https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/debate-erupts-as-mankad-controversy-rocks-under19s-cricket-world-cup/news-story/173376e7c2fd8cc70fa887dad0f57ba0

Yes. Non-strikers should not leave the crease until they're legally allowed. Yet it happens time and time again.

The bad blood Mankads create is not needed in cricket.

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 9:23:52 PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/debate-erupts-as-mankad-controversy-rocks-under19s-cricket-world-cup/news-story/173376e7c2fd8cc70fa887dad0f57ba0
>
> Yes. Non-strikers should not leave the crease until they're legally allowed. Yet it happens time and time again.
>
> The bad blood Mankads create is not needed in cricket.

Then tell whiny little snots to stay in their crease so the bad man can't run them out...

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 1:10:44 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> Then tell whiny little snots to stay in their crease so the bad man can't run them out...

I'm sure they've been told.

Perhaps there's more to this than you're capable of understanding ie the deception element the new Laws enable.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 1:10:44 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > The bad blood Mankads create is not needed in cricket.

Imagine if Shamar Joseph had taken Aus's 10th wicket with a Mankad. Would that have been good for the sport?

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:36:09 PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 1:10:44 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > Then tell whiny little snots to stay in their crease so the bad man can't run them out...
> I'm sure they've been told.
>
> Perhaps there's more to this than you're capable of understanding ie the deception element the new Laws enable.

you're a broken record in an off-key bit there.
There is no deception possible on the mankad attempt under the current rules that the non-striker has to worry about if he watches the bowler deliver.

On 1/29/2024 7:38 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 1:10:44 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> The bad blood Mankads create is not needed in cricket.
>
> Imagine if Shamar Joseph had taken Aus's 10th wicket with a Mankad. Would that have been good for the sport?
>

Yes.

No-brainer.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:25:31 PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> There is no deception possible on the mankad attempt under the current rules that the non-striker has to worry about if he watches the bowler deliver.

You sound like a batting coach saying "if you hit on the ground you can't get caught". Technically correct, but pointless advice.

Under today's Laws a non-striker can leave the crease, legally (ie safe from mankad), prior to the release of the ball.
Deception is enabled, as any 5 year old can tell by watching these replays, as well as the reactions to them.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:25:30 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:36:09?PM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 1:10:44?PM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > Then tell whiny little snots to stay in their crease so the bad man can't run them out...
>> I'm sure they've been told.
>>
>> Perhaps there's more to this than you're capable of understanding ie the deception element the new Laws enable.
>
>you're a broken record in an off-key bit there.
>There is no deception possible on the mankad attempt under the current rules that the non-striker has to worry about if he watches the bowler deliver.

Makes you wonder what the backer upper is actually watching. If he
wants a quick getaway then he should be watching the bowler.

Backing up is just like operating a carpark barrier, if you go too
soon after you insert the token you crash into the barrier, if you go
too late the barrier crashes into you.

So out of the three possible ways for a non striker to behave, two of
them are stupid and easily avoided. No blame is on the barrier or the
bowler and the only way to get run out is to do one of the two stupid
things.
Claiming that stupidity is in some way the fault of deception by
someone else is childish playground mentality.

The actual element of 'safety' for non striker is where he is at the
time, not where the bowler is.

max.it

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 7:39:16 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Claiming that stupidity is in some way the fault of deception by
> someone else is childish playground mentality.

It looks like this was a set play, planned in advance. The bowler never intended to complete their delivery action. He was looking for the mankad.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:34:49 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 7:39:16?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Claiming that stupidity is in some way the fault of deception by
>> someone else is childish playground mentality.
>
>It looks like this was a set play, planned in advance. The bowler never intended to complete their delivery action. He was looking for the mankad.
>
>
All you can pass comment on is the action or event, that's what you
actually know in reality. Pretending to have some kind of
understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
just pretending.
In fact attempting to pin a motive or intention on to a person's
action just so it fits your idea of their 'pretence', well, that is
real deception, or stupid.

