U19 Cricket World Cup (January - February) 2016

[PokerAce]

If it is against spirit, don't have it in the rules!
See. The batsman knew about the rule. So, he should have been more careful. In the end everyone wants to win and this especially is a big stage. It's not like W.Indies cheated. They did what they had, to win the match. They didn't break any rule.
Just my opinion.

Not everything can be incorporated in the rules. Also just because something is okay by the rules doesn't mean it needs to be done.

^ Being a perfect example. It was also legal, but was it in the spirit of the game. Mankading falls in this category. I get the argument, for Mankading- if Mankading is a no-no, then why even bother, having the non-striker stand at the non striker end, just have him stand at the Stiker end, and be done with it. However the way it was done in WI v Zim, was just disgraceful.

The bowler didn't even enter the bowling action, he didnt even attempt to bowl, he simply ran up and took the bails off. Even then its not like the non-striker was halfway down the wicket or something. His bat was on the line, and that much room just has to be given in the spirit of the game.

What happened today was nothing short of disgraceful.

 

[CremerCurrans]

Ngarava Wicket – WI v ZIM - Videos | ICC U19 Cricket World Cup

It looks like there might have been some of the bat behind the line, when the stumps were first broken.

 

[zwarrior]

Also when I saw the video, I felt that bat was in. Maybe, the third umpires might have looked in detail with extra zoom and stuff. But for regular eye, it seems the bat was inside the crease.

 

[PokerAce]

Anyone wondering why Nepal have been doing so well -

Raju Rijal or Raju Sharma: Mistaken identity or a 25-yr-old in U-19 World Cup? | The Indian Express

Could this be the reason. Would be a diabolical scandal if its true.

 

[PokerAce]

Ngarava Wicket – WI v ZIM - Videos | ICC U19 Cricket World Cup

It looks like there might have been some of the bat behind the line, when the stumps were first broken.

Also when I saw the video, I felt that bat was in. Maybe, the third umpires might have looked in detail with extra zoom and stuff. But for regular eye, it seems the bat was inside the crease.

I was watching the game on Star Sports, and they really did zoom in. I don't think there was much doubt on the batsman being out. It was close, and inbetween frame thing, but it did look out.

 

[zwarrior]

@PokerAce I know it's against the spirit and all. I agree it is not the exact way to win the match. But, when you see the video, it was not an accident. The batsman knowingly left the crease to make a quick run or whatever it was. This can be a disadvantage for the bowling team too.

The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the non striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage.

 

[grkrama]

was the batsman warned first, after that only mankading is allowed if the batsman doesnt heed it from then on isnt that how the rule works or am i wrong ?

If the batsman had been warned once before i dont see anything wrong with mankading!

 

[PokerAce]

was the batsman warned first, after that only mankading is allowed if the batsman doesnt heed it from then on isnt that how the rule works or am i wrong ?

If the batsman had been warned once before i dont see anything wrong with mankading!

I don't think (I could be wrong), there is anything about warning before Mankading. At any rate I was watching the game and saw no warning or anything of that kind.

I remember an incident from 2012 of Ashwin Mankading Thirimanne. However at point Ashwin had warned him that he was backing up too much and to stop doing it. Even then Sehwag who was the captain in that game, had withdrawn the appeal. Wrongly so, if the batsman has been warned and still doing it, then go ahead and Mankad him.

However to do it first up, without any warning is definitely against the spirit of the game. If Zim were warned and still did it, I guess it would make things easier on the WI and even I would not be that critical.

However there was no warning.

Anyway, the warning under the rules is not mandatory, but to uphold the spirit of the game, the non-striker is usually warned.

 

[zwarrior]

was the batsman warned first, after that only mankading is allowed if the batsman doesnt heed it from then on isnt that how the rule works or am i wrong ?

If the batsman had been warned once before i dont see anything wrong with mankading!

As far as I know, warning is not required.

The bowler is permitted, before releasing the ball and provided he has not completed his usual delivery swing, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over. if the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal dead ball as soon possible.

And, in this match, warning was not given.

Once a bowler enters his delivery stride, it does not give the non-striker the freedom to move out of his crease. Unless the bowler has delivered the ball, the non-striker remains at the risk of being ‘Mankaded’. It’s a simple and clear ruling.

 

[grkrama]

I would believe a warning has to be added then atleast once for a team!

 

[CremerCurrans]

I think the only solution, is for the match to be replayed, with only this Paul fellow and their captain representing the West Indies u19s.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[grkrama]

Not everything can be incorporated in the rules. Also just because something is okay by the rules doesn't mean it needs to be done.

just saw the video cant think of anything more disgraceful than that underarm ball had read about it before but never new it stunk this much! I mean 6 of a last ball with tailenders after a pretty decent over and they just disrespected the sport as well as that full stadia
that had invested time and money watching that game!
------------------------------------------
also lol came across this ad

 

[PokerAce]

@PokerAce I know it's against the spirit and all. I agree it is not the exact way to win the match. But, when you see the video, it was not an accident. The batsman knowingly left the crease to make a quick run or whatever it was. This can be a disadvantage for the bowling team too.

The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out? By backing up too far or too early, the non striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage.

I get Mankading is legal, but so was bowling underarm, when Trevor Chappell did it vs NZ.

Spirit of the game goes beyond the rules.

There is a convention set for effecting a runout that way, and that convention was not followed. Hence I don't care what the rules say, its not in the spirit of the game.

 

[zwarrior]

I get Mankading is legal, but so was bowling underarm, when Trevor Chappell did it vs NZ.

Spirit of the game goes beyond the rules.

There is a convention set for effecting a runout that way, and that convention was not followed. Hence I don't care what the rules say, its not in the spirit of the game.

It's very obvious that non-striker batsman would be having an advantage. Remember, many run-outs have happened with just inches away from the crease. So, before the ball is being bowled, the batsman should not leave the crease. And this was by no means an accident. He knowingly left the crease. He is clearly having an advantage and is not fair. How can you not see this ?


Infact if there is anyone who is breaking the rules or not playing with the spirit of game, it's the non-striker batsman who is trying to take a run by leaving the crease early and gaining an unfair advantage.
Look,
If mankading was not there, let the non striker leave the crease and run while the bowler is still taking a run-up. Do you agree with this? No, right? As it's unfair. Now, why do you think it is fair, if the non-striker leaves the crease before ball is being delivered ? Every second, every milli-second matters. There has been many instances where batsman has survived a run-out by being inside the crease by just less than a second. This case is no different than that.

Even here, it could have been a possibility that, batsman went for a run and he would have gotten out if he had reached the crease just one second late. Now that one second (milli second, whatever) late was achieved by leaving the crease early which is not fair.

 

[zwarrior]

Harsha Bhogle- Amazed that the spirit of the game never comes up when batsmen hit the ball and stay on but does when a bowler mankads a batsman.... Whether playing U19 cricket or a World Cup final, if outside the crease, intentional or otherwise, you are out. Have to know the rules