Against the spirit of the game. Ahhh but rules. What a joke.
English cricket thread
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
A legitimate dismissal (as in the 'Mankad'), but surely it can't be allowed that you dummy bowling the ball. Dean was still in her crease, as Deepti was in her bowling action.
She had no intention of letting the ball go, only looking at Dean...
Yep pretty much this.
Very ugly from the Indians. Yuck.
I’ve said literally nothing about the spirit of the game so I’m not sure who you think you’re using quotation marks for?
I find it quite obvious that the Stokes incident was “dumb luck” that he could do absolutely nothing about, whereas yesterday was completely intentional from the team that benefitted.
The batter was fully in the crease as the bowling motion started, the only reason she is out of her crease is that the bowling action was stopped. Compare her position to any one day batter and it’s exactly the same.
Also. On Broad. He cheated and shouldn’t have, that’s wrong. Is that supposed to somehow invalidate my opinion because I’m English? Again, weird bunch of fans.
Some are still seething from getting hammered by Bairstow and Root in the test this summer.
Ignore it.
The response was obviously within context of the broader debate about this. Replace ‘spirit of cricket’ with whatever value you think Deepti Sharma violated and the post holds true to your Ben Stokes analogy. What she did was within the rules: get out of the crease and you are run out. If that wasn't the case, the third umpire wouldn't have given it out, maybe you should have a word with the umpires. The batter was not fully in the crease -- there's a frame later where Deepti is stopping to bowl, is nowhere near completing her action and she's out of it - do go and look it up.
EDIT: Here's the video for you at 1:01 -- she's out of the crease when Deepti pauses with her action just begun at the bottom. If the counterfactual argument is that she wouldn't have crossed if Deepti had actually bowled, then there's no reason for her to cross when Deepti didn't bowl. The umpire saw it that way(rightfully).
The Stuart Broad thing wasn't addressed to you but again for the thread. I wouldn't go as far as tarring an entire nation as "strange" and "weird" as you seem comfortable doing, despite what you write, however.. that is strange.
Last edited:
I was quite surprised the umpires didn't discuss it with the Indian captain. I think the protocol should be to offer the captain the opportunity to withdraw the appeal.
Dont think there's anything wrong with that.
I was literally watching the game, and the video adds far more context than the two screenshots you’re talking about. Again, it’s no different to the position of most one day batters, yet we never see it happen.
I’ve explained why it’s different to Stokes. One is a conscious decision, one is completely unintentional. What are you not understanding there? Whether you think the batter is stealing ground is irrelevant to this point.
If the bowler was so cornered about her stealing ground, she could have warned the batter about it to stop that from happening. Instead she chose to win the match instead. A conscious decision.
I was talking about Indian cricket fans on social media/online. Tarring an entire nation. Stop it
Why?I was literally watching the game, and the video adds far more context than the two screenshots you’re talking about. Again, it’s no different to the position of most one day batters, yet we never see it happen.
I’ve explained why it’s different to Stokes. One is a conscious decision, one is completely unintentional. What are you not understanding there? Whether you think the batter is stealing ground is irrelevant to this point.
If the bowler was so cornered about her stealing ground, she could have warned the batter about it to stop that from happening. Instead she chose to win the match instead. A conscious decision.
I was talking about Indian cricket fans on social media/online. Tarring an entire nation. Stop it
I was literally watching the game, and the video adds far more context than the two screenshots you’re talking about. Again, it’s no different to the position of most one day batters, yet we never see it happen.
I’ve explained why it’s different to Stokes. One is a conscious decision, one is completely unintentional. What are you not understanding there? Whether you think the batter is stealing ground is irrelevant to this point.
If the bowler was so cornered about her stealing ground, she could have warned the batter about it to stop that from happening. Instead she chose to win the match instead. A conscious decision.
