>
>
> No way would it be possible for square leg umpire to judge whether a
> fast bowlers arm crossed the vertical/highest position while also
> watching batters legs/bat behind the crease.

I repeat, "apparently it does not matter whether the non-striker was
out of their ground at the moment the arm reached the highest
point, in which case all the square-leg umpire would have to judge is
whether the arm passed the highest point before the wicket was
broken."

Therefore it would not be necessary for the square-leg umpire to watch
the non-striker at all.

The position of the non-striker is only important at the point when the
wicket is broken. That would be judged by the bowler's-end umpire, as
with any run-out at that end.

> Even spinner Zampa's case was referred to 3rd umpire.
>
> So, IF bowling and square leg umpires couldn't make the ruling even in
> SPINNERS case, how difficult it would be in fast bowlers case, you can
> IMAGINE.

Not difficult at all, if the bowler's-end umpire bothered to ask the
square-leg umpire. I have not seen any evidence that he did in the Zampa
case.

--
David North

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 22:50:02 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>I repeat, "apparently it does not matter whether the non-striker was
>out of their ground at the moment the arm reached the highest
>point, in which case all the square-leg umpire would have to judge is
>whether the arm passed the highest point before the wicket was
>broken."

It seems to me that this thread consists of a lot of detailed answers
but that the question that they are supposed to be answers to has not
been defined, so it's pretty much impossible to work out whether they
are of interest.

What are the exact questions you expect an umpire to ask themselves,
analogous to
1 did it pitch outside leg
2 did it pitch on the stumps: if yes, go to 3 else
2.1 did the batter try to hit it: if yes go to 5
3 did he hit it
4 did the ball hit him in line: if yes, go to 6
5 did he hit it
6 would the ball have hit the stumps
for an lbw? And where and in what branch in that list of questions
does the arm reaching its highest point appear?

If you map out the possible circumstances on which the umpire would be
asked to make a decision and what questions he would need to satisfy
himself of in order to come to the conclusion you expect, perhaps
you'd have a chance of some clarity.
Cheers,

Mike

On 19/01/2023 00:47, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 22:50:02 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> I repeat, "apparently it does not matter whether the non-striker was
>> out of their ground at the moment the arm reached the highest
>> point, in which case all the square-leg umpire would have to judge is
>> whether the arm passed the highest point before the wicket was
>> broken."
>
> It seems to me that this thread consists of a lot of detailed answers
> but that the question that they are supposed to be answers to has not
> been defined, so it's pretty much impossible to work out whether they
> are of interest.
>
> What are the exact questions you expect an umpire to ask themselves,
> analogous to
> 1 did it pitch outside leg
> 2 did it pitch on the stumps: if yes, go to 3 else
> 2.1 did the batter try to hit it: if yes go to 5
> 3 did he hit it
> 4 did the ball hit him in line: if yes, go to 6
> 5 did he hit it
> 6 would the ball have hit the stumps
> for an lbw? And where and in what branch in that list of questions
> does the arm reaching its highest point appear?
>
> If you map out the possible circumstances on which the umpire would be
> asked to make a decision and what questions he would need to satisfy
> himself of in order to come to the conclusion you expect, perhaps
> you'd have a chance of some clarity.

1. Did the bowler's arm reach the highest point in their action before
the wicket was broken? If not:
2. Was the wicket broken by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps
or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball? If so:
3. Was the non-striker out of their ground when the wicket was broken?

--
David North

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:34:56 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/01/2023 00:47, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> If you map out the possible circumstances on which the umpire would be
>> asked to make a decision and what questions he would need to satisfy
>> himself of in order to come to the conclusion you expect, perhaps
>> you'd have a chance of some clarity.
>
>1. Did the bowler's arm reach the highest point in their action before
>the wicket was broken? If not:
>2. Was the wicket broken by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps
>or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball? If so:
>3. Was the non-striker out of their ground when the wicket was broken?

So you're happy, then, with a bowler who stops, waits till the batter
is out of his ground and then knocks the bails off. Because if you ask
your questions in that order, the decision is out and injustice has
been done.

