On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 05:39:52 -0800 (PST), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> 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, 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.

This discussion has focused on the Zampa incident which is unique in
my experience as the only one in which the bowler has even begun his
action. In all the other ones I've seen, the bowler hasn't even
attempted to bowl, just turned up and whipped the bails off.

Assume the bowler's normal run-up takes slightly under 4 sec. The
non-striker, having seen the bowler starting his run counts
"Hippopotamus 1 hippopotamus 2 hippopotamus 3" and assumes he can take
off because he won't leave his ground until the expected moment of
delivery.

On this occasion, the bowler decides to slow down as soon as he's seen
the batter's head turn away, and arrives at the crease after 5 seconds
rather than 3.8. The batter, having left his ground a second ago, is
out of his ground when the bails are taken off, yet the bowler has
clearly tricked him into beng out of his ground.

The present Law covers this extremely simply: the batter didn't leave
his crease before the *expected* moment of delivery and is therefore
not out.

If you want to get rid of that phrase, then propose something else
which will cover the bowler deliberately delaying his arrival at the
crease in unambiguous terms without using any word indicating
intention or expectation, merely things which are verifiable in a
slo-mo.

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:39:06 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> This discussion has focused on the Zampa incident which is unique in
> my experience as the only one in which the bowler has even begun his
> action. In all the other ones I've seen, the bowler hasn't even
> attempted to bowl, just turned up and whipped the bails off.

An MCC member blind to the issues around Mankads.
What a load of rubbish.

Go and watch the infamous Charlie Dean run out.

On 1/19/2023 1:09 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 6:39:06 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> This discussion has focused on the Zampa incident which is unique in
>> my experience as the only one in which the bowler has even begun his
>> action. In all the other ones I've seen, the bowler hasn't even
>> attempted to bowl, just turned up and whipped the bails off.
>
> An MCC member blind to the issues around Mankads.
> What a load of rubbish.
>
> Go and watch the infamous Charlie Dean run out.

Even by your "personal" law interpretation of front foot landing,
Charlie Dean who CHEATED 72 times in the SAME inning, is still
fractionally out of the crease when Deepti's front foot landed.

The CHEAT got what she DESERVED and mankaded.

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:29:08 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> got what she DESERVED and mankaded.

Yes. Quite possibly the worst backing up I've ever seen. 72 times is... embarrassing. Unprofessional, even.

On 1/20/2023 12:18 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 5:29:08 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> got what she DESERVED and mankaded.
>
> Yes. Quite possibly the worst backing up I've ever seen. 72 times is... embarrassing. Unprofessional, even.
>

Come on Jack bruh....

72 times is NOT "unprofessional...."

It is CHEATING....that too by yards....

On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 05:58:05 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:34:56 +0000, David North
> <nos...@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.

Fair point - no, I'm not. I was only considering Law 38.3.

Perhape make question 1 (much as Jack suggested elsewhere): If the bowler aborted their action without delivering the ball, did they immediately attempt to run out the non-striker. If not, immediately call Dead ball under Law 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)." Otherwise proceed with the other 3 questions as above.

An alternative would be to deem the bowler's actions unfair, and implement Law 41.2 (call Dead ball, warn the captain, etc)

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 06:03:56 -0800 (PST), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 05:58:05 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:34:56 +0000, David North
>> <nos...@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.
>
>Fair point - no, I'm not. I was only considering Law 38.3.
>
>Perhape make question 1 (much as Jack suggested elsewhere): If the bowler aborted their action without delivering the ball, did they immediately attempt to run out the non-striker. If not, immediately call Dead ball under Law 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)." Otherwise proceed with the other 3 questions as above.

So it's all right for a bowler to start his run-up, and then slow down
to a walk as soon as the non-striker turns his head away, arrive at
the stumps significantly later than anyone would have expected and
knocks the bails off. With your question, that's out even though he
has clearly tricked the batter out of his ground.

