On 20/01/2023 14:36, 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".

In the above scenario, the expected moment of release, as defined by
MCC, would not have been reached. You appear to be interpreting it as I
originally did, as the moment when the bowler would have released the
ball if he had continued with his delivery as normal, without slowing
down, etc.

> 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.

Is the reason the ball has not left the bowler's hand an attempt to run
out the nonstriker if the bowler does not decide to make that attempt
until after stopping and checking that the batter is out of his ground?

> 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.

Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.

I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my original
Question 1.

--
David North

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:28:52 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>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

Starc says if he has to keep his foot behind the line then the batsman
can keep his bat behind it.

max.it

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:46:04 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:41:13 +0000, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:22:51 +0000, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 09:07:52 +0000, max.it <m...@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

Within reason.

eg slower run up. Staggered run up. Longer run up.

They can't stop to do cartwheels. Other Laws come into play. Dead Ball. Deliberate distraction Unfair Play.

My point is legal/acceptable variations in the run up change the time of "expected to deliver".

If a bowler DOES stop before delivery stride, then "expected to deliver" doesn't occur.

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:46:04 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> 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.

Based on the current Laws there's no sensible way around this (actually, I do have some suggestions, but that's for another post).
The usual run up has "delayed". So "expected to release" must also be delayed.

If we DON'T also delay EtR, then we can't delay EtR in a slower-than-normal run up. This means if a non-striker sees an altered run up, they can legally leave BEFORE the arm reaches highest point in delivery swing.

Again, you're ignoring that the safe point as per the Laws is defined as "highest point in delivery swing".

If there's no delivery swing, there's NO SAFE POINT. Until the umpire calls dead ball, obviously.

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 6:22:02 AM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> In the above scenario, the expected moment of release, as defined by
> MCC, would not have been reached. You appear to be interpreting it as I
> originally did, as the moment when the bowler would have released the
> ball if he had continued with his delivery as normal, without slowing
> down, etc.

MH is a smart cookie. And an MCC member.

When he gets flummoxed by Law interpretations it either means the Law is a dog's breakfast or it's a new Law that is still teething and not yet in its final form.

I think this part of Run Out is a little bit of both.

All of the established Laws have decades of analysis, fine tuning, and edge-case-theory-crafting. Mankads don't have that, really, as they were so rare. We'll get there, but it will be bumpy.

On 19/01/2023 09:46, jack fredricks wrote:
> 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"?

Yes, it did.

> I honestly can't remember. I thought it said "vertical".

It was the 3rd umpire in the Zampa case who said "vertical".

--
David North

On 19/01/2023 06:26, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> 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.

What on earth has the bowler's arm crossing the crease got to do with it?

--
David North

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 3:13:35 PM UTC+10, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 19/01/2023 09:46, jack fredricks wrote:
> > 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"?
>
> Yes, it did.
>
> > I honestly can't remember. I thought it said "vertical".
>
> It was the 3rd umpire in the Zampa case who said "vertical".

Thanks.

Moot point, as since then the Law has been updated. Yay.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/01/2023 14:36, 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".
>
>In the above scenario, the expected moment of release, as defined by
>MCC, would not have been reached. You appear to be interpreting it as I
>originally did, as the moment when the bowler would have released the
>ball if he had continued with his delivery as normal, without slowing
>down, etc.

And I'll bet that that's what MCC meant, since they issued this
amendment in response to the Zampa incident to make it clear that the
bowler's action has nothing to do with it in the sense that it doesn't
matter where in the arc the bowler normally releases it.

Since they have now amended the Law in such a way that the bowler can
do what the fuck he likes in terms of tricking the batter, I expect
they'll have to clarify it again.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>
>Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>
>I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my original
>Question 1.

I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 3:37:07 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> I expect
> they'll have to clarify it again.

Yep. This isn't over.

It's a very complex Law to balance.

The stigma should be lessened. Correct steps have been taken to do this. But there is still stigma during deceptive Run Outs.
Batsman who leave early should gain no advantage.
Should they be punished? Dead Ball? 5 runs?
Run Out is the current punishment, but that opens a whole can of trickery/deception worms.
It's weaponised Mankads, and bowlers are now doing in when they're desperate for a wicket.
Like this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bbB9gQ6X2A&ab_channel=ICC

I wonder if it will end with "if the non-striker leave their crease before the safe point the ball shall be considered Dead Ball, even if delivered, and 5 penalty runs issues to the batting team".

Essentially get rid of this type of Run Out.

Bowlers can try to trick their way to a 5 run batting team penalty, but that will cause way less friction than a dismissal.

On 1/21/2023 10:12 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 3:37:07 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> I expect
>> they'll have to clarify it again.
>
> Yep. This isn't over.
>
> It's a very complex Law to balance.
>
> The stigma should be lessened. Correct steps have been taken to do this. But there is still stigma during deceptive Run Outs.
> Batsman who leave early should gain no advantage.
> Should they be punished? Dead Ball? 5 runs?
> Run Out is the current punishment, but that opens a whole can of trickery/deception worms.
> It's weaponised Mankads, and bowlers are now doing in when they're desperate for a wicket.
> Like this;
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bbB9gQ6X2A&ab_channel=ICC
>

There is NO Trickery or Deception in that video.

It is perfectly legitimate based on the laws.

Your brain is stuck on preconceived notion of bowlers deceiving batsmen.