I was talking about Indian cricket fans on social media/online. Tarring an entire nation. Stop it
And yes, "Indian cricket fans on social media" is not 3 people and it reads very distastefully when you phrase it like that -- you come off terribly. But you don't need to respond to that, just respond to my edit above:
Here's the video for you at 1:01 -- she's out of the crease when Deepti pauses with her action just begun at the bottom. If the counterfactual argument is that she wouldn't have crossed if Deepti had actually bowled, then there's no reason for her to cross when Deepti didn't bowl. The umpire saw it that way(rightfully).
Because it would have stopped the issue of the batter stealing ground? It’s something that happens far more often than what we saw yesterday.
The batter is stealing the ground knowing fully well the risk of getting run out.... why does one need to give a warning for that?
I suspect it was planned because she(bowler} wouldn't have been concentrating on the non striker in her delivery stride.
https://i.redd.it/ii5ac1sukyp91.jpg
3 consecutive deliveries and there was also a Reddit comment saying she's been doing it all tournament(I have no idea if this is true).
Perhaps, but she could've been eager to get to the other side. It may not have been an elaborate plan to rob inches by the batter. Sure she's out according to the laws but it leaves a bad taste. I actually think she ought've been warned by the bowler first.
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with what she did but in the context of the overall day & series it wasn’t really necessary. The Indian team kind of being sheepish kind of proved that
Yep.
Did the Indian team warn the batter firstly too?
Again is the usual sporting way of doing it.
Yeah exactly. Already won the series then do this
Baffling lack of self awareness
A legitimate legends last game has been totally overshadowed by it.Yeah exactly. Already won the series then do this
Baffling lack of self awareness
The comparisons to Stokes in the World Cup are hilarious by the way, was Stokes to know where the ball he wasn’t looking at was as he ran and dived? It might have been a comparison that worked if he jumped up and ran the next four rather than him just lying there while it ran over the boundary. It’s just incredibly defensive reactions when literally every complaint has been “this rule is crap at the moment” and agreeing that by the current laws, it is indeed out.
Anyway, Charlie Dean’s first ball bowled today has gone wonderfully well
The comparison to Stokes to try and rationalise something totally different to being okay speaks volumes tbh.
I especially like the “why did Stokes not ask the runs to be removed from the score?” angle that has been posted elsewhere and only intimated at in here, which totally ignores the known fact that Stokes did in fact ask the umpire if it were possible to remove the four runs from the score.
It’s a legitimate mode of dismissal, I think yesterday shows the rule is not well written.
It’s the bit in bold for me. Define it explicitly, is that once the bowler loads, is it once the front foot lands, is it when the arm is past vertical? When do you expect a bowler to release the ball?
For me I currently interpret it as once the bowler loads up to deliver then they are attempting to deliver, if they pull out from there it should be a dead ball. It’s such an engrained rhythm of the game to watch the bowler run in and turn away once they load up. If they want bats to stop moving until the ball is physically released write it as so and change the behaviour.
I also think umpires should be more involved in warning/penalising bats about moving out of their crease early, in the same way bowlers are warned about landing in the danger zone or called for no-balls, bats should be pulled up on running short effectively.
The hand wringing is tedious, but I do understand why you would be frustrated at the very best going about their business in such a way. It’s legal but it always feels like such a cheap wicket.
It’s the bit in bold for me. Define it explicitly, is that once the bowler loads, is it once the front foot lands, is it when the arm is past vertical? When do you expect a bowler to release the ball?
For me I currently interpret it as once the bowler loads up to deliver then they are attempting to deliver, if they pull out from there it should be a dead ball. It’s such an engrained rhythm of the game to watch the bowler run in and turn away once they load up. If they want bats to stop moving until the ball is physically released write it as so and change the behaviour.
I also think umpires should be more involved in warning/penalising bats about moving out of their crease early, in the same way bowlers are warned about landing in the danger zone or called for no-balls, bats should be pulled up on running short effectively.
The hand wringing is tedious, but I do understand why you would be frustrated at the very best going about their business in such a way. It’s legal but it always feels like such a cheap wicket.