Tip: If the bowler runs out the non striker legally then that is
intentional if it isn't accidental. You don't need to know when the
bowler decided to do it.

max.it

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Pretending to have some kind of
> understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
> just pretending.

We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc) but as you say, we can't "prove" intent.
Speaking of proving intent... how do umpires judge intent if they can't mind read? eg playing a shot?
Surely you'd agree judging intent is actually possible.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:50:11 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Pretending to have some kind of
>> understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
>> just pretending.
>
>We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
>This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.

Because we would be pretending.

>I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc) but as you say, we can't "prove" intent.
>Speaking of proving intent... how do umpires judge intent if they can't mind read? eg playing a shot?
>Surely you'd agree judging intent is actually possible.
>
You can only say what you see. If a batsman doesn't play a shot am I
allowed to judge that he did play a shot because I judge that he
intended to?

max.it

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:53:57 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> >We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
> >This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
> Because we would be pretending.

You're more than happy to pretend, ie talk Law hypotheticals, until the cows come home, but you aren't willing to discuss this scenario?

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:50:12 AM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> > Pretending to have some kind of
> > understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
> > just pretending.
> We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
> This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.

So fucking what?
The batsman's taking a risk by leaving the crease before they see the ball. If they want to risk being run out at the bowler's end in return for a reduced chance being runout while running WTF should anybody be crying for them?

> I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc)

When he went past the point of delivery and the batsman was not out?
Not exactly a strong case...

>but as you say, we can't "prove" intent.
> Speaking of proving intent... how do umpires judge intent if they can't mind read? eg playing a shot?
> Surely you'd agree judging intent is actually possible.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:52:12 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:53:57?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> >We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
>> >This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
>> Because we would be pretending.
>
>You're more than happy to pretend, ie talk Law hypotheticals, until the cows come home, but you aren't willing to discuss this scenario?
>
You've judged that I pretend and that I am more than happy to do so.
Don't go taking the James Randi challenge - you'll lose.
Discussing cricket laws and certain scenarios isn't pretending, but
claiming knowledge through somehow being able to judge a bowler's
intention certainly is pretending. It's pure woo woo fantasy land
stuff.
I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
intention or motivation is. If you know better then show me and I'll
promise not to do such a conceited, arrogant and stupid thing ever
again.

I'm afraid you'll have to go back in the BoZo BiN with the other slow
learners.

max.it

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 10:14:52 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
> intention or motivation is.

I'm not asking you to pretend. I'm asking you to discuss the scenario where a bowler starts his run up with no intention to bowl, but rather to perform a mankad.
Why is this so hard for you?

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:37:44 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 10:14:52?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
>> intention or motivation is.
>
>I'm not asking you to pretend. I'm asking you to discuss the scenario where a bowler starts his run up with no intention to bowl, but rather to perform a mankad.
>Why is this so hard for you?
>>
How the fuck is anyone supposed to know what the intention of anyone
else is?
Please tell me how you know what someone else's intention is?
If I saw you in the street I wouldn't be able to tell that you are an
asshole, but after reading your nonsense I am sure that you are.

max.it

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:38:10 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:37:44 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
> <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 10:14:52?AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure that I have never pretended to know what anyone's
> >> intention or motivation is.
> >
> >I'm not asking you to pretend. I'm asking you to discuss the scenario where a bowler starts his run up with no intention to bowl, but rather to perform a mankad.
> >Why is this so hard for you?
> >>
> How the fuck is anyone supposed to know what the intention of anyone
> else is?

You don't need to KNOW.
You just have to acknowledge that a bowler could do this - start their run up with the intention to mankad, rather than deliver the ball.
Once you agree that's possible, then discuss it.
Nice and easy.

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:26:38 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> You don't need to KNOW.
> You just have to acknowledge that a bowler could do this - start their run up with the intention to mankad, rather than deliver the ball.
> Once you agree that's possible, then discuss it.
> Nice and easy.

Imagine the scenario you're playing cricket, fielding at mid on. As you hand the ball to the bowler, the bowler says "We're desperate for a wicket, I'm going to go for the mankad", then does so.

