[U19 World Cup] Zimbabwe vs Windies

[Googly]

It's amazing how often the frame in the middle is actually required for a television review. Surely the TV umpire can interpret that by measuring the half way mark? Alternatively the benefit should go to the batsman. In this instance the TV umpire would have saved a bad state of affairs by ruling in the batters favour because it was clear that the batsman was not trying to gain an unfair advantage. Perhaps that could be a key phrase? Unfortunately the lawmakers are probably required to make it clear cut (I was going to say black or white, but don't want my friends to sulk) and not open to interpretation from a biased umpire. They need to review the law perhaps so the bowler has to pretend to bowl rather than just run through, because otherwise how do you decide when the game is live? Perhaps when the bowler draws level with the stumps? Should he be allowed to break the stumps with a forward motion or a backward motion?
In every instance the bowler would be intending not to bowl at all, but fully intending to break the stumps, and I think that's a poor state of affairs. Could you have a bowler running in and be mentally prepared enough to either bowl the delivery of change his mind at the last second if he spotted the batter creeping? Clearly he could if the batter was trying to gain an unfair advantage and was well out of his crease, but couldn't if he wasn't. Personally I liked the old way where you warned the guy first.
My final point is the dislodging of the bails. I think it's when a bail leaves the groove? That's easy to arrange with a more expensive pair of stumps- you make the bails create a circuit between the stumps so when contact is broken the light comes on, I'm not sure whether that's how they don't currently work anyway?

[foreignfield]

The final words on this might as well belong to Andy Zaltzman :

The only slight procedural issues in the Paul-Ngarava incident were that the batsman had not crept down the pitch, and the bowler had, philosophically, ceased to be a "bowler", given that he evidently had no intention of bowling the ball.

Ngarava was not seeking, or gaining, an advantage. He ended up approximately half a millimetre out of his ground, having been in that ground as Paul reached the point where cricket traditionalists would have expected him to bowl. This was not, therefore, I would argue, a mankading. It was an entirely new form of dismissal, a watershed moment for cricket. It has brought the dummy, a popular staple of other sports such as football and rugby, into the moribund repertoire of bowling.

...

It therefore seems a little unreasonable to expect teenagers to set a moral example in a sport in which ethics operate on such an intermittent, selective and unpredictable basis. Even if mankading your opponent for the decisive wicket in a crucial match when he was barely even backing up, let alone tootling prematurely down the wicket is so obviously wrong that most unborn babies would not do it. Instead, we should glory in the laws of the game being correctly applied. Even if we think the law in question need a major tweak and a stern telling-off.

In further mitigation, if bowlers are allowed to try to deceive batsmen with, for example, teasing flight, or a googly, or by hiding the ball behind their hands as they run in to bowl a 93-mile-an-hour reverse-swinging yorker, why should those bowlers also not be allowed to deceive batsmen by not bowling anything at all? For too long, batsmen have been able to coast along complacently, safe in the comfortingly predictable knowledge that the bowler would run up and bowl the ball - on most occasions, roughly in the direction of the batsman and/or his stumps.

But cricket moves on. It has never shied away from great advances that have shaped the game - the invention and evolution of the limited-over formats; 360-degree power-hitting; the TV replay; having four 12th men run out for no obvious reason every 10 minutes; tediously and avoidably slow over rates; the sponsored boundary rope. And if bowling can evolute from underarm via roundarm to overarm, why, logically, should it not take the next bold step, to not actually delivering the ball at all, with either arm?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/conte ... 68937.html

[Kriterion_BD]

i didnt see that Aussie under 19 game Kriterion is referring too, but i assume that there was some sort of warning in place or at least the guy was creeping far down the pitch.

The West Indian never had any intention of bowling that delivery.

Thats the key point for me.

Unless you were at the ground you wouldnt have seen it since it was not televised. Highly doubt there was a warning because although Australia won comfortably in the end (there captain was dismissed only once the entire tournament), it was a tight chase in the beginning of the 2nd innings in a knockout match. Highly doubt Soumya warned him before as Bangladesh were desperate to win that game. I'll try to look through the cricinfo commentary. I think thw warning idea is unnecessary...players should not have to be reminded of the rules even if its rarely enforced. mankading should be written out of the rule book. But lets say a 5 run penalty is imposed instead similar to obstruction another players path.

[ZIMDOGGY]

I agree, makading is legit.

Im just saying, i think its stupid that the issue is that he got mankaded, but i think the key point, as in whats worth discussing, is that he bowler wasnt looking to bowl this ball.
Thats what the debate should be generated around.

Like Googly said, its opening up a can of worms about when he can try and makad a player, i think changing the rules so the bowler doesnt need to have made the delivery action was silly.

As i Understand it, the bowler can theoretically 'mankad' a batsman after one step of his bowling delivery. I checked with my first class umpire friend of mine who told me that the ball is live once the bowler begins his runup.

So in theory, a fast bowler can notice a batsman doing some pitch gardening, take two steps of his 20m runup, pelt the ball at the stumps, and if he avoids the umpire, he has a wicket.

[Kriterion_BD]

I agree, makading is legit.

Im just saying, i think its stupid that the issue is that he got mankaded, but i think the key point, as in whats worth discussing, is that he bowler wasnt looking to bowl this ball.
Thats what the debate should be generated around.

Like Googly said, its opening up a can of worms about when he can try and makad a player, i think changing the rules so the bowler doesnt need to have made the delivery action was silly.

As i Understand it, the bowler can theoretically 'mankad' a batsman after one step of his bowling delivery. I checked with my first class umpire friend of mine who told me that the ball is live once the bowler begins his runup.

So in theory, a fast bowler can notice a batsman doing some pitch gardening, take two steps of his 20m runup, pelt the ball at the stumps, and if he avoids the umpire, he has a wicket.

I agree with your umpire friend. Once the bowler is at the top of his mark the batsmen should be behind their respective creases.

[foreignfield]

As i Understand it, the bowler can theoretically 'mankad' a batsman after one step of his bowling delivery. I checked with my first class umpire friend of mine who told me that the ball is live once the bowler begins his runup.

So in theory, a fast bowler can notice a batsman doing some pitch gardening, take two steps of his 20m runup, pelt the ball at the stumps, and if he avoids the umpire, he has a wicket.

That is indeed the case, but the bowler can always break off his run-up and ball becomes dead. So you can run up with the sole purpose of running the non-striker out, and when you get near the crease and the batsman is behind the line, you simply pull up. On the other hand, would faking to bowl not make it even more of an ambush?

Someone somewhere said that Paul had previously aborted his run-up -- can someone confirm if and when that happened, was it just prior to the successful run-out ambush? I was watching live but trying to get in some work between overs, so I wouldn't know.