Of course, it's not out under the Laws as written if the batter didn't
leave his ground until the *expected* moment of release, at which
point he had reached the famous "safe point".

And there's a problem with "immediately" in your question: the bowler
might run up normally and then stop to check that the batter is out of
his ground and then attempt to run him out, which would imply that it
wasn't "immediate", even though it might be before the expected
release.

In case it's not obvious, I'm simply trying to demonstrate why
"expected instant of release" cannot be dispensed with if you want to
stop bowlers pulling a fast one by going into slow motion.

Cheers,

Mike

Cheers,

Mike

On 1/20/2023 6:03 AM, David North wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 05:58:05 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:34:56 +0000, David North
>> <nos...@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.
>
> Fair point - no, I'm not. I was only considering Law 38.3.
>
> Perhape make question 1 (much as Jack suggested elsewhere): If the bowler aborted their action without delivering the ball, did they immediately attempt to run out the non-striker. If not, immediately call Dead ball under Law 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)." Otherwise proceed with the other 3 questions as above.
>
> An alternative would be to deem the bowler's actions unfair, and implement Law 41.2 (call Dead ball, warn the captain, etc)

All of you are discussing ALL these COMPLICATED SCENARIOS.

Have you guys thought about HOW DIFFICULT it would be for umpires,
bowlers, batters, fans to understand these laws and possibilities of
being mankaded in different scenarios EVEN if the laws are understood
and followed?

Also, wouldn't all these complicated laws make the game BORING, apart
from stopping the game for REVIEWS by 3rd umpire to make the ruling?

And even then, the rulings will split the fans arguing back and forth
and taking sides.

Would cricket fans REALLY WANT to watch a game with all these mankading
instances?

WHY NOT make it EASIER "for every entity" by making the law that
non-strikers are LIABLE to be run out as long as the ball is still in
bowlers' hand?

This will actually make mankading disappear slowly with time, ONCE
batters program their minds NOT to leave the CREASE "UNTIL" the ball is
released.

This SOLUTION is SOOOO SIMPLE, I just can't understand why other fans
don't see it that way.

Look at how many arguments from fans and players are occurring every
time there is a mankad ruling.

It is SOOOOO SIMPLE and EASY TO IMPLEMENT

On 1/20/2023 6:36 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 06:03:56 -0800 (PST), David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 05:58:05 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 05:34:56 +0000, David North
>>> <nos...@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.
>>
>> Fair point - no, I'm not. I was only considering Law 38.3.
>>
>> Perhape make question 1 (much as Jack suggested elsewhere): If the bowler aborted their action without delivering the ball, did they immediately attempt to run out the non-striker. If not, immediately call Dead ball under Law 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)." Otherwise proceed with the other 3 questions as above.
>
> So it's all right for a bowler to start his run-up, and then slow down
> to a walk as soon as the non-striker turns his head away, arrive at
> the stumps significantly later than anyone would have expected and
> knocks the bails off. With your question, that's out even though he
> has clearly tricked the batter out of his ground.
>
> Of course, it's not out under the Laws as written if the batter didn't
> leave his ground until the *expected* moment of release, at which
> point he had reached the famous "safe point".
>
> And there's a problem with "immediately" in your question: the bowler
> might run up normally and then stop to check that the batter is out of
> his ground and then attempt to run him out, which would imply that it
> wasn't "immediate", even though it might be before the expected
> release.
>
> In case it's not obvious, I'm simply trying to demonstrate why
> "expected instant of release" cannot be dispensed with if you want to
> stop bowlers pulling a fast one by going into slow motion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Bowler has the RIGHT to change his speed of the motion during the run up.

It is NOT bowlers responsibility to make it EASIER for batters to leave
the crease.

It's the batters responsibility to STAY in the crease.

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:36:27 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> So it's all right for a bowler to start his run-up, and then slow down
> to a walk as soon as the non-striker turns his head away, arrive at
> the stumps significantly later than anyone would have expected and
> knocks the bails off. With your question, that's out even though he
> has clearly tricked the batter out of his ground.