See how easy it is? I'm not asking you to teleport somewhere in real life, whilst time travelling, and actually mind read.
Hypotheticals have been around since leaving caves.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 02:29:57 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:26:38?PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
>> You don't need to KNOW.
>> You just have to acknowledge that a bowler could do this - start their run up with the intention to mankad, rather than deliver the ball.
>> Once you agree that's possible, then discuss it.
>> Nice and easy.
>
>Imagine the scenario you're playing cricket, fielding at mid on. As you hand the ball to the bowler, the bowler says "We're desperate for a wicket, I'm going to go for the mankad", then does so.
>
>See how easy it is? I'm not asking you to teleport somewhere in real life, whilst time travelling, and actually mind read.
>Hypotheticals have been around since leaving caves.
>
>
>
I don't need to know, but I can imagine?
I'll leave you to play with your imagination.

max.it

On 1/31/2024 2:29 AM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 8:26:38 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
>> You don't need to KNOW.
>> You just have to acknowledge that a bowler could do this - start their run up with the intention to mankad, rather than deliver the ball.
>> Once you agree that's possible, then discuss it.
>> Nice and easy.
>
> Imagine the scenario you're playing cricket, fielding at mid on. As you hand the ball to the bowler, the bowler says "We're desperate for a wicket, I'm going to go for the mankad", then does so.
>
> See how easy it is? I'm not asking you to teleport somewhere in real life, whilst time travelling, and actually mind read.
> Hypotheticals have been around since leaving caves.

Bro,

You got your thought process in this issue, completely wrong.

You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
realizing it.

You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.

What have you accomplished?

Time to introspect.

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
> realizing it.

Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
There's no imposing.

> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue..

The ability to perform deception is real.
It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.

I'll ask you the same thing he failed to answer - if the bowler tells his captain "I'm going to pretend to bowl and try to get a mankad", then does so, was there an element of deception?

> What have you accomplished?

You'll find the 2 things I mostly complain about, DRS and Mankad, have both had serious revision during this time.
Both were, and remain, Dog's Breakfasts of rules/laws.
I'm sure both will under go more revision soon enough.
However, I don't think MY comments have any impact on that. It's not like the ICC nor MCC prowl these pages looking for ideas.
Further to this, though.. I am not Robinson Crusoe on these topics. Many people air these same "complaints".

> Time to introspect.

There is a cheap shot reply available to me, but I will not do so as I am fond of you.

On 1/31/2024 6:37 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
>> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
>> realizing it.
>
> Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
> There's no imposing.
>

Not a single cricket fan on UKSC bought into your "deception concept" in
YEARS.

So, IF you don't give up that angle, it means you are trying to impose.

>> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
>
> The ability to perform deception is real.
> It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.
>

Jack, You are still NOT getting it.

The ISSUE of DECEPTION doesn't even arise IF the non-striker just STAYS
in the CREASE "UNTIL" he sees the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand.

It is very very simple.

> I'll ask you the same thing he failed to answer - if the bowler tells his captain "I'm going to pretend to bowl and try to get a mankad", then does so, was there an element of deception?
>

WHAT is WRONG in the bowler PRETENDING to bowl and TRYING to get mankad?

The ONUS is on the NON-STRIKER "NOT TO CHEAT" by leaving the crease early.

Bowler is NOT cheating, the non-striker is CHEATING by LEAVING EARLY and
GAINING an ADVANTAGE.

>> What have you accomplished?
>
> You'll find the 2 things I mostly complain about, DRS and Mankad, have both had serious revision during this time.
> Both were, and remain, Dog's Breakfasts of rules/laws.
> I'm sure both will under go more revision soon enough.
> However, I don't think MY comments have any impact on that. It's not like the ICC nor MCC prowl these pages looking for ideas.
> Further to this, though.. I am not Robinson Crusoe on these topics. Many people air these same "complaints".

Many people air these complaints because most of them are still STUCK in
the OLD MANKAD rules and thinking.

Once they ACCEPT that it's the RESPONSIBILITY of the non-striker NOT to
leave the crease early and CHEAT, literally EVERYTHING will be SOLVED
for good.