Cheers,

Mike

On 1/18/2023 2:50 PM, David North wrote:
> On 17/01/2023 17:43, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/17/2023 5:39 AM, David North wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 17 January 2023 at 07:43:50 UTC,
>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isa Guha DOESN'T UNDERSTAND that she is asking the Umpire to be SUPER
>>>> HUMAN in watching bowlers' arm crossing the vertical/highest position,
>>>> watching bowlers foot not crossing the line, watching bat/foot of
>>>> non-striker crossing the line AND also WATCH the ANGLE of delivery
>>>> SIMULTANEOUSLY.
>>>
>>> The bowler's-end umpire does not need to watch the arm. The
>>> square-leg umpire can do that,
>>
>>
>> It is NOT possible for the square leg umpire to watch the bowler's
>> hand crossing vertical/highest position for fast bowlers because it
>> happens SO FAST in the blink of an eye.
>>
>> A blur like max.it said.
> >
>> Square leg umpire stands quite a distance at about 45 degree angle to
>> the bowling crease.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> and should already be doing so to ensure that the bowling action is
>>>> legitimate. Apparently it does not matter whether the non-striker
>>>> was out of their ground at >>the moment the arm reached the highest
>>>> point, in which case all the square-leg umpire would have to judge
>>>> is whether the arm passed the highest point before the >>wicket was
>>>> broken, which should be very obvious in almost every case.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No way would it be possible for square leg umpire to judge whether a
>> fast bowlers arm crossed the vertical/highest position while also
>> watching batters legs/bat behind the crease.
>
> I repeat, "apparently it does not matter whether the non-striker was
> out of their ground at the moment the arm reached the highest
> point, in which case all the square-leg umpire would have to judge is
> whether the arm passed the highest point before the wicket was
> broken."
>
> Therefore it would not be necessary for the square-leg umpire to watch
> the non-striker at all.
>
> The position of the non-striker is only important at the point when the
> wicket is broken. That would be judged by the bowler's-end umpire, as
> with any run-out at that end.
>

The umpires all over the world DIDN'T KNOW about the vertical/highest
position for bowlers arms to cross, until just last week.

>> Even spinner Zampa's case was referred to 3rd umpire.
>>
>> So, IF bowling and square leg umpires couldn't make the ruling even in
>> SPINNERS case, how difficult it would be in fast bowlers case, you can
>> IMAGINE.
>
> Not difficult at all, if the bowler's-end umpire bothered to ask the
> square-leg umpire. I have not seen any evidence that he did in the Zampa
> case.
>

Take a deep breath and think.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for square leg umpire TO PERCEIVE if the bowler's
arm crossed the crease in fast bowlers and even spin bowlers cases FROM
THE ANGLE of square leg umpire's perception and distance.

On 1/18/2023 4:47 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 22:50:02 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> I repeat, "apparently it does not matter whether the non-striker was
>> out of their ground at the moment the arm reached the highest
>> point, in which case all the square-leg umpire would have to judge is
>> whether the arm passed the highest point before the wicket was
>> broken."
>
> It seems to me that this thread consists of a lot of detailed answers
> but that the question that they are supposed to be answers to has not
> been defined, so it's pretty much impossible to work out whether they
> are of interest.
>
> What are the exact questions you expect an umpire to ask themselves,
> analogous to
> 1 did it pitch outside leg
> 2 did it pitch on the stumps: if yes, go to 3 else
> 2.1 did the batter try to hit it: if yes go to 5
> 3 did he hit it
> 4 did the ball hit him in line: if yes, go to 6
> 5 did he hit it
> 6 would the ball have hit the stumps
> for an lbw? And where and in what branch in that list of questions
> does the arm reaching its highest point appear?
>
> If you map out the possible circumstances on which the umpire would be
> asked to make a decision and what questions he would need to satisfy
> himself of in order to come to the conclusion you expect, perhaps
> you'd have a chance of some clarity.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Cricket fans are NOT realizing that they are asking UMPIRES to be SUPER
HUMAN.

