Jos Buttler claims he would recall a batsman Mankaded even in a World Cup Final

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

 

Can't do anything when someone completely ignores the crime and focuses on how the crime was caught lol

Exactly. Bat has to be grounded until he sees the ball in the front .. see the thala video. You can’t move on. Now taking a pause is being called Ashwinning!! Brilliant 

[zen]

Below is Rayudu backing up too far:

 

 

 

[zen]

Shane Warne: 

 

“So disappointed in @ashwinravi99 as a Captain & as a person. All captains sign the #IPL wall & agree to play in the spirit of the game. RA had no intention of delivering the ball - so it should have been called a dead ball. Over to u BCCI - this a not a good look for the #IPL,” Warne wrote on Twitter.

[vvvslaxman]

Just now, coffee_rules said:

Exactly. Bat has to be grounded until he sees the ball in the front .. see the thala video. You can’t move on. Now taking a pause is being called Ashwinning!! Brilliant 

 

The bowler literally completed the action in that video without releasing the ball. Thala was bolted to the crease.  Here we have Butler boy casually take a stroll outside "assuming" he will bowl ignoring his wandering.  You can run him out from any bowling position. How hard it is to understand this. 

 

[vvvslaxman]

Interestingly, the MCC which frames cricket laws, reflected on the Jos Buttler dismissal, did not conclude that Ashwin cheated and importantly argued that the law was necessary to keep batsmen from gaining an unfair advantage.

 

MCC totally backed Ashwin. 

 

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/ashwin-vindicated-by-mcc-law-makers-two-years-on-101646877067750.html

[IndianRenegade]

5 minutes ago, zen said:

 

The discussion is from the PoV of normal cricket. 

 

If you try to set a batsman up by misusing the law, that is considered cheating. 

 

Again, below shows the difference b/w the normal  & the "setup".  

 

 

 

 

That is not the interpretation of the law, the interpretation of the law is not to compare with another ball of the same bowler to determine if he would have been at that point if he didn't attempt the run out, to determine eligibility for run out.

 

it is to be interpreted as follows (ICC Almanac):

 

The umpires should note the following points in interpreting the new playing condition:

• A bowler should be deemed to have completed his delivery swing once his arm passes the normal point of ball release. - Ash's arm did't pass the normal point of release

*The normal point of ball release should be interpreted as the moment when the delivery arm is at its highest point. - Ash's arm wasn't at his highest point.

 

end of story.

[IndianRenegade]

7 minutes ago, zen said:

Below is Rayudu backing up too far:

 

 

 

sure run him out.

[vvvslaxman]

Ashwin is hardly the first to use the method.

India left-arm spinner Murali Kartik did it in a County game and faced a backlash. Speaking to Ashwin on his YouTube channel, Kartik said his wife had to leave the ground after he ran out Somerset’s Alex Barrow while playing for Surrey in 2012. “It was that kind of a threat with the crowd booing and all. They almost entered the dressing room,” he said. After the match, Surrey skipper Gareth Batty regretted he backed the appeal “against the spirit of the game”.

The entitlement of these English a.holes is sickening.

[zen]

Just now, IndianRenegade said:

That is not the interpretation of the law, the interpretation of the law is not to compare with another ball of the same bowler to determine if he would have been at that point if he didn't attempt the run out, to determine eligibility for run out.

 

it is to be interpreted as follows (ICC Almanac):

 

The umpires should note the following points in interpreting the new playing condition:

• A bowler should be deemed to have completed his delivery swing once his arm passes the normal point of ball release. - Ash's arm did't pass the normal point of release

*The normal point of ball release should be interpreted as the moment when the delivery arm is at its highest point. - Ash's arm wasn't at his highest point.

 

end of story.

 

Again, the point is on MISUSING the laws:

 

Shane Warne:  “So disappointed in @ashwinravi99 as a Captain & as a person. All captains sign the #IPL wall & agree to play in the spirit of the game. RA had no intention of delivering the ball - so it should have been called a dead ball. Over to u BCCI - this a not a good look for the #IPL,” Warne wrote on Twitter.

[vvvslaxman]

2 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

That is not the interpretation of the law, the interpretation of the law is not to compare with another ball of the same bowler to determine if he would have been at that point if he didn't attempt the run out, to determine eligibility for run out.

 

it is to be interpreted as follows (ICC Almanac):

 

The umpires should note the following points in interpreting the new playing condition:

• A bowler should be deemed to have completed his delivery swing once his arm passes the normal point of ball release. - Ash's arm did't pass the normal point of release

*The normal point of ball release should be interpreted as the moment when the delivery arm is at its highest point. - Ash's arm wasn't at his highest point.

 

end of story.

 

 

Opinion vs Facts.  Facts always win. One can bring up so many "opinions" lol   MCC backed Ashwin all the way.

