Indian women in England

[vvvslaxman]

 

[coffee_rules]

23 minutes ago, Adorable Fan said:

Not sure of spirit of game non sense.. It's clear rules the non striker can move only after the ball is released.. it is in the rules..why moan about it. 

 

If unfair, why have this rule or mode of dismissal at all. The non striker need to keep his/her ass inside the crease until the ball is delivered.

 

The pommies are cry babies ..cry for everything under the sky if on the receiving end. Remember the WC final incident where the ball deflected from stokes bat... Either remove this mode of dismissal or STFU if happens. Even if some team does to Indian it's well within the rules. Just accept and move on. 

Woh patthar dil hoga. Bacchi ko rula diya yaar!

[coffee_rules]

6 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Michael Holding Pakistani-sympathizer whining there about the appeal being against the spirit of the game

[vvvslaxman]

Some "extra" outrage  from British guys (with some exceptions ) on twitter towards Indian. Anything to do with Indian asking return of Kohinoor diamond post Queen's death? lol

[vvvslaxman]

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Michael Holding Pakistani-sympathizer whining there about the appeal being against the spirit of the game

Pakistan sympathizer + Anti Indian lol deadly combo

[TheWall]

9 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

 

Badly needs a hair brush..

[vvvslaxman]

First step towards stopping of sensationalizing this type of dismissal is stop calling it as "Mankading". There is an indian connection attached to it. It gives free license to attack Indians and even calling them as cheats. Somebody has to openly talk about it.  I think Sunil Gavaskar was the only who brought this up.

Edited September 25, 2022 by vvvslaxman

[goose]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

No, but they have changed the rule. You don’t need to warm, but the code of ethics still says you should warn

The rule that comes into effect from 1st Oct? Now I’m confused!

[coffee_rules]

7 minutes ago, goose said:

The rule that comes into effect from 1st Oct? Now I’m confused!

No, it’s always been there

 

MCC Law 41.16.1:"If the non-striker is out of his/her ground 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, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler's hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered."

[Need4Speed]

9 hours ago, AuxiliA said:

Personally not a big fan of Mankading. Not because of the 'spirit of cricket' bullsh*t, but because it is so anti-climactic and diverts attention from the actual cricket. 

 

Non-strikers should be warned once and if they don't fall in place only then they should be Mankaded. 

I also prefer this from long time..Give a warning first..if the non-striker does this again..run him out..

I always want to give first warning as  as many times non strikers are in the flow with bowler…

you tend to move with bowlers action..and in the flow you may be out of the crease by the time bowler completes action..

if bowlers stops halfway..non striker may still go ahead with the flow so it appears bad than it actually is..

though some non strikers still try to take advantage of that which is bad..hence you are allowed to run then out..

 

However,its better to give a warning first..

Edited September 25, 2022 by Need4Speed

[goose]

6 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

No, it’s always been there

 

MCC Law 41.16.1:"If the non-striker is out of his/her ground 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, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler's hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered."

I think from 1st Oct this law moves from the Unfair Play section to Run Out section in order to destigmatise the mode of dismissal. Actual wording unchanged though as you say

 

https://www.skysports.com/amp/cricket/news/12123/12561145/mankad-dismissals-no-longer-deemed-unfair-saliva-banned-as-part-of-mcc-law-changes

 

 

[rollingstoned]

49 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

and this is to award game awareness from bowlers and to punish casualness or plain cheating by non striker

Think that is where the spirit of the game comes in, idea is to dismiss batsman using skill rather than con him out. Even if the rules may allow for such dismissals. Another i remember is Lara appealing for some handling the ball dismissal which looked innocuous as against Kirsten I think which was given out after which the rule around being able to kick it away came in. Of course there is a grey area to such things which makes it tricky to perfectly codify as a rule which is why 'spirit of the game' exists as a concept. 

[Lord]

1 minute ago, rollingstoned said:

Think that is where the spirit of the game comes in, idea is to dismiss batsman using skill rather than con him out. Even if the rules may allow for such dismissals. Another i remember is Lara appealing for some handling the ball dismissal which looked innocuous as against Kirsten I think which was given out after which the rule around being able to kick it away came in. Of course there is a grey area to such things which makes it tricky to perfectly codify as a rule which is why 'spirit of the game' exists as a concept. 

 

What skill batter use to start running early?

[rollingstoned]

1 minute ago, Lord said:

 

What skill batter use to start running early?

Rule is to penalise blatant running before ball is bowled, many other times you leave the crease out of habit/instinct rather than desire to get any advantage is my guess. I find It similar to the new hand ball rule in football which I also dislike. 

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

Rule is to penalise blatant running before ball is bowled, many other times you leave the crease out of habit/instinct rather than desire to get any advantage is my guess. I find It similar to the new hand ball rule in football which I also dislike. 

rule is to penalise any running before ball is bowled. Intention doesnt matter.

 

Bowler doesnt intent to bowl no ball does he?

[rollingstoned]

2 minutes ago, Lord said:

rule is to penalise any running before ball is bowled. Intention doesnt matter.

 

Bowler doesnt intent to bowl no ball does he?

Well the idea is to punish certain blatant 'mistakes' more than others else you could argue why any mistake is to be punished if one is allowed which would render the game itself pointless. The uncertainty exists coz the ball is dead until it has being delivered which is when you cannot run out someone, while bowling a no ball it is a marginal advantage you gain in pace where the play becomes live so it is penalised. If the line doesn't belong to the umpire you can argue not to punish on the line no balls too which are very marginal. 

[Gollum]

Rules are rules, no other sport has this spirit bakwas. Don't like them, change them and codify new ones without room for interpretation. Otherwise cricket will remain an amateur sport. 

[goose]

 

[Sonix768]

If anyone thinks "actual" Cricket is between bowler and striking batsman only, and the non-striker is on a paid vacation to the ground, Well I got a news for you. The non striker is pretty much involved in the game to the same degree as the striker and its his sole duty to remain in the crease till the ball is delivered. And non striker should always look at the bowler till the ball leaves his hand, not look at striker and assumes the ball must have been delivered by now so I can wander now. Its just basics.

 

I blame Courtney Walsh for this mess. He should have run that Pakistan runner out at the first attempt itself in 1987. Now, because of his act, everyone thinks that the runners are entitled to a warning first, which should never be the case.

[goose]

I have a solution. next time India play England, before the start of play, the Indian captain should warn the opposition captain they will be attempting all forms of dismissal as per the laws of the game.