How has the bowler tricked the batsman?

"expected to release" is defined in the Laws as "when arm is at highest point in delivery swing".

If a bowler never starts their delivery swing then the batsman should NOT be expecting the bowler to release.

A batsman can't be lead to believe delivery will happen, and therefore tricked into thinking "expected to release" is going to happen, until the bowler enters their delivery stride.

If a batsman leaves their ground prior to a bowler entering delivery stride it's particularly bad running by the batsman and they deserve to be Run Out.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:36:22 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>
>In case it's not obvious, I'm simply trying to demonstrate why
>"expected instant of release" cannot be dispensed with if you want to
>stop bowlers pulling a fast one by going into slow motion.

Or consider:

A bowler has a 20m loping run-up designed more for rhythm than
gathering pace.

He gets his legs in a tangle and falls over 10m from the stumps. In
getting rid of the ball as he falls:

1 he flings it at the stumps and knocks the bails off. The batter
clearly left his ground way early and should be given out.

2 he gently rolls it at the stumps, which knocks the bails off when it
finally arrives much later than one would expect. This should be not
out.

3 he throws it with moderate force so that it knocks the bails off at
roughly the time one might normally expect the ball to be released;
it's not necessarily subterfuge - it can just as easily be the bowler
sacrificing some speed for greater accuracy. So I'd expect the umpires
to make a judgment as to whether the ball broke the stumps before or
after the expected point of delivery and how early the batsman was in
setting off.

(In all cases, the batter is out of his ground when the wicket is
broken. All cases can also be repeated with the bowler deliberately
stopping 10m from the stumps and then proceeding to propel the ball.
In such a case, 2 would be obvious subterfuge.)

I really don't see how you can legislate based on the perceived speed
of the ball towards the stumps and be at all fair. But I don't see how
you get a problem when it's the "expected instant" that the umpire has
to judge. I'm not suggesting that umpires have stopwatches in their
brains, and I don't believe that they can't make a mistake in their
judgment, so I'm not in any way suggesting that it is totally accurate
100% of the time.

Also, the Law needs to be able to cope with any situation in which the
ball legitimately breaks the wicket with the batter out of his ground,
whether or not the bowler actually intended it to. Basing the Law
entirely on the bowler's action cannot do that.

Cheers,

Mike

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:17:41 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:36:22 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>In case it's not obvious, I'm simply trying to demonstrate why
>>"expected instant of release" cannot be dispensed with if you want to
>>stop bowlers pulling a fast one by going into slow motion.
>
>Or consider:
>
>A bowler has a 20m loping run-up designed more for rhythm than
>gathering pace.
>
>He gets his legs in a tangle and falls over 10m from the stumps. In
>getting rid of the ball as he falls:
>
>1 he flings it at the stumps and knocks the bails off. The batter
>clearly left his ground way early and should be given out.
>
>2 he gently rolls it at the stumps, which knocks the bails off when it
>finally arrives much later than one would expect. This should be not
>out.
>
>3 he throws it with moderate force so that it knocks the bails off at
>roughly the time one might normally expect the ball to be released;
>it's not necessarily subterfuge - it can just as easily be the bowler
>sacrificing some speed for greater accuracy. So I'd expect the umpires
>to make a judgment as to whether the ball broke the stumps before or
>after the expected point of delivery and how early the batsman was in
>setting off.
>
>(In all cases, the batter is out of his ground when the wicket is
>broken. All cases can also be repeated with the bowler deliberately
>stopping 10m from the stumps and then proceeding to propel the ball.
>In such a case, 2 would be obvious subterfuge.)
>
>I really don't see how you can legislate based on the perceived speed
>of the ball towards the stumps and be at all fair. But I don't see how
>you get a problem when it's the "expected instant" that the umpire has
>to judge. I'm not suggesting that umpires have stopwatches in their
>brains, and I don't believe that they can't make a mistake in their
>judgment, so I'm not in any way suggesting that it is totally accurate
>100% of the time.
>
>Also, the Law needs to be able to cope with any situation in which the
>ball legitimately breaks the wicket with the batter out of his ground,
>whether or not the bowler actually intended it to. Basing the Law
>entirely on the bowler's action cannot do that.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