[zen]

2 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

sure run him out.

 

through Mankading - ok (but most quality bowlers do not bother) ... Ashwining, not ok 

[IndianRenegade]

40 minutes ago, zen said:

Shane Warne: 

 

“So disappointed in @ashwinravi99 as a Captain & as a person. All captains sign the #IPL wall & agree to play in the spirit of the game. RA had no intention of delivering the ball - so it should have been called a dead ball. Over to u BCCI - this a not a good look for the #IPL,” Warne wrote on Twitter.

Wrong, if one can get a nobel prize for being wrong the most, you will top the list.

 

20.4.2 Either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball when

...

20.4.2.9 the ball does not leave the bowler’s hand for any reason other than an attempt to run out the non-striker under clause 41.16 (Non-striker leaving his ground early).

 

out of all conditions for dead ball under 20.4.2, intention of the bowler is never considered as one of the reasons.

Edited October 1, 2022 by IndianRenegade

[IndianRenegade]

33 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Again, the point is on MISUSING the laws:

 

Shane Warne:  “So disappointed in @ashwinravi99 as a Captain & as a person. All captains sign the #IPL wall & agree to play in the spirit of the game. RA had no intention of delivering the ball - so it should have been called a dead ball. Over to u BCCI - this a not a good look for the #IPL,” Warne wrote on Twitter.

hahhaha...

Me :here is what ICC says to umpires to use to determine run out at non striker end.

you:  ignore whats ICC says, here is the use less opinion of shane warne, who has no authority to interpret laws

Edited October 1, 2022 by IndianRenegade

[IndianRenegade]

33 minutes ago, zen said:

 

through Mankading - ok (but most quality bowlers do not bother) ... Ashwining, not ok 

ICC explicitly called this a run out & moved it into that section.  But let me continue to use a name uncle toms used to shame a brown bowler in spite of being used by numerous white men before! 

[zen]

Just now, IndianRenegade said:

Wrong

 

20.4.2 Either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball when

...

20.4.2.9 the ball does not leave the bowler’s hand for any reason other than an attempt to run out the non-striker under clause 41.16 (Non-striker leaving his ground early).

 

out of all conditions for dead ball under 20.4.2, intention of the bowler is never considered as one of the reasons.

 

Feel free to waste your time in googling laws but as has been mentioned -> the point is on misusing the laws ... So if you want to dupe a batsman, you would do exactly what Ashwin would do i.e. pretend to come to bowl but at the point of delivery, not bowl and get the batsman out, who would be taking a run up 

 

 

 

Warne in his tweet said that -  RA had no intention of delivering the ball (implying cheating) 

 

Criminals can commit crime (or even escape punishment) misusing laws. 

 

 

[IndianRenegade]

Just now, zen said:

 

Feel free to waste your time in googling laws but as has been mentioned -> the point is on misusing the laws ... So if you want to dupe a batsman, you would do exactly what Ashwin would do i.e. pretend to come to bowl but at the point of delivery, not bowl and get the batsman out, who would be taking a run up 

 

 

 

Warne in his tweet said that -  RA had no intention of delivering the ball (implying cheating) 

 

Criminals can commit crime (or even escape punishment) misusing laws. 

 

 

 

Yes yes, we are criminals... please put us in jail...

[zen]

5 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

hahhaha...

Me :here is what ICC says to umpires to use to determine run out at non striker end.

you:  ignore whats ICC says, here is the use less opinion of shane warne, who has no authority to interpret laws

 

That is more like a school kid who thinks googling laws will make him/her look right while totally ignoring the practical side of things 

 

The talk is on "misusing" laws to defraud the batsman which Ashwin did by "pretending to bowl" (Unacceptable) 

 

Just now, IndianRenegade said:

ICC explicitly called this a run out & moved it into that section.  But let me continue to use a name uncle toms used to shame a brown bowler in spite of being used by numerous white men before! 

 

I don't care about white or brown or whatever  ... I am only concerned with the fraudulent practices of Ashwining 

[zen]

5 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

 

Yes yes, we are criminals... please put us in jail...

 

No wonder such love for Ashwin  ... He will be seen as a cheat which is more than enough for his "crime" (I would term it as a moment of weakness or madness) 

[vvvslaxman]

11 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

 

Yes yes, we are criminals... please put us in jail...

 

Stuck in denial mode. "Hey i said something. I have to stick by it even i look foolish" mode

[IndianRenegade]

1 minute ago, zen said:

 

That is more like a school kid who thinks googling laws will make him/her look right while totally ignoring the practical side of things 

 

The talk is on "misusing" laws to defraud the batsman which Ashwin did by "pretending to bowl" (Unacceptable) 

 

 

I don't care about white or brown or whatever  ... I am only concerned with the fraudulent practices of Ashwining 

I surrender...