>
>
> I wonder if it will end with "if the non-striker leave their crease before the safe point the ball shall be considered Dead Ball, even if delivered, and 5 penalty runs issues to the batting team".

No it won't. Not in a million years.

MCC is full of dumbfucks but NOT that dumb.

>
> Essentially get rid of this type of Run Out.
>
> Bowlers can try to trick their way to a 5 run batting team penalty, but that will cause way less friction than a dismissal.
>
>

Bowlers tricking DOESN'T EVEN come into the picture, because it is the
batters who are CHEATING.

Friction exists because HUMANS are "emotional animals".

All the problems and scenarios fans are discussing here will DISAPPEAR
with just adding one line to the law i.e monkey IQed batters are liable
to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released the ball.

On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>>
>> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>>
>> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my original
>> Question 1.
>
> I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW VERY
SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and implement?

Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released
the ball.

It is SO SIMPLE, everybody will like it in just a few months.

Batters will STOP stealing and cheating.

Bowlers WON'T even think of mankading anymore IF batters stay in the crease.

We are living in the 21st century ffs.

We are supposed to make things EASIER and SIMPLE instead of making it
more complicated, difficult and subject to interpretations of individuals.

On 1/21/2023 9:17 PM, David North wrote:
> On 19/01/2023 06:26, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> What on earth has the bowler's arm crossing the crease got to do with it?
>

Obviously I meant "crossing the vertical/highest point", but mistyped it.

On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
> > <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
> >>
> >> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
> >>
> >> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my original
> >> Question 1.
> >
> > I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW VERY
> SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and implement?
>
>
> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released
> the ball.

As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to complete their delivery action without releasing the ball in the hope that the non-striker will then leave their ground, he is hardly likely to ask the MCC to change the Laws to allow that. He obviously thinks the Law allows too many potential shenanigans by the bowler as it stands.

Also, what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and throws the ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their ground? By the time the ball hits the wicket, the non-striker is out of their ground and would be out under the current Law, but under your "Simple" law, the bowler has released the ball, so the non-striker is free to leave their ground.

Many of the Laws of cricket are not simple for good reasons. They are not made complicated just for the sake of it.

On 1/23/2023 6:01 AM, David North wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>>>>
>>>> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>>>>
>>>> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my original
>>>> Question 1.
>>>
>>> I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW VERY
>> SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and implement?
>>
>>
>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released
>> the ball.
>
> As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to complete their delivery action without releasing the ball in the hope that the non-striker will then leave their ground,

If the batters are NOT leaving the crease early, bowlers WON'T even try
to mankad.

Bowlers TRY to mankad "ONLY" when they see a pattern of batters leaving
early a couple of times.

Imagine you are the bowler.

Would you try to mankad IF you DON'T see the batter leaving early the
previous few balls?

Can you please tell me WHY non-strikers can't see the ball leaving the
bowlers hand, with their PERIPHERAL VISION?

>he is hardly likely to ask the MCC to change the Laws to allow that. He obviously thinks the Law allows too many potential shenanigans by the bowler as it stands.
>

In the entire international cricket history,

- how many times did bowlers use any shenanigans to deceive the
non-strikers?

- Likewise, HOW MANY TIMES did batters LEAVE THE CREASE EARLY?

So, IF it was the batters who were CHEATING 99% of the time, shouldn't
we PUT THE ONUS on the batters NOT TO CHEAT?

Honest question.

> Also, what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and throws the ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their ground? By the time the ball hits the wicket, the non-striker is out of their ground and would be out under the current Law, but under your "Simple" law, the bowler has released the ball, so the non-striker is free to leave their ground.

It should be out.

Quite simple, because if the batter left the ground when the bowler is
still 5 yards away from the bowling crease, and didn't BOWL but mankaded
him.

It is the BATTERS responsibility to STAY in the CREASE "until" the ball
is BOWLED.

Batters BRAIN is NOT BUSY AT ALL.....he is the "LEASE BURDENED" of the
three entities of Umpire, Bowler and Batter at the moment of delivery of
the ball.

>
> Many of the Laws of cricket are not simple for good reasons. They are not made complicated just for the sake of it.
>

We should make mankading issue very simple to understand and interpret
since fans, players, umpires are frustrated and emotionally arguing back
and forth WITHOUT ever solving the problem.

On 23/01/2023 14:38, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/23/2023 6:01 AM, David North wrote:
>> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>> wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my original
>>>>> Question 1.
>>>>
>>>> I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW VERY
>>> SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and implement?
>>>
>>>
>>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released
>>> the ball.
>>
>> As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to complete
>> their delivery action without releasing the ball in the hope that the
>> non-striker will then leave their ground,
>
>
> If the batters are NOT leaving the crease early, bowlers WON'T even try
> to mankad.

But they are, and I see no reason why changing the law will stop them.

> Bowlers TRY to mankad "ONLY" when they see a pattern of batters leaving
> early a couple of times.
>
> Imagine you are the bowler.
>
> Would you try to mankad IF you DON'T see the batter leaving early the
> previous few balls?
>
> Can you please tell me WHY non-strikers can't see the ball leaving the
> bowlers hand, with their PERIPHERAL VISION?

Well if the non-striker can see the ball leaving the bowler's hand,
possibly at 90+ mph, with their peripheral vision, the square-leg umpire
can sure as hell see whether the bowler's hand has stopped moving
upwards and started moving downwards again when looking straight at it.