Last edited:
What makes it worse is the batter was actually in the crease when the bowler was in her bowling stride. A trap was properly set for the batgirl. Nice.
Here for the yummy English tears (couldn't give a toss about cricket otherwise)
And deliberately delaying the release of the ball waiting for the batter to leave the crease is against the spirit of the game.
I’m really unsure why she did it, especially when you look at the context of the game and the fact they had won the series already.
Seems so stupid to create such drama.
Having given it some thought, I think the rule should be amended from:
""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"
Replacing the bold with "when the bowler plants their front foot"
It's too vague otherwise, and not practical. The batsmen can't/shouldn't have to stand and face the bowler the whole way through their release, and it leaves too much scope for bowlers to fake a delivery or pull out of a delivery during their action. There has to be a line somewhere to stop batsmen stealing yards, and I think the moment the front foot is planted is the most logical and workable place to draw that line.
he’s just upset that we invented cricket and curry and that we’re better at doing both.
I’m not sure being so openly prejudice against other ethnic groups would be tolerated here.
Hopefully the mods keep an eye on that poster as their behaviour concerns me greatly Rimaldo.
Correct. Good thing she didn't do that then.
The batsman is completely at fault - you should be castigating her for being a moron. A sporting moron going by her post dismissal reaction, but a moron nonethless.
This controversy about Mankading is the biggest non issue this sport has.
The comparison to Stokes is not to legitimize this but simply point out that the spirit of cricket is not defined by how one set of people about it. It's murky wording(which is why we rely on laws), and if what Deepti did was incorrect, then we could go on haranguing about all forms of violations of 'fair play'/'spirit of cricket'/what have you. The fact that there are large swathes of people(and this is not insignificant) condemning Deepti, but not similar swathes of people from the same group expressing dissatisfaction(again, I am very aware that you cannot criticize Stokes inadvertent act, but I'm referring to the expression of disappointment/a call for laws to be changed/whatever) when England won on the basis of a very dodgy law, would mean that when it comes to spirit of cricket, it's best to not talk about it and simply follow the rules. It cannot be morality for me, rules for thee. You can ask for the rules to be changed -- it is another thing to pass moral judgment on people for operating within the laws that exist, especially when the party on the other side of the debate is the violator.
On a BBC podcast Tuffers and Vaughan, Stokes said, “I saw all of that. I was thinking to myself, did I say that? But hand on heart, I did not go up to the umpires and say something like that to the umpires. I went straight to Tom Latham and said ‘Mate, I am so sorry’, looked over to Kane (Williamson) and said ‘I’m sorry’.”
ttps://circleofcricket.com/category/Cricket_World_Cup_2019/40522/cwc-2019-ben-stokes-confirms-that-he-did-not-ask-the-umpires-to-cancel-the-four-overthrows#:~:text=England%20Test%20cricketer%20James%20Anderson,I%20saw%20all%20of%20that.
Last edited:
Love it when known facts are known lies.
It does feel as though you’re trying to shift the focus here on to Stokes though and I can only assume it’s because you’re not comfortable with what happened yesterday (if you’re totally honest).
Stokes didn’t consciously do what he did whilst yesterday was clearly planned and executed. That’s the moral difference we are discussing. It was absolutely unnecessary.
I don’t think anyone is saying the rules don’t help matters in both instances and need clarification.
I'm simply justifying the comparison to make the point that we need to rely on laws. I don't think Deepti did anything wrong, and I don't think Stokes did anything wrong. I do think NZ were hard done by and that rule England benefited from needs to change.
So you don’t see any difference in Stokes and Deepti incidents and the individuals in terms of spirit of the game?
Posting random tweets from nobodies are we now ?
The rule is quite simple. You don't leave the potting crease until the ball is released. She was obviously stealing ground often enough for the bowl to wait for it to happen again and stump her.A legitimate dismissal (as in the 'Mankad'), but surely it can't be allowed that you dummy bowling the ball. Dean was still in her crease, as Deepti was in her bowling action.
She had no intention of letting the ball go, only looking at Dean...