That would be three no ball deliveries.

max.it.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:37:43 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:17:41 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>wrote:

>>A bowler has a 20m loping run-up designed more for rhythm than
>>gathering pace.
>>
>>He gets his legs in a tangle and falls over 10m from the stumps. In
>>getting rid of the ball as he falls:
>>
>>1 he flings it at the stumps and knocks the bails off. The batter
>>clearly left his ground way early and should be given out.
>>
>>2 he gently rolls it at the stumps, which knocks the bails off when it
>>finally arrives much later than one would expect. This should be not
>>out.
>>
>>3 he throws it with moderate force so that it knocks the bails off at
>>roughly the time one might normally expect the ball to be released;
>
>That would be three no ball deliveries.

Under which clause of which Law? The Law specifically covers throwing
the ball at the striker's end before entering the delivery stride (not
a No Ball, but dead ball shall be called), but it makes no mention at
all of throwing the ball at the non-striker's wicket. It does mention
that if the bowler breaks the wicket with the ball in the course of
his delivery it's a No Ball unless the non-striker is out having left
his ground early.

Otherwise, there is no indication that throwing at the non-striker's
wicket before entering the delivery stride is a No Ball.

And it is ludicrous to require a bowler to go into his delivery stride
if he can already see the non-striker 5m out of his ground.

Cheers,

Mike

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:54:36 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:37:43 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:17:41 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>>>A bowler has a 20m loping run-up designed more for rhythm than
>>>gathering pace.
>>>
>>>He gets his legs in a tangle and falls over 10m from the stumps. In
>>>getting rid of the ball as he falls:
>>>
>>>1 he flings it at the stumps and knocks the bails off. The batter
>>>clearly left his ground way early and should be given out.
>>>
>>>2 he gently rolls it at the stumps, which knocks the bails off when it
>>>finally arrives much later than one would expect. This should be not
>>>out.
>>>
>>>3 he throws it with moderate force so that it knocks the bails off at
>>>roughly the time one might normally expect the ball to be released;
>>
>>That would be three no ball deliveries.
>
>Under which clause of which Law? The Law specifically covers throwing
>the ball at the striker's end before entering the delivery stride (not
>a No Ball, but dead ball shall be called), but it makes no mention at
>all of throwing the ball at the non-striker's wicket. It does mention
>that if the bowler breaks the wicket with the ball in the course of
>his delivery it's a No Ball unless the non-striker is out having left
>his ground early.
>
>Otherwise, there is no indication that throwing at the non-striker's
>wicket before entering the delivery stride is a No Ball.
>
>And it is ludicrous to require a bowler to go into his delivery stride
>if he can already see the non-striker 5m out of his ground.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

At 10m behind the stumps and I'm thinking the umpire won't be able to
confirm that the delivery has been fair.

max.it

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 23:10:11 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:54:36 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:37:43 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:17:41 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>A bowler has a 20m loping run-up designed more for rhythm than
>>>>gathering pace.
>>>>
>>>>He gets his legs in a tangle and falls over 10m from the stumps. In
>>>>getting rid of the ball as he falls:
>>>>
>>>>1 he flings it at the stumps and knocks the bails off. The batter
>>>>clearly left his ground way early and should be given out.

>At 10m behind the stumps and I'm thinking the umpire won't be able to
>confirm that the delivery has been fair.

It's not a delivery. If a bowler is 10m from the delivery and can
already see the non-striker 2m out of his ground, why on earth
shouldn't he just fling the ball at the bowler's end stumps and run
him out?