That's why I said, I will be shit scared if any of these fans are on my
jury, because if they DON'T know "how to think and analyze" in such
simple things despite watching cricket for so many years, and probably
playing some too, HOW the hell can they come to the RIGHT DECISION in
complicated cases in a court of law?

On 1/18/2023 9:58 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:34:56 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 19/01/2023 00:47, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>>> If you map out the possible circumstances on which the umpire would be
>>> asked to make a decision and what questions he would need to satisfy
>>> himself of in order to come to the conclusion you expect, perhaps
>>> you'd have a chance of some clarity.
>>
>> 1. Did the bowler's arm reach the highest point in their action before
>> the wicket was broken? If not:
>> 2. Was the wicket broken by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps
>> or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball? If so:
>> 3. Was the non-striker out of their ground when the wicket was broken?
>
> So you're happy, then, with a bowler who stops, waits till the batter
> is out of his ground and then knocks the bails off. Because if you ask
> your questions in that order, the decision is out and injustice has
> been done.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>

There is NO injustice.

If the batter TAKES RISK to leave the crease before the ball leaves
bowlers hands, it is his PROBLEM.

It is NOT trickery or deception either on bowler's part.

The ONUS of NOT CHEATING is completely on the batter, NOT the bowler.

Bowler has lot of things on his mind when attempting to bowl, like I
listed before.

He doesn't have the LUXURY of SUPER FAST REFLEXES to perceive and
manipulate FRACTIONS OF SECONDS to affect a mankad, especially FAST
BOWLERS, while watching batters foot/bat leaving the crease.

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 3:34:59 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> 1. Did the bowler's arm reach the highest point in their action before
> the wicket was broken? If not:

1a. IF the umpire has seen the MCC press release. Otherwise, substitute in "expected to release".
1b. Did the press release specify "highest point in their action"? I honestly can't remember. I thought it said "vertical".

But other than that, the umpiring logic seems correct.

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 3:58:05 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> So you're happy, then, with a bowler who stops, waits till the batter
> is out of his ground and then knocks the bails off. Because if you ask
> your questions in that order, the decision is out and injustice has
> been done.

Is it an injustice? This seems like an egregious action by the non-striker, not the bowler. The bowler hasn't even entered their delivery stride and the non-striker is leaving their ground.

I can't make my mind up.
There is a skill to running. There is a skill to following the Laws.
Break the Laws, by leaving before the "safe point", and you should be run out.

OTOH, it would still be a shit wicket, and cricket would be worse for it.

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 8:50:05 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> Not difficult at all, if the bowler's-end umpire bothered to ask the
> square-leg umpire. I have not seen any evidence that he did in the Zampa
> case.

Even if the square leg was watching, we'd not know, and it wouldn't matter. It was reviewed by the 3rd umpire.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:58:01 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:34:56 +0000, David North
><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 19/01/2023 00:47, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>>> If you map out the possible circumstances on which the umpire would be
>>> asked to make a decision and what questions he would need to satisfy
>>> himself of in order to come to the conclusion you expect, perhaps
>>> you'd have a chance of some clarity.
>>
>>1. Did the bowler's arm reach the highest point in their action before
>>the wicket was broken? If not:
>>2. Was the wicket broken by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps
>>or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball? If so:
>>3. Was the non-striker out of their ground when the wicket was broken?
>
>So you're happy, then, with a bowler who stops, waits till the batter
>is out of his ground and then knocks the bails off. Because if you ask
>your questions in that order, the decision is out and injustice has
>been done.

Imagine the bowler falls over during his run-up, he drops the ball as
it falls and it rolls fairly slowly to the stumps and knocks the bails
off with the non-striker out of his ground.

Is the batter out?

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:43:02 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Imagine the bowler falls over during his run-up, he drops the ball as
> it falls and it rolls fairly slowly to the stumps and knocks the bails
> off with the non-striker out of his ground.
>
> Is the batter out?

Out. And stupid.

Why did they leave their ground before the bowler even entered their delivery stride?