>> he is hardly likely to ask the MCC to change the Laws to allow that.
>> He obviously thinks the Law allows too many potential shenanigans by
>> the bowler as it stands.
>>
>
>
> In the entire international cricket history,
>
> - how many times did bowlers use any shenanigans to deceive the
> non-strikers?

Not many, as far as I know. That's why I said "potential".

> - Likewise, HOW MANY TIMES did batters LEAVE THE CREASE EARLY?
>
>
> So, IF it was the batters who were CHEATING 99% of the time, shouldn't
> we PUT THE ONUS on the batters NOT TO CHEAT?
>
> Honest question.
>
>
>> Also, what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and throws the
>> ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their
>> ground? By the time the ball hits the wicket, the non-striker is out
>> of their ground and would be out under the current Law, but under your
>> "Simple" law, the bowler has released the ball, so the non-striker is
>> free to leave their ground.
>
>
> It should be out.
>
> Quite simple, because if the batter left the ground when the bowler is
> still 5 yards away from the bowling crease, and didn't BOWL but mankaded
> him.
>
> It is the BATTERS responsibility to STAY in the CREASE "until" the ball
> is BOWLED.

Right, so now you've changed from "released" to "bowled".

Now what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and bowls the ball
at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their ground?

--
David North

On 1/23/2023 12:14 PM, David North wrote:
> On 23/01/2023 14:38, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/23/2023 6:01 AM, David North wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC,
>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
>>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my
>>>>>> original
>>>>>> Question 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW VERY
>>>> SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and
>>>> implement?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released
>>>> the ball.
>>>
>>> As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to complete
>>> their delivery action without releasing the ball in the hope that the
>>> non-striker will then leave their ground,
>>
>>
>> If the batters are NOT leaving the crease early, bowlers WON'T even
>> try to mankad.
>
> But they are, and I see no reason why changing the law will stop them.

Non-strikers "got used" to STEALING in the past, but the NEW rule if
implemented like I suggested will considerably REDUCE batters stealing
because they will be very conscious that bowlers will mankad them IF
they leave the crease BEFORE the ball is released/bowled.

>
>> Bowlers TRY to mankad "ONLY" when they see a pattern of batters
>> leaving early a couple of times.
>>
>> Imagine you are the bowler.
>>
>> Would you try to mankad IF you DON'T see the batter leaving early the
>> previous few balls?
>>
>> Can you please tell me WHY non-strikers can't see the ball leaving the
>> bowlers hand, with their PERIPHERAL VISION?
>
> Well if the non-striker can see the ball leaving the bowler's hand,
> possibly at 90+ mph, with their peripheral vision, the square-leg umpire
> can sure as hell see whether the bowler's hand has stopped moving
> upwards and started moving downwards again when looking straight at it.
>

They are two completely DIFFERENT things.

Non striker DOESN'T have to see the ball at the EXACT MOMENT the ball is
released from bowlers hand.

Non-striker can PERCEIVE the ball in the air in its trajectory, with his
peripheral vision.

Where as the square leg umpire has to PERCEIVE the EXACT MOMENT the
bowlers arm STOPPED in the arm swing motion while mankading and ALSO
figure it out if the arm crossed the vertical/highest, which would be
impossible from the distance and angle he is perceiving it from.

It is a no-brainer to conclude it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the square leg
umpire to PROCESS "fractions of seconds" and perceive and adjudge if
the bowlers arm crossed the vertical/highest position even more so for a
fast bowler.

Not sure WHY you are even arguing about this straight forward issue.

>>> he is hardly likely to ask the MCC to change the Laws to allow that.
>>> He obviously thinks the Law allows too many potential shenanigans by
>>> the bowler as it stands.
>>>
>>
>>
>> In the entire international cricket history,
>>
>> - how many times did bowlers use any shenanigans to deceive the
>> non-strikers?
>
> Not many, as far as I know. That's why I said "potential".

Since there NOT many occasions where the bowlers deceived but batters
are DECEIVING 99% of the time in the entire international cricket
history, we should STOP thinking along the OLD WAYS and EMBRACE the NEW
WAY of thinking that the ONUS is on the BATTERS "NOT TO CHEAT" and hence
make the mankad laws "accordingly".

Besides NO bowler is going to mankad the way Mike Holmans is concerned
about. The ODDS are literally zero.

EASY CONCLUSION because "IF" bowlers RARELY DECEIVED so far even when
batters were REGULARLY CHEATING and leaving the crease early in the last
70 years, then WHY WOULD the bowlers even consider deceiving, when
mankad laws are made strict and batters stopped leaving the crease early?

>
>> - Likewise, HOW MANY TIMES did batters LEAVE THE CREASE EARLY?
>>
>>
>> So, IF it was the batters who were CHEATING 99% of the time, shouldn't
>> we PUT THE ONUS on the batters NOT TO CHEAT?
>>
>> Honest question.
>>
>>
>>> Also, what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and throws the
>>> ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their
>>> ground? By the time the ball hits the wicket, the non-striker is out
>>> of their ground and would be out under the current Law, but under
>>> your "Simple" law, the bowler has released the ball, so the
>>> non-striker is free to leave their ground.
>>
>>
>> It should be out.
>>
>> Quite simple, because if the batter left the ground when the bowler is
>> still 5 yards away from the bowling crease, and didn't BOWL but
>> mankaded him.
>>
>> It is the BATTERS responsibility to STAY in the CREASE "until" the
>> ball is BOWLED.
>
> Right, so now you've changed from "released" to "bowled".

