The frame that matters in the debate around Deepti Sharma mankading Charlie Dean in the #ENGvIND ODI:
(The law says if the non-striker is out of his/her crease before the instant the bowler would "normally have been expected to release the ball", he/she could be run out)
(1/n)
(The law says if the non-striker is out of his/her crease before the instant the bowler would "normally have been expected to release the ball", he/she could be run out)
(1/n)
Deepti is nowhere close to releasing the ball and Dean is already out of her crease. So the dismissal was perfectly legal. (2/n)
The issue is sometimes a bowler deliberately delays his/her action to attempt such a dismissal.
Ashwin, I felt, did that against Buttler in the 2019 IPL. And the TV umpire didn't look at it from that angle. This is my only grouse against this law/mode of dismissal. (3/n)
Ashwin, I felt, did that against Buttler in the 2019 IPL. And the TV umpire didn't look at it from that angle. This is my only grouse against this law/mode of dismissal. (3/n)
But then there are times a bowler would delay his action even when he is not looking to run the non-striker out. Ashwin himself does that many times.
In such cases, how can a TV umpire know when the bowler would "normally have been expected to release the ball"? (4/n)
In such cases, how can a TV umpire know when the bowler would "normally have been expected to release the ball"? (4/n)
In fact, even with the normal action, it's not easy to extrapolate when the bowler would have released the ball. So there will always be some subjectivity involved.
But is there a solution to that? (5/n)
But is there a solution to that? (5/n)
One solution could be the MCC tweaking the law to say the non-striker is liable to be run out as long as the bowler hasn't released the ball. That will remove any ambiguity that is currently there. (6/n)
Regarding the outrage after every manakding incident:
It's clear many are not a fan of this mode of dismissal. But given it is as per the laws, any problem they have should be with the MCC and not the bowler. (7/n)
It's clear many are not a fan of this mode of dismissal. But given it is as per the laws, any problem they have should be with the MCC and not the bowler. (7/n)
In the meantime, not just the striker but the non-striker should also watch the ball out of the bowler's hand while staying inside his crease, as Kane Williamson is doing here against Ashwin. (8/8)
PS: Given there are times when the non-striker isn't really trying to "steal a run", how about the bowling team/umpires issuing a first and final warning to the batting side before a mankad can be attempted?
Maybe even cancel any runs scored off that particular ball. (9/n)
Maybe even cancel any runs scored off that particular ball. (9/n)
We already have warnings for a bowler bowling a beamer, and batters/bowlers/fielders running on the protected area of the pitch. Why not have one for the non-striker backing up as well?
After that, I assume, no one will have any issue if a bowler runs out the non-striker (10/10)
After that, I assume, no one will have any issue if a bowler runs out the non-striker (10/10)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