Cheers,

Mike

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 7:17:43 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:36:22 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >In case it's not obvious, I'm simply trying to demonstrate why
> >"expected instant of release" cannot be dispensed with if you want to
> >stop bowlers pulling a fast one by going into slow motion.
> Or consider:
>
> A bowler has a 20m loping run-up designed more for rhythm than
> gathering pace.
>
> He gets his legs in a tangle and falls over 10m from the stumps. In
> getting rid of the ball as he falls:
>
> 1 he flings it at the stumps and knocks the bails off. The batter
> clearly left his ground way early and should be given out.
>
> 2 he gently rolls it at the stumps, which knocks the bails off when it
> finally arrives much later than one would expect. This should be not
> out.
>
> 3 he throws it with moderate force so that it knocks the bails off at
> roughly the time one might normally expect the ball to be released;
> it's not necessarily subterfuge - it can just as easily be the bowler
> sacrificing some speed for greater accuracy. So I'd expect the umpires
> to make a judgment as to whether the ball broke the stumps before or
> after the expected point of delivery and how early the batsman was in
> setting off.

You're making the mistake of thinking that "expected to deliver" is based off of when the bowler STARTS their run up.

You are, obviously, wrong.

If the Law was this way, then the Law would allow a non-striker to leave their crease well before the delivery stride (in cases when a bowler slows their run up for whatever reason).
Slower run up, normal everything else, but batsman can legally leave what we'd call early.

You're ALSO ignoring that "expected to deliver" is now defined in the Law as "arm reaches highest point in delivery swing".

You're conflating "bowler expected to reach the delivery stride if run up was normal" with the Law's version of "expected to deliver".

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:52:53 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> You're making the mistake of thinking that "expected to deliver" is based off of when the bowler STARTS their run up.
> You are, obviously, wrong.

Another way to look at it...

if variations in the run up DON'T delay "expected to release", then variations in the run up will, at times, allow the batsman to leave the crease earlier than "arm at highest point in delivery action".

On 1/20/2023 3:52 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 7:17:43 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:36:22 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In case it's not obvious, I'm simply trying to demonstrate why
>>> "expected instant of release" cannot be dispensed with if you want to
>>> stop bowlers pulling a fast one by going into slow motion.
>> Or consider:
>>
>> A bowler has a 20m loping run-up designed more for rhythm than
>> gathering pace.
>>
>> He gets his legs in a tangle and falls over 10m from the stumps. In
>> getting rid of the ball as he falls:
>>
>> 1 he flings it at the stumps and knocks the bails off. The batter
>> clearly left his ground way early and should be given out.
>>
>> 2 he gently rolls it at the stumps, which knocks the bails off when it
>> finally arrives much later than one would expect. This should be not
>> out.
>>
>> 3 he throws it with moderate force so that it knocks the bails off at
>> roughly the time one might normally expect the ball to be released;
>> it's not necessarily subterfuge - it can just as easily be the bowler
>> sacrificing some speed for greater accuracy. So I'd expect the umpires
>> to make a judgment as to whether the ball broke the stumps before or
>> after the expected point of delivery and how early the batsman was in
>> setting off.
>
> You're making the mistake of thinking that "expected to deliver" is based off of when the bowler STARTS their run up.
>
> You are, obviously, wrong.
>
> If the Law was this way, then the Law would allow a non-striker to leave their crease well before the delivery stride (in cases when a bowler slows their run up for whatever reason).
> Slower run up, normal everything else, but batsman can legally leave what we'd call early.
>
> You're ALSO ignoring that "expected to deliver" is now defined in the Law as "arm reaches highest point in delivery swing".
>
> You're conflating "bowler expected to reach the delivery stride if run up was normal" with the Law's version of "expected to deliver".