Okay, English is NOT my first language.

I meant bowled but it really doesn't matter because "released" can also
be used in the context since NO BOWLER is gonna deceive, like Holmans is
concerned about.

All those scenarios fans are talking about, are just unnecessary paranoia.

>
> Now what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and bowls the ball
> at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their ground?
>

Then the batter is OUT.

Simple.

NO bowler is gonna do that, to begin with, like I said above.

On 24/01/2023 06:21, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/23/2023 12:14 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 23/01/2023 14:38, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2023 6:01 AM, David North wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC,
>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
>>>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my
>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>> Question 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW
>>>>> VERY
>>>>> SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and
>>>>> implement?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released
>>>>> the ball.
>>>>
>>>> As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to complete
>>>> their delivery action without releasing the ball in the hope that
>>>> the non-striker will then leave their ground,
>>>
>>>
>>> If the batters are NOT leaving the crease early, bowlers WON'T even
>>> try to mankad.
>>
>> But they are, and I see no reason why changing the law will stop them.
>
>
> Non-strikers "got used" to STEALING in the past, but the NEW rule if
> implemented like I suggested will considerably REDUCE batters stealing
> because they will be very conscious that bowlers will mankad them IF
> they leave the crease BEFORE the ball is released/bowled.

That may well happen if bowlers run them out more often, as seems to be
happening, without any change in the law.

If your proposal was implemented, it would only make any difference if
bowlers did what I said above (i.e. complete their delivery action
without releasing the ball in the hope that the non-striker will then
leave their ground).

>>> Bowlers TRY to mankad "ONLY" when they see a pattern of batters
>>> leaving early a couple of times.
>>>
>>> Imagine you are the bowler.
>>>
>>> Would you try to mankad IF you DON'T see the batter leaving early the
>>> previous few balls?
>>>
>>> Can you please tell me WHY non-strikers can't see the ball leaving
>>> the bowlers hand, with their PERIPHERAL VISION?
>>
>> Well if the non-striker can see the ball leaving the bowler's hand,
>> possibly at 90+ mph, with their peripheral vision, the square-leg
>> umpire can sure as hell see whether the bowler's hand has stopped
>> moving upwards and started moving downwards again when looking
>> straight at it.
>>
>
>
> They are two completely DIFFERENT things.
>
> Non striker DOESN'T have to see the ball at the EXACT MOMENT the ball is
> released from bowlers hand.
>
> Non-striker can PERCEIVE the ball in the air in its trajectory, with his
> peripheral vision.
>
> Where as the square leg umpire has to PERCEIVE the EXACT MOMENT the
> bowlers arm STOPPED in the arm swing motion while mankading and ALSO
> figure it out if the arm crossed the vertical/highest, which would be
> impossible from the distance and angle he is perceiving it from.
>
>
> It is a no-brainer to conclude it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the square leg
> umpire to PROCESS "fractions of seconds"  and perceive and adjudge if
> the bowlers arm crossed the vertical/highest position even more so for a
> fast bowler.
>
> Not sure WHY you are even arguing about this straight forward issue.

I don't really know why I am bothering, because your position is absurd.

It is already the "primary responsibility of the striker’s end umpire to
assess the fairness of a delivery" as far as straightening of the arm is
concerned. ISTM that that is much more difficult than assessing whether
the arm passed the highest point, as is judging a close run-out, where
the umpire has to watch two things at once.

In any case, as I said, in almost all cases, the point where the bowler
stops their bowling action will be nowhere near the highest point. Can
you show us any actual cases where it was so close to the highest point
that the square-leg umpire could not easily decide?

>>>> he is hardly likely to ask the MCC to change the Laws to allow that.

--snip--

>>>> Also, what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and throws
>>>> the ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave
>>>> their ground? By the time the ball hits the wicket, the non-striker
>>>> is out of their ground and would be out under the current Law, but
>>>> under your "Simple" law, the bowler has released the ball, so the
>>>> non-striker is free to leave their ground.
>>>
>>>
>>> It should be out.
>>>
>>> Quite simple, because if the batter left the ground when the bowler
>>> is still 5 yards away from the bowling crease, and didn't BOWL but
>>> mankaded him.
>>>
>>> It is the BATTERS responsibility to STAY in the CREASE "until" the
>>> ball is BOWLED.
>>
>> Right, so now you've changed from "released" to "bowled".
>
>
> Okay, English is NOT my first language.
>
> I meant bowled but it really doesn't matter because "released" can also
> be used in the context since NO BOWLER is gonna deceive, like Holmans is
> concerned about.
>
> All those scenarios fans are talking about, are just unnecessary paranoia.
>
>
>
>>
>> Now what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and bowls the
>> ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their
>> ground?
>>
>
>
>
> Then the batter is OUT.

,,, even though they did not leave their ground until after the ball was
bowled.

ISTM that, to achieve what you want, you might as well dispense with any
reference to releasing or bowling the ball, and just say that the
non-striker is liable to be run out if they are out of their ground at
any time from the moment the ball comes into play until it becomes dead.

