BBL 22/23

[RustyCage]

Mankad!

Fair enough, what happened? My daughter rang the ball before

Rogers was out of his crease so Zampa didn’t let go of the ball and ran him out at the bowlers end. Replays showed that Zampas arm had gone past vertical so Rogers was given not out.

[Lightning McQueen]

Cheers

[Lightning McQueen]

Are Tom Rogers and Tom Rogers brothers?

[Lightning McQueen]

I think Zampa might be regretting firing up Rogers right about now

[Armchair expert]

I knew Stoinis would do nothing after destroying the Strikers

[RustyCage]

The renegades are sure fired up!

[Lightning McQueen]

Finch is too straight, he won’t see the edge til it’s past Harper
r

[The Dark Knight]

Mankad!

Fair enough, what happened? My daughter rang the ball before

Rogers was out of his crease so Zampa didn’t let go of the ball and ran him out at the bowlers end. Replays showed that Zampas arm had gone past vertical so Rogers was given not out.

Rogers should of been paying attention while backing up and keeping an eye on when Zampa was about to release the ball instead of looking down the pitch and just assuming Zampa had released it as he backed up.

[RustyCage]

5/16 (4) from Rogers

[Lightning McQueen]

5/16 (4) from Rogers

Lucky he can bowl

[Senor Moto Gadili]

Mankad!

Fair enough, what happened? My daughter rang the ball before

Rogers was out of his crease so Zampa didn’t let go of the ball and ran him out at the bowlers end. Replays showed that Zampas arm had gone past vertical so Rogers was given not out.

Rogers should of been paying attention while backing up and keeping an eye on when Zampa was about to release the ball instead of looking down the pitch and just assuming Zampa had released it as he backed up.

....but, the way the law is, Rogers is entitled to assume Zampa is going to release the ball once hiis arm gets to the vertical position. Zampa needs to know that he can't run someone out once he has effectively completed his bowling actiin. When Zampa's bowling arm was vertical Rogers was at most a mm out of his crease. He was hardly getting an unfair advantage. I have no problem with these run outs, particularly if batters are taking an unfair advantage, but bowlers need to understand what they can and cannot do.

[The Dark Knight]

[quote="RustyCage"]Mankad!

Fair enough, what happened? My daughter rang the ball before

Rogers was out of his crease so Zampa didn’t let go of the ball and ran him out at the bowlers end. Replays showed that Zampas arm had gone past vertical so Rogers was given not out.

Rogers should of been paying attention while backing up and keeping an eye on when Zampa was about to release the ball instead of looking down the pitch and just assuming Zampa had released it as he backed up.

....but, the way the law is, Rogers is entitled to assume Zampa is going to release the ball once hiis arm gets to the vertical position. Zampa needs to know that he can't run someone out once he has effectively completed his bowling actiin. When Zampa's bowling arm was vertical Rogers was at most a mm out of his crease. He was hardly getting an unfair advantage. I have no problem with these run outs, particularly if batters are taking an unfair advantage, but bowlers need to understand what they can and cannot do.[/quote]
Fair enough, I just think the batsmen in these Mankad incidents should be looking at (keeping an eye on) the bowler while they back up to know when the bowler enters their delivery stride and then releases the ball.

[Down the Hill]

Agree with all that SMG said. Was always taught to be on the move with feet out of crease at the moment of release with bat still grounded. At bowlers release point you switch your eyes to the striker bring your bat towards you and continue to move forward. A bowler who doesn't release and then tries to run you out is actually trying to deceive the batter so under the recent rule changes I reckon should be penalised 5 runs just like a fielder or keeper can now do for trying to deceive.

The reason why mankading was never considered in the spirit of the game is because I believe the original mankad by Mr Mankad was similar to what Zampa tried on. What batters have then done over the years is take advantage of the so called 'spirit' aspect and more and more have started leaving the crease well before the bowlers normal release e.g. The cheating SAffer with Starc. That's why the new rule has been crafted to say there is no spirit issue for running a batter out who is taking the piss but that you can't deceive them by pretending to complete the bowling action which is exactly what Zampa did. As SMG said Rogers may have been slightly out just before the normal Zampa release point but there was very little in it and he may have still got the bat down behind the crease if Zampa tried to run him out within the rules.

They've made some decent changes to the laws of the game in recent times with one exception being the one that allowed the Neser catch to stand.

[whufc]

I'm all for mankads if blokes are being cheats and looking to creep a couple of meters up in the pitch albeit i would warn them first to say im willing to do it if they don't come back a bit.

In this case though i don't think the batter had done much wrong. Had Zampa let go of the ball when it would have been expected i think the batter was only cm's out of his crease at most.

[PatowalongaPirate]

If the bowler is a mm over the line, the team is penalised a run and an extra ball has to be bowled, and in some forms the batting side get a "free hit". Why can't the non-striker also be penalised for leaving the crease early? Every delivery is checked.

[mighty_tiger_79]

Should be out.

Cricket is basically 99% a batsmen game now on all 3 forms.
Generally batsmen receive generous wickets to bat on, the boundaries are in ridiculously close.
Too much benefit of the doubt to batsmen, DRS system for LB pitching outside off can be given not out if batsmen 'playing a shot' but smashes the pads and would miss off and leg stumps.

[whufc]

If the bowler is a mm over the line, the team is penalised a run and an extra ball has to be bowled, and in some forms the batting side get a "free hit". Why can't the non-striker also be penalised for leaving the crease early? Every delivery is checked.

Whilst they have the techonology to check how realistic is it that a check could be completed in a reasonable time.

Given a no ball you are looking at one moving object against a stationary line compared to a Mankad which is looking at both the bowlers release point of the ball, bat at that the point the ball is released and then where is that in relevance to the stationary line.

I mean run outs take a decent time to review and that's when you have zing bails stating what the point of in/out is which you wouldnt have for the release point of the ball.

[whufc]

T20 at North Sydney oval is ridiculous.

[Armchair expert]

Glad I forgot to turn on the tv

stinkers

sack dizzy ffs

[am Bays]

So inconsistent