Sport Cricket - Summer 2022

[Leysboy]

Throughly entertaining game. That’s what it’s all about!

 

[Mike_H]

Dawson didn't run when the ball was in the air before he was caught; if he had done, Rashid would have been on strike and we might have won.

 

[Leysboy]

Dawson didn't run when the ball was in the air before he was caught; if he had done, Rashid would have been on strike and we might have won.

All ifs buts and maybes. Unfortunately it happens Mike, but it was a great game.

 

[SteMerritt]

The changing ends when a catch is taken rule is one thing I'd change if I was in charge, I'd have it that the new batsman was always facing unless the wicket falls with the last ball of an over.

 

[Berliner]

The changing ends when a catch is taken rule is one thing I'd change if I was in charge, I'd have it that the new batsman was always facing unless the wicket falls with the last ball of an over.

This is coming into force in MCC laws (and ICC playing conditions) from 1 October 2022. Some competitions have already been doing it this season, including the Hundred.

 

[nige01ox]

Shots fired

https://twitter.com/x/status/1574340603097321472

https://twitter.com/x/status/1574340716775542784

 

[MattyGreensLeftBoot]

Absolutely correct by Heather there.

 

[unification]

Zinger from Heather Knight. If you can’t accuse them of lack of sportsmanship, hit them with an accusation of lying.

Watch Indian cricket social media get into a frenzy about that.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

The Mankad rule was changed six days ago, from falling into the 'Unfair Play' section of the rules into the 'Run Out' section

“Running out a non-striker for backing up too much will now be considered as a regular run out,” the ICC said.

And I agree with that. If you are out of your ground, you can be run out. If you don't want to take the risk, don't leave your ground and try to steal yards until the ball is bowled. And I don't see any season for warning anyone - you wouldn't for any other sort of dismissal.

 

[tonyw]

The Mankad rule was changed six days ago, from falling into the 'Unfair Play' section of the rules into the 'Run Out' section

“Running out a non-striker for backing up too much will now be considered as a regular run out,” the ICC said.

And I agree with that. If you are out of your ground, you can be run out. If you don't want to take the risk, don't leave your ground and try to steal yards until the ball is bowled. And I don't see any season for warning anyone - you wouldn't for any other sort of dismissal.

Dean wasn't doing anything that any non-striker in a one-day game at any level hasn't done for years. She's watching the bowler come in out of the corner of her eye, shifting her balance forwards so that she leaves her crease and is ready to run whilst the ball's in the air. The still photos clearly show that she's still in her crease at the time when the bowler should have been delivering the ball.

Problem is that you have to be looking mostly at the other batsman - because you need to be able to react instantly to what they do - so if the bowler just straight up stops in their delivery stride, you're not going to notice it immediately and your momentum is going to take you out of your crease each and every time. I'd wager you could Mankad someone on 95% of all deliveries in one day internationals, and the only ones you wouldn't get are the lazy ****ers who aren't backing up correctly.

One way you could go is to legitimize the type of dismissal - and then every batsman across the globe basically has to re-learn how to run between the wickets.

But I view it as the coward's dismissal. The way to get a cheap wicket when you can't legitimately get the other side out. And instead I would outlaw it. Just say that as soon as the bowler enters their delivery stride, if they stop or delay in any way, it's a dead ball. And then by all means have an umpire look at what the non-striker is doing (probably a third umpire because the on-field umpire already has enough to watch) and dock them runs if they're taking the P**s (much the same way they're supposed to if the batsman is 'short' between multiple runs).

 

[MarkG]

Dean wasn't doing anything that any non-striker in a one-day game at any level hasn't done for years. She's watching the bowler come in out of the corner of her eye, shifting her balance forwards so that she leaves her crease and is ready to run whilst the ball's in the air. The still photos clearly show that she's still in her crease at the time when the bowler should have been delivering the ball.

Problem is that you have to be looking mostly at the other batsman - because you need to be able to react instantly to what they do - so if the bowler just straight up stops in their delivery stride, you're not going to notice it immediately and your momentum is going to take you out of your crease each and every time. I'd wager you could Mankad someone on 95% of all deliveries in one day internationals, and the only ones you wouldn't get are the lazy ****ers who aren't backing up correctly.

One way you could go is to legitimize the type of dismissal - and then every batsman across the globe basically has to re-learn how to run between the wickets.

But I view it as the coward's dismissal. The way to get a cheap wicket when you can't legitimately get the other side out. And instead I would outlaw it. Just say that as soon as the bowler enters their delivery stride, if they stop or delay in any way, it's a dead ball. And then by all means have an umpire look at what the non-striker is doing (probably a third umpire because the on-field umpire already has enough to watch) and dock them runs if they're taking the P**s (much the same way they're supposed to if the batsman is 'short' between multiple runs).

Yes on the replays I saw she was ready to run at the point the ball “should have” left the bowler’s hand. Not stealing a few yards whilst the bowler is still running up.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Dean wasn't doing anything that any non-striker in a one-day game at any level hasn't done for years.

Indeed. But my point was that the way the rule was to be applied changed a few days before that match. The batsmen should have been aware of that and *not* been doing what they'd done for years. It was a pound to a penny that someone would seek to use the new ruling at some point (whether you think that is right or not).

If you can dismiss batsmen this way now, batsmen are going to have to change their approach or there are going to be a lot of very short innings!

 

[Berliner]

Indeed. But my point was that the way the rule was to be applied changed a few days before that match. The batsmen should have been aware of that and *not* been doing what they'd done for years. It was a pound to a penny that someone would seek to use the new ruling at some point (whether you think that is right or not).