--
David North

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 06:12:59 +0000, David North wrote:

> On 24/01/2023 06:21, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/23/2023 12:14 PM, David North wrote:
>>> On 23/01/2023 14:38, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/2023 6:01 AM, David North wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC,
>>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
>>>>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my
>>>>>>>> original Question 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW
>>>>>> VERY SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and
>>>>>> implement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't
>>>>>> released the ball.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to complete
>>>>> their delivery action without releasing the ball in the hope that
>>>>> the non-striker will then leave their ground,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the batters are NOT leaving the crease early, bowlers WON'T even
>>>> try to mankad.
>>>
>>> But they are, and I see no reason why changing the law will stop them.
>>
>>
>> Non-strikers "got used" to STEALING in the past, but the NEW rule if
>> implemented like I suggested will considerably REDUCE batters stealing
>> because they will be very conscious that bowlers will mankad them IF
>> they leave the crease BEFORE the ball is released/bowled.
>
> That may well happen if bowlers run them out more often, as seems to be
> happening, without any change in the law.
>
> If your proposal was implemented, it would only make any difference if
> bowlers did what I said above (i.e. complete their delivery action
> without releasing the ball in the hope that the non-striker will then
> leave their ground).
>
>>>> Bowlers TRY to mankad "ONLY" when they see a pattern of batters
>>>> leaving early a couple of times.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine you are the bowler.
>>>>
>>>> Would you try to mankad IF you DON'T see the batter leaving early the
>>>> previous few balls?
>>>>
>>>> Can you please tell me WHY non-strikers can't see the ball leaving
>>>> the bowlers hand, with their PERIPHERAL VISION?
>>>
>>> Well if the non-striker can see the ball leaving the bowler's hand,
>>> possibly at 90+ mph, with their peripheral vision, the square-leg
>>> umpire can sure as hell see whether the bowler's hand has stopped
>>> moving upwards and started moving downwards again when looking
>>> straight at it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They are two completely DIFFERENT things.
>>
>> Non striker DOESN'T have to see the ball at the EXACT MOMENT the ball
>> is released from bowlers hand.
>>
>> Non-striker can PERCEIVE the ball in the air in its trajectory, with
>> his peripheral vision.
>>
>> Where as the square leg umpire has to PERCEIVE the EXACT MOMENT the
>> bowlers arm STOPPED in the arm swing motion while mankading and ALSO
>> figure it out if the arm crossed the vertical/highest, which would be
>> impossible from the distance and angle he is perceiving it from.
>>
>>
>> It is a no-brainer to conclude it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the square
>> leg umpire to PROCESS "fractions of seconds"  and perceive and adjudge
>> if the bowlers arm crossed the vertical/highest position even more so
>> for a fast bowler.
>>
>> Not sure WHY you are even arguing about this straight forward issue.
>
> I don't really know why I am bothering, because your position is absurd.
>
> It is already the "primary responsibility of the striker’s end umpire to
> assess the fairness of a delivery" as far as straightening of the arm is
> concerned. ISTM that that is much more difficult than assessing whether
> the arm passed the highest point, as is judging a close run-out, where
> the umpire has to watch two things at once.
>
> In any case, as I said, in almost all cases, the point where the bowler
> stops their bowling action will be nowhere near the highest point.

NOT necessarily.

It would be very difficult for square leg umpire to adjudge IF the bowling
arm is at 90 degrees or somewhere between 75-90 degrees when the bowler
pulled out of action because the ACTION happens VERY FAST.

>Can
> you show us any actual cases where it was so close to the highest point
> that the square-leg umpire could not easily decide?
>

Adam Zampa's mankading case.

Square leg umpire was NOT able to decide whether Zampa's arm crossed the
highest/vertical which was why it was REFERRED to 3rd Umpire.

>>>>> he is hardly likely to ask the MCC to change the Laws to allow that.
>
> --snip--
>
>>>>> Also, what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and throws
>>>>> the ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave
>>>>> their ground? By the time the ball hits the wicket, the non-striker
>>>>> is out of their ground and would be out under the current Law, but
>>>>> under your "Simple" law, the bowler has released the ball, so the
>>>>> non-striker is free to leave their ground.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It should be out.
>>>>
>>>> Quite simple, because if the batter left the ground when the bowler
>>>> is still 5 yards away from the bowling crease, and didn't BOWL but
>>>> mankaded him.
>>>>
>>>> It is the BATTERS responsibility to STAY in the CREASE "until" the
>>>> ball is BOWLED.
>>>
>>> Right, so now you've changed from "released" to "bowled".
>>
>>
>> Okay, English is NOT my first language.
>>
>> I meant bowled but it really doesn't matter because "released" can also
>> be used in the context since NO BOWLER is gonna deceive, like Holmans
>> is concerned about.
>>
>> All those scenarios fans are talking about, are just unnecessary
>> paranoia.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and bowls the
>>> ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their
>>> ground?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Then the batter is OUT.
>
> ,,, even though they did not leave their ground until after the ball was
> bowled.
>
> ISTM that, to achieve what you want, you might as well dispense with any
> reference to releasing or bowling the ball, and just say that the
> non-striker is liable to be run out if they are out of their ground at
> any time from the moment the ball comes into play until it becomes dead.

MCC should seriously consider it because it will make the game much
simpler for all entities.