Holmans is confused in this issue.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 23:17:11 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 23:10:11 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:54:36 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:37:43 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:17:41 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>A bowler has a 20m loping run-up designed more for rhythm than
>>>>>gathering pace.
>>>>>
>>>>>He gets his legs in a tangle and falls over 10m from the stumps. In
>>>>>getting rid of the ball as he falls:
>>>>>
>>>>>1 he flings it at the stumps and knocks the bails off. The batter
>>>>>clearly left his ground way early and should be given out.
>
>>At 10m behind the stumps and I'm thinking the umpire won't be able to
>>confirm that the delivery has been fair.
>
>It's not a delivery. If a bowler is 10m from the delivery and can
>already see the non-striker 2m out of his ground, why on earth
>shouldn't he just fling the ball at the bowler's end stumps and run
>him out?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

There is nothing to prevent a bowler 'delivering' the ball from behind
the umpire apart from the no ball because the umpire can't confirm a
fair delivery, you'll be asking your colleague what happened to the
bowler. Then I suppose it will be either no ball or dead ball
depending of it the ball was dropped or delivered, thrown or rolled.

It could be one of those no ball then immediately dead ball calls.
My Tom Smith is out of date so I have no reference and I'm not 100%
with the current code.

If you and your colleague mess it up then the training officer will
hear about it really quickly and you'll be 'summoned' to HQ for a chat
and/or a bolloxing.

max.it

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 09:07:52 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>There is nothing to prevent a bowler 'delivering' the ball from behind
>the umpire apart from the no ball because the umpire can't confirm a
>fair delivery, you'll be asking your colleague what happened to the
>bowler. Then I suppose it will be either no ball or dead ball
>depending of it the ball was dropped or delivered, thrown or rolled.

OK, I'll ask the question again: if the bowler notices that the batter
is 2m out of his ground while he is running up, why shouldn't he
attempt to run him out? That is the whole fucking point of mankadding.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:22:51 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 09:07:52 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>
>>There is nothing to prevent a bowler 'delivering' the ball from behind
>>the umpire apart from the no ball because the umpire can't confirm a
>>fair delivery, you'll be asking your colleague what happened to the
>>bowler. Then I suppose it will be either no ball or dead ball
>>depending of it the ball was dropped or delivered, thrown or rolled.
>
>OK, I'll ask the question again: if the bowler notices that the batter
>is 2m out of his ground while he is running up, why shouldn't he
>attempt to run him out? That is the whole fucking point of mankadding.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

The bowler should run out the batsman, but not every bowler will, and
not every captain will withdraw the appeal.

max.it

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 1:41:17 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> The bowler should run out the batsman, but not every bowler will, and
> not every captain will withdraw the appeal.

No captain should, either.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:41:13 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:22:51 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 09:07:52 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is nothing to prevent a bowler 'delivering' the ball from behind
>>>the umpire apart from the no ball because the umpire can't confirm a
>>>fair delivery, you'll be asking your colleague what happened to the
>>>bowler. Then I suppose it will be either no ball or dead ball
>>>depending of it the ball was dropped or delivered, thrown or rolled.
>>
>>OK, I'll ask the question again: if the bowler notices that the batter
>>is 2m out of his ground while he is running up, why shouldn't he
>>attempt to run him out? That is the whole fucking point of mankadding.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Mike
>
>The bowler should run out the batsman, but not every bowler will, and
>not every captain will withdraw the appeal.

But above, you say a run out attempt should be no ball or dead ball.
jzf, on the other hand, believes that the bowler can fart about as
much as he likes as long as he doesn't reach the highest point in his
action (even though MCC's clarificatory amendment only sought to close
the loophole whereby a bowler could claim that he normally released
the ball when his arm was well past the vertical and so the batter
wasn't safe at the high point in the minority of mankadding cases
where bowlers started to go through their action).