>
>> Time to introspect.
>
> There is a cheap shot reply available to me, but I will not do so as I am fond of you.

Go ahead with the cheap shot. I won't be offended.

I enjoy discussing cricket with you too.

No hard feelings regardless of our animated arguments.

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:58:16 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 6:37 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44 AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
> >> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
> >> realizing it.
> >
> > Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
> > There's no imposing.
> >
> Not a single cricket fan on UKSC bought into your "deception concept" in
> YEARS.
>
> So, IF you don't give up that angle, it means you are trying to impose.
> >> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
> >
> > The ability to perform deception is real.
> > It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.
> >
> Jack, You are still NOT getting it.
>
> The ISSUE of DECEPTION doesn't even arise IF the non-striker just STAYS
> in the CREASE "UNTIL" he sees the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand.

No, that's how a non-striker mitigates the risk of deception.

> It is very very simple.
> > I'll ask you the same thing he failed to answer - if the bowler tells his captain "I'm going to pretend to bowl and try to get a mankad", then does so, was there an element of deception?
> >
> WHAT is WRONG in the bowler PRETENDING to bowl and TRYING to get mankad?

That's an entirely different question, and the important one.
The problem is, so many (like yourself and max) refuse to even accept that a bowler can employ deception to help get a mankad. See above for proof.

> Many people air these complaints because most of them are still STUCK in
> the OLD MANKAD rules and thinking.

Not me. I think mankads are absolutely necessary, and a non-striker should be punished if they leave early by getting run out.
My beef is the new laws have GREATLY increased the opportunity for a bowler to use deception to do this, and in doing so amplified the bad blood created by mankads.
This problem can be simply fixed - make the safe point "when front foot lands during delivery stride", rather than today's bullshit safe point, which needs its own subsection to define.

> Go ahead with the cheap shot. I won't be offended.

Pass :)

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:58:14 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> wrote:

>On 1/31/2024 6:37 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:19:44?AM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> You are trying to IMPOSE your personal feelings and opinions about
>>> mankad issue on everybody else but it WON'T work and you are NOT
>>> realizing it.
>>
>> Impose? I'm simply attempting to engage fellow cricket lovers in discussions about cricket.
>> There's no imposing.
>>
>
>
>
>Not a single cricket fan on UKSC bought into your "deception concept" in
>YEARS.
>
>So, IF you don't give up that angle, it means you are trying to impose.
>
>
>
>>> You spent years arguing about this non-existent deception in mankad issue.
>>
>> The ability to perform deception is real.
>> It shocks me that you, and max, are so reluctant to agree to that.
>>
>
>
>Jack, You are still NOT getting it.
>
>The ISSUE of DECEPTION doesn't even arise IF the non-striker just STAYS
>in the CREASE "UNTIL" he sees the ball being RELEASED from bowler's hand.
>
>It is very very simple.
>
>
>
>
>> I'll ask you the same thing he failed to answer - if the bowler tells his captain "I'm going to pretend to bowl and try to get a mankad", then does so, was there an element of deception?
>>
>
It wouldn't matter a tuppenny fuck if he said it, wrote it down two
weeks before and published it in the Times and made a statement to the
house of commons of his intention to mankad, and then went on to bowl
a googly. The bowler can change his mind on which delivery or not he
will bowl at any time right up until the ball leaves his hand. The
batsman doesn't have any say in what the bowler does legally, how he
bowls and if he mankads or not.
On what planet can bowler making a decision on a legitimate means of
dismissal ever be deception?

Show the deception and you will be understood and believed. If you are
incorrect you will be corrected, if you continue to ignore correction
you will be ridiculed and further ostinancy results in persecution.
I'm sure you already know that, living the dream aren't you.
>
>
>WHAT is WRONG in the bowler PRETENDING to bowl and TRYING to get mankad?
>
>
>The ONUS is on the NON-STRIKER "NOT TO CHEAT" by leaving the crease early.
>
>Bowler is NOT cheating, the non-striker is CHEATING by LEAVING EARLY and
>GAINING an ADVANTAGE.
>
>
max.it