On 27/01/2023 16:21, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 06:12:59 +0000, David North wrote:
>
>> On 24/01/2023 06:21, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2023 12:14 PM, David North wrote:
>>>> On 23/01/2023 14:38, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> On 1/23/2023 6:01 AM, David North wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC,
>>>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
>>>>>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my
>>>>>>>>> original Question 1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW
>>>>>>> VERY SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and
>>>>>>> implement?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't
>>>>>>> released the ball.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to complete
>>>>>> their delivery action without releasing the ball in the hope that
>>>>>> the non-striker will then leave their ground,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the batters are NOT leaving the crease early, bowlers WON'T even
>>>>> try to mankad.
>>>>
>>>> But they are, and I see no reason why changing the law will stop them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Non-strikers "got used" to STEALING in the past, but the NEW rule if
>>> implemented like I suggested will considerably REDUCE batters stealing
>>> because they will be very conscious that bowlers will mankad them IF
>>> they leave the crease BEFORE the ball is released/bowled.
>>
>> That may well happen if bowlers run them out more often, as seems to be
>> happening, without any change in the law.
>>
>> If your proposal was implemented, it would only make any difference if
>> bowlers did what I said above (i.e. complete their delivery action
>> without releasing the ball in the hope that the non-striker will then
>> leave their ground).
>>
>>>>> Bowlers TRY to mankad "ONLY" when they see a pattern of batters
>>>>> leaving early a couple of times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine you are the bowler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you try to mankad IF you DON'T see the batter leaving early the
>>>>> previous few balls?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please tell me WHY non-strikers can't see the ball leaving
>>>>> the bowlers hand, with their PERIPHERAL VISION?
>>>>
>>>> Well if the non-striker can see the ball leaving the bowler's hand,
>>>> possibly at 90+ mph, with their peripheral vision, the square-leg
>>>> umpire can sure as hell see whether the bowler's hand has stopped
>>>> moving upwards and started moving downwards again when looking
>>>> straight at it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are two completely DIFFERENT things.
>>>
>>> Non striker DOESN'T have to see the ball at the EXACT MOMENT the ball
>>> is released from bowlers hand.
>>>
>>> Non-striker can PERCEIVE the ball in the air in its trajectory, with
>>> his peripheral vision.
>>>
>>> Where as the square leg umpire has to PERCEIVE the EXACT MOMENT the
>>> bowlers arm STOPPED in the arm swing motion while mankading and ALSO
>>> figure it out if the arm crossed the vertical/highest, which would be
>>> impossible from the distance and angle he is perceiving it from.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a no-brainer to conclude it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the square
>>> leg umpire to PROCESS "fractions of seconds"  and perceive and adjudge
>>> if the bowlers arm crossed the vertical/highest position even more so
>>> for a fast bowler.
>>>
>>> Not sure WHY you are even arguing about this straight forward issue.
>>
>> I don't really know why I am bothering, because your position is absurd.
>>
>> It is already the "primary responsibility of the striker’s end umpire to
>> assess the fairness of a delivery" as far as straightening of the arm is
>> concerned. ISTM that that is much more difficult than assessing whether
>> the arm passed the highest point, as is judging a close run-out, where
>> the umpire has to watch two things at once.
>>
>> In any case, as I said, in almost all cases, the point where the bowler
>> stops their bowling action will be nowhere near the highest point.
>
>
> NOT necessarily.
>
> It would be very difficult for square leg umpire to adjudge IF the bowling
> arm is at 90 degrees or somewhere between 75-90 degrees when the bowler
> pulled out of action because the ACTION happens VERY FAST.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Can
>> you show us any actual cases where it was so close to the highest point
>> that the square-leg umpire could not easily decide?
>>
>
>
> Adam Zampa's mankading case.
>
> Square leg umpire was NOT able to decide whether Zampa's arm crossed the
> highest/vertical which was why it was REFERRED to 3rd Umpire.

I said 10 days ago that I had not seen any evidence that the square-leg
umpire was asked. I still haven't. Have you?

Zampa's arm went more than 90 degrees past the highest point before it
stopped. If the square-leg umpire could not tell that it had passed the
highest point, maybe he could have asked his guide dog.

--
David North

On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 07:15:41 +0000, David North wrote:

> On 27/01/2023 16:21, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 06:12:59 +0000, David North wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/01/2023 06:21, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/2023 12:14 PM, David North wrote:
>>>>> On 23/01/2023 14:38, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/23/2023 6:01 AM, David North wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC,
>>>>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
>>>>>>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my
>>>>>>>>>> original Question 1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the
>>>>>>>> LAW VERY SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to
>>>>>>>> understand and implement?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't
>>>>>>>> released the ball.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to
>>>>>>> complete their delivery action without releasing the ball in the
>>>>>>> hope that the non-striker will then leave their ground,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the batters are NOT leaving the crease early, bowlers WON'T even
>>>>>> try to mankad.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they are, and I see no reason why changing the law will stop
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Non-strikers "got used" to STEALING in the past, but the NEW rule if
>>>> implemented like I suggested will considerably REDUCE batters
>>>> stealing because they will be very conscious that bowlers will mankad
>>>> them IF they leave the crease BEFORE the ball is released/bowled.
>>>
>>> That may well happen if bowlers run them out more often, as seems to
>>> be happening, without any change in the law.
>>>
>>> If your proposal was implemented, it would only make any difference if
>>> bowlers did what I said above (i.e. complete their delivery action
>>> without releasing the ball in the hope that the non-striker will then
>>> leave their ground).
>>>
>>>>>> Bowlers TRY to mankad "ONLY" when they see a pattern of batters
>>>>>> leaving early a couple of times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine you are the bowler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you try to mankad IF you DON'T see the batter leaving early
>>>>>> the previous few balls?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please tell me WHY non-strikers can't see the ball leaving
>>>>>> the bowlers hand, with their PERIPHERAL VISION?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well if the non-striker can see the ball leaving the bowler's hand,
>>>>> possibly at 90+ mph, with their peripheral vision, the square-leg
>>>>> umpire can sure as hell see whether the bowler's hand has stopped
>>>>> moving upwards and started moving downwards again when looking
>>>>> straight at it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They are two completely DIFFERENT things.
>>>>
>>>> Non striker DOESN'T have to see the ball at the EXACT MOMENT the ball
>>>> is released from bowlers hand.
>>>>
>>>> Non-striker can PERCEIVE the ball in the air in its trajectory, with
>>>> his peripheral vision.
>>>>
>>>> Where as the square leg umpire has to PERCEIVE the EXACT MOMENT the
>>>> bowlers arm STOPPED in the arm swing motion while mankading and ALSO
>>>> figure it out if the arm crossed the vertical/highest, which would be
>>>> impossible from the distance and angle he is perceiving it from.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a no-brainer to conclude it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the square
>>>> leg umpire to PROCESS "fractions of seconds"  and perceive and
>>>> adjudge if the bowlers arm crossed the vertical/highest position even
>>>> more so for a fast bowler.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure WHY you are even arguing about this straight forward issue.
>>>
>>> I don't really know why I am bothering, because your position is
>>> absurd.
>>>
>>> It is already the "primary responsibility of the striker’s end umpire
>>> to assess the fairness of a delivery" as far as straightening of the
>>> arm is concerned. ISTM that that is much more difficult than assessing
>>> whether the arm passed the highest point, as is judging a close
>>> run-out, where the umpire has to watch two things at once.
>>>
>>> In any case, as I said, in almost all cases, the point where the
>>> bowler stops their bowling action will be nowhere near the highest
>>> point.
>>
>>
>> NOT necessarily.
>>
>> It would be very difficult for square leg umpire to adjudge IF the
>> bowling arm is at 90 degrees or somewhere between 75-90 degrees when
>> the bowler pulled out of action because the ACTION happens VERY FAST.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can you show us any actual cases where it was so close to the highest
>>> point that the square-leg umpire could not easily decide?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Adam Zampa's mankading case.
>>
>> Square leg umpire was NOT able to decide whether Zampa's arm crossed
>> the highest/vertical which was why it was REFERRED to 3rd Umpire.
>
> I said 10 days ago that I had not seen any evidence that the square-leg
> umpire was asked. I still haven't. Have you?
>
> Zampa's arm went more than 90 degrees past the highest point before it
> stopped. If the square-leg umpire could not tell that it had passed the
> highest point, maybe he could have asked his guide dog.

So, WHOSE FAULT is it "IF" the umpire didn't ask the square leg umpire to
judge whether the arm crossed the vertical/highest?

Why are there so many problems like these and WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.

You are NOT visualizing this scenario.

IF the bowler's arm STOPS 5-20 degrees before reaching the vertical/
highest position and mankads the non-striker, the square leg umpire WON'T
be able to decide with his naked eye AT THAT SPEED to judge whether the
action is illegal or legal.

In order to AVOID ALL these SCENARIOS and STOP boring fans, stopping the
game and wasting time, my suggestion of the law will SOLVE all these
problems once and for all.