If you can dismiss batsmen this way now, batsmen are going to have to change their approach or there are going to be a lot of very short innings!

The changes to the laws (and ICC playing conditions) haven't come into validity yet, that's from October 1st.

ICC makes changes to Playing Conditions

A host of changes have been announced by the ICC to the Playing Conditions, which will come into effect on October 1 2022.

www.icc-cricket.com

And in any case, the law itself isn't "new", there have been no material changes, it has merely moved from unfair play to run out. The thinking behind it was to legitimise this as not being some sort of underhanded sharp practice anymore.

While the situation as happened in India vs England would have been the same if it happened a year ago or if it happened next week, it certainly shows there is a long way to go before any sort of acceptance is there.

 

[tonyw]

Indeed. But my point was that the way the rule was to be applied changed a few days before that match. The batsmen should have been aware of that and *not* been doing what they'd done for years. It was a pound to a penny that someone would seek to use the new ruling at some point (whether you think that is right or not).

If you can dismiss batsmen this way now, batsmen are going to have to change their approach or there are going to be a lot of very short innings!

There's a practise in baseball called a pick-off move (sometimes referred as throwing over to first).

Basically, when a runner is on base, the notion of the runner trying to inch a little closer to the next base before the next pitch is thrown is commonplace and viewed as a valid tactic. As in turn is the pitcher throwing over to the base to try and run him out because he's strayed too far.

And it is tedious as @&!*
(particularly when there's a speedy runner involved that the pitcher desperately wants to stop from getting too much of an advantage)
You're watching the game and waiting for the next pitch, and the pitcher is just throwing it over to first over and over again.

The very last thing that cricket wants to do is mimic this!
If the bowlers are constantly stopping in their delivery stride to try and Mankad the non-striker, or just keep them honest, then it's going to ruin the game.

It's a dumb change to make, and if the players start to try to take advantage of it regularly, that will be even worse.

Much better to keep things as they were - view it as a dishonourable, cowardly practise that's just one step short of outright cheating.

 

[Berliner]

There's a practise in baseball called a pick-off move (sometimes referred as throwing over to first).

Basically, when a runner is on base, the notion of the runner trying to inch a little closer to the next base before the next pitch is thrown is commonplace and viewed as a valid tactic. As in turn is the pitcher throwing over to the base to try and run him out because he's strayed too far.

And it is tedious as @&!*
(particularly when there's a speedy runner involved that the pitcher desperately wants to stop from getting too much of an advantage)
You're watching the game and waiting for the next pitch, and the pitcher is just throwing it over to first over and over again.

The very last thing that cricket wants to do is mimic this!
If the bowlers are constantly stopping in their delivery stride to try and Mankad the non-striker, or just keep them honest, then it's going to ruin the game.

It's a dumb change to make, and if the players start to try to take advantage of it regularly, that will be even worse.

Much better to keep things as they were - view it as a dishonourable, cowardly practise that's just one step short of outright cheating.

Again, the law is not new and has not been materially changed. Just moved from one place to another. Players won't suddenly start doing it more now... the entire process and decision at the end is exactly the same as it was.

 

[tonyw]

Again, the law is not new and has not been materially changed. Just moved from one place to another. Players won't suddenly start doing it more now... the entire process and decision at the end is exactly the same as it was.

Sure, but players will start doing it more if we stop berating them for it when they do, or start to justify it as a fair tactic as Zero is doing.

 

[boogaloo]

I personally have no problem with it. By outlawing the mankad, you effectively give carte-blanche to the batter backing up to grab 4 or 5 extra yards at time of delivery. I don't mind batsmen doing this, but there must be a risk when doing this, and if you are caught out, then a long walk back to the pavilion beckons.

As someone who used to play as a bowler, it used to annoy me that players would be half-way down the pitch trying to nick a quick single, but I'm expected to give them just a warning for it. If you're out of your crease, then whip the bails off, and on yer bike!

As an England cricket fan though, I'd have prefered her to take a leaf out of Chris Gayle's book

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Sure, but players will start doing it more if we stop berating them for it when they do, or start to justify it as a fair tactic as Zero is doing.

Or backing up batsmen could just stay in their crease a couple of seconds longer? I think the stealing of 'a few yards' has actually got worse over the last years, mostly as a result of the hit and run cricket formats and am quite happy to see it punished (in the same way that all in wrestling in the penalty area has become normalised in football at corners - I'd be happy to see a few pens and free kicks given to stamp that out as well!). I suspect a few people given out that way will see a change in batmen's behaviour.

 

[SteMerritt]

Or backing up batsmen could just stay in their crease a couple of seconds longer? I think the stealing of 'a few yards' has actually got worse over the last years, mostly as a result of the hit and run cricket formats and am quite happy to see it punished (in the same way that all in wrestling in the penalty area has become normalised in football at corners - I'd be happy to see a few pens and free kicks given to stamp that out as well!). I suspect a few people given out that way will see a change in batmen's behaviour.

I'd rather the 3rd Ump called any runs short if batters are caught doing it rather than a wicket, it stops the bowling side using it as a dismissal tactic.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

I'd rather the 3rd Ump called any runs short if batters are caught doing it rather than a wicket, it stops the bowling side using it as a dismissal tactic.

That would be another way, but it would cause havoc in short form games with runs being chalked off almost constantly and the 3rd umpire having to check almost every run via a tv replay!