The bowler must have the right to throw the ball at the bowler's end
stumps if he sees the non-striker out of his ground before he has
delivered the ball, whether or not he enters the delivery action. But
if he does not exercise his right promptly or does it so
half-heartedly that the ball takes a lot longer to get to the stumps,
then the suspicion must be that there is an attempt at subterfuge and
that the batter should be given not out and then dead ball should be
called.

jzf, on the other hand, thinks that bowlers should be able to run-up
until they reach the umpire, stop dead and wait for the non-striker to
leave his ground for however long that takes and then flip the bails
off, because the bowler's arm hasn't reached the highest point yet. I
don't think that's fair, and neither does David North, but jzf clearly
believes it is.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 16:46:02 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:41:13 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:22:51 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 09:07:52 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is nothing to prevent a bowler 'delivering' the ball from behind
>>>>the umpire apart from the no ball because the umpire can't confirm a
>>>>fair delivery, you'll be asking your colleague what happened to the
>>>>bowler. Then I suppose it will be either no ball or dead ball
>>>>depending of it the ball was dropped or delivered, thrown or rolled.
>>>
>>>OK, I'll ask the question again: if the bowler notices that the batter
>>>is 2m out of his ground while he is running up, why shouldn't he
>>>attempt to run him out? That is the whole fucking point of mankadding.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Mike
>>
>>The bowler should run out the batsman, but not every bowler will, and
>>not every captain will withdraw the appeal.
>
>But above, you say a run out attempt should be no ball or dead ball.
>jzf, on the other hand, believes that the bowler can fart about as
>much as he likes as long as he doesn't reach the highest point in his
>action (even though MCC's clarificatory amendment only sought to close
>the loophole whereby a bowler could claim that he normally released
>the ball when his arm was well past the vertical and so the batter
>wasn't safe at the high point in the minority of mankadding cases
>where bowlers started to go through their action).
>
>The bowler must have the right to throw the ball at the bowler's end
>stumps if he sees the non-striker out of his ground before he has
>delivered the ball, whether or not he enters the delivery action. But
>if he does not exercise his right promptly or does it so
>half-heartedly that the ball takes a lot longer to get to the stumps,
>then the suspicion must be that there is an attempt at subterfuge and
>that the batter should be given not out and then dead ball should be
>called.
>
>jzf, on the other hand, thinks that bowlers should be able to run-up
>until they reach the umpire, stop dead and wait for the non-striker to
>leave his ground for however long that takes and then flip the bails
>off, because the bowler's arm hasn't reached the highest point yet. I
>don't think that's fair, and neither does David North, but jzf clearly
>believes it is.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>

Tipping over in a heap @ 10m away and propelling the ball in the
direction of the non striker sounds like a dead ball call to me if the
bowler dropped the ball, and a no ball call if the bowler threw the
ball. Only the dead ball call will affect the run out and a run out
from a no ball doesn't affect the call of no ball.
You just can't go throwing the ball whenever you're supposed to be
bowling it and not be sanctioned for the transgression.

These points of reference like the highest point of the arm or front
foot contact are made to help tv umpires to make a decision, your
regular umpires in the middle without a tv umpire can only say what
they see.

max.it

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:10:11 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>Tipping over in a heap @ 10m away and propelling the ball in the
>direction of the non striker sounds like a dead ball call to me

That's quite possible. But if the bowler just stops 10, 6, or 4 meters
from the stumps, there is no reason to call dead ball just for that,
and if he from that point throws the ball at the stumps, then it's run
out, surely, and not a no ball because he hasn't attempted to bowl.

The majority of mankads in practice are ones where the bowler runs up
and flips the bails off when he gets there. It's out because the
wicket was broken before the expected instant of delivery. Since the
batter knows it's a fair cop, it's not controversial, and nobody makes
a fuss.

jzf's assertion that all mankads are controversial is balderdash:
nearly all the ones that are controversial are those where the bowler
embarks on his action, though, so if the only ones you ever hear about
are the controversial ones, you will get a very distorted view of the
true picture.

But without a concept of when the umpire expected the ball to be
delivered even though the delivery action never started, he has no way
of deciding whether the non-striker left his ground before that point
or whether the bowler delayed breaking the wicket in some way to
exploit the batsman's natural assumption.

Cheers,

Mike