On 28/01/2023 09:00, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 07:15:41 +0000, David North wrote:
>
>> On 27/01/2023 16:21, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 06:12:59 +0000, David North wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/01/2023 06:21, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> On 1/23/2023 12:14 PM, David North wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/01/2023 14:38, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/23/2023 6:01 AM, David North wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC,
>>>>>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 10:04 PM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:21:59 +0000, David North
>>>>>>>>>> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 14:36, Mike Holmans 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Including it as defined by MCC does not achieve that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not suggesting dispensing with it - it is included in my
>>>>>>>>>>> original Question 1.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've written to the Club to ask whether that's what they meant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the
>>>>>>>>> LAW VERY SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to
>>>>>>>>> understand and implement?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't
>>>>>>>>> released the ball.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to
>>>>>>>> complete their delivery action without releasing the ball in the
>>>>>>>> hope that the non-striker will then leave their ground,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the batters are NOT leaving the crease early, bowlers WON'T even
>>>>>>> try to mankad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But they are, and I see no reason why changing the law will stop
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Non-strikers "got used" to STEALING in the past, but the NEW rule if
>>>>> implemented like I suggested will considerably REDUCE batters
>>>>> stealing because they will be very conscious that bowlers will mankad
>>>>> them IF they leave the crease BEFORE the ball is released/bowled.
>>>>
>>>> That may well happen if bowlers run them out more often, as seems to
>>>> be happening, without any change in the law.
>>>>
>>>> If your proposal was implemented, it would only make any difference if
>>>> bowlers did what I said above (i.e. complete their delivery action
>>>> without releasing the ball in the hope that the non-striker will then
>>>> leave their ground).
>>>>
>>>>>>> Bowlers TRY to mankad "ONLY" when they see a pattern of batters
>>>>>>> leaving early a couple of times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imagine you are the bowler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would you try to mankad IF you DON'T see the batter leaving early
>>>>>>> the previous few balls?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please tell me WHY non-strikers can't see the ball leaving
>>>>>>> the bowlers hand, with their PERIPHERAL VISION?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well if the non-striker can see the ball leaving the bowler's hand,
>>>>>> possibly at 90+ mph, with their peripheral vision, the square-leg
>>>>>> umpire can sure as hell see whether the bowler's hand has stopped
>>>>>> moving upwards and started moving downwards again when looking
>>>>>> straight at it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They are two completely DIFFERENT things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non striker DOESN'T have to see the ball at the EXACT MOMENT the ball
>>>>> is released from bowlers hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non-striker can PERCEIVE the ball in the air in its trajectory, with
>>>>> his peripheral vision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where as the square leg umpire has to PERCEIVE the EXACT MOMENT the
>>>>> bowlers arm STOPPED in the arm swing motion while mankading and ALSO
>>>>> figure it out if the arm crossed the vertical/highest, which would be
>>>>> impossible from the distance and angle he is perceiving it from.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a no-brainer to conclude it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the square
>>>>> leg umpire to PROCESS "fractions of seconds"  and perceive and
>>>>> adjudge if the bowlers arm crossed the vertical/highest position even
>>>>> more so for a fast bowler.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure WHY you are even arguing about this straight forward issue.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really know why I am bothering, because your position is
>>>> absurd.
>>>>
>>>> It is already the "primary responsibility of the striker’s end umpire
>>>> to assess the fairness of a delivery" as far as straightening of the
>>>> arm is concerned. ISTM that that is much more difficult than assessing
>>>> whether the arm passed the highest point, as is judging a close
>>>> run-out, where the umpire has to watch two things at once.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, as I said, in almost all cases, the point where the
>>>> bowler stops their bowling action will be nowhere near the highest
>>>> point.
>>>
>>>
>>> NOT necessarily.
>>>
>>> It would be very difficult for square leg umpire to adjudge IF the
>>> bowling arm is at 90 degrees or somewhere between 75-90 degrees when
>>> the bowler pulled out of action because the ACTION happens VERY FAST.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can you show us any actual cases where it was so close to the highest
>>>> point that the square-leg umpire could not easily decide?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Adam Zampa's mankading case.
>>>
>>> Square leg umpire was NOT able to decide whether Zampa's arm crossed
>>> the highest/vertical which was why it was REFERRED to 3rd Umpire.
>>
>> I said 10 days ago that I had not seen any evidence that the square-leg
>> umpire was asked. I still haven't. Have you?
>>
>> Zampa's arm went more than 90 degrees past the highest point before it
>> stopped. If the square-leg umpire could not tell that it had passed the
>> highest point, maybe he could have asked his guide dog.
>
> So, WHOSE FAULT is it "IF" the umpire didn't ask the square leg umpire to
> judge whether the arm crossed the vertical/highest?

I didn't say it was a fault. He may have just decided to go straight to
the 3rd umpire, knowing that the 3rd umpire would be able to judge
better if it was close.

> Why are there so many problems like these and WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.
>
> You are NOT visualizing this scenario.
>
> IF the bowler's arm STOPS 5-20 degrees before reaching the vertical/
> highest position and mankads the non-striker, the square leg umpire WON'T
> be able to decide with his naked eye AT THAT SPEED to judge whether the
> action is illegal or legal.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 06:01:09 -0800 (PST), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW VERY
>> SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and implement?
>>
>>
>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released
>> the ball.
>
>As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to complete their delivery action without releasing the ball in the hope that the non-striker will then leave their ground, he is hardly likely to ask the MCC to change the Laws to allow that. He obviously thinks the Law allows too many potential shenanigans by the bowler as it stands.
>
>Also, what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and throws the ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their ground? By the time the ball hits the wicket, the non-striker is out of their ground and would be out under the current Law, but under your "Simple" law, the bowler has released the ball, so the non-striker is free to leave their ground.
>
>Many of the Laws of cricket are not simple for good reasons. They are not made complicated just for the sake of it.

Actually, the flaw in Sampath's idea is even more basic. If the bowler
throws the ball at the stumps, he has released the ball and the batter
is not out. I very much doubt that's what he wanted.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 04:29:12 +0000, Mike Holmans wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 06:01:09 -0800 (PST), David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 07:12:47 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>>wrote:
>
>>> Can you please write to MCC and request to CONSIDER making the LAW
>>> VERY SIMPLE for players, fans, umpires and media to understand and
>>> implement?
>>>
>>>
>>> Batters are liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released
>>> the ball.
>>
>>As Mike clearly does not think the bowler should be able to complete
>>their delivery action without releasing the ball in the hope that the
>>non-striker will then leave their ground, he is hardly likely to ask the
>>MCC to change the Laws to allow that. He obviously thinks the Law allows
>>too many potential shenanigans by the bowler as it stands.
>>
>>Also, what if the bowler stops 5 yards from the wicket and throws the
>>ball at the wicket just as the non-striker is about to leave their
>>ground? By the time the ball hits the wicket, the non-striker is out of
>>their ground and would be out under the current Law, but under your
>>"Simple" law, the bowler has released the ball, so the non-striker is
>>free to leave their ground.
>>
>>Many of the Laws of cricket are not simple for good reasons. They are
>>not made complicated just for the sake of it.
>
> Actually, the flaw in Sampath's idea is even more basic. If the bowler
> throws the ball at the stumps, he has released the ball and the batter
> is not out. I very much doubt that's what he wanted.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Where does it say in the rule book that the bowler CAN ONY mankad the non-
striker at a certain period of time or place, AFTER the bowlers run up
started?

My understanding is, the bowler CAN mankad ANY TIME between when his RUN
UP started and he is expected to bowl.

I don't know if you used the word "throw" to mean it is an ILLEGAL
delivery (chucking) OR just meant throwing the ball to mankad.