On 29/01/2023 10:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> 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.

Good point.

> 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.

Yes, "At any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the
instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the
ball".

If you just replaced "would normally have been expected to release the
ball" with "releases the ball", then Mike's point is correct.

> 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.

He means throwing to mankad.

--
David North

On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 18:42:21 +0000, David North wrote:

> 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.

On 11/02/2023 09:50, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 18:42:21 +0000, David North wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Which is EXACTLY my point.
>
> Third Umpire WON'T be able to JUDGE from the distance and angle of his
> viewing.
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> He would just have to do his best, as with any other close decision.
>
>
> Which is making Umpire's "already COMPLICATED job" even more complicated.
>
> It's like asking umpires to be SUPER HUMAN.
>
>
>
>
>> Of course, in order for the arm to stop, first it has to slow down. It
>> can't go from 90mph to 0 in 1/100 of a second.
>
>
> Square leg umpire's brain is NOT capable of perceiving whether the bowling
> arm crossed the vertical/highest point from his angle of viewing and
> distance.
>
> It's a no brainer.
>
> I have NO idea why you can't see such simple thing.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> As I said, the proportion of cases where it would be difficult for the
>> square-leg umpire to make the decision is likely to be very small.
>
>> The
>> most efficient way to carry out a mankad is to do it on the way past the
>> wicket. Once the bowler is in their delivery stride (assuming that their
>> back foot is somewhere near the bowling crease) and their bowling hand
>> has gone above the level of the bails, which is well over 90 degrees
>> before the highest point, they will have to stop and go back to break
>> the wicket, which will take quite a but longer, giving the non-striker
>> more time to get back.
>>
>> Also, if the bowler gets very far into their upswing, they will find it
>> very difficult to stop their arm going past the highest point,
>> especially for a fast bowler.
>
> But the bowlers KNOW that they can STOP at any point JUST BEFORE crossing
> the highest/vertical point and hence they will TRY to STOP before hitting
> the vertical/highest