Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out?
Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out?
Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out?
Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out?
Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
But you yourself raised the possibility of a new batsman having to face the next ball even if the run out was at the non-striker's end. A mankad is just that.
Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out?
Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
But you yourself raised the possibility of a new batsman having to face the next ball even if the run out was at the non-striker's end. A mankad is just that.
I was talking about the Law change which dictates that when a catch is taken, even if the batsmen have crossed, the incoming batsman has to go to the non striker's end. In a Mankad the batsmen won't have crossed.
It would, actually, simplify everything as, for any dismissal, there would be no change in the ends for batsmen for any incomplete run. Anyone who has umpired will tell you that it is incredibly hard, in certain circumstances, to concentrate on whether a catch is taken or a run out is out and to decide whether the batsmen crossed or not at the time of the dismissal.
Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out?
Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
But you yourself raised the possibility of a new batsman having to face the next ball even if the run out was at the non-striker's end. A mankad is just that.
I was talking about the Law change which dictates that when a catch is taken, even if the batsmen have crossed, the incoming batsman has to go to the non striker's end. In a Mankad the batsmen won't have crossed.
It would, actually, simplify everything as, for any dismissal, there would be no change in the ends for batsmen for any incomplete run. Anyone who has umpired will tell you that it is incredibly hard, in certain circumstances, to concentrate on whether a catch is taken or a run out is out and to decide whether the batsmen crossed or not at the time of the dismissal.
It's almost always very easy to decide whether the batters have crossed when it's a run out.
Here's something for a debate. If it is right that a new batsman has to go to the non striker's end when a catch is taken even though the batsmen have crossed, shouldn't the Law also be changed for the same when there is a run out?
Nah. If the wicket happened at that end the new man comes in at that end. Otherwise you could mankad to not only get someone out but get the new man on strike, which would be even more, um, manky
I must be missing something here but Mankad would only keep the new batsman at the non striker's end wouldn't it? The new batsman would never been on strike because there still has to be at least one ball to be bowled.
But you yourself raised the possibility of a new batsman having to face the next ball even if the run out was at the non-striker's end. A mankad is just that.
I was talking about the Law change which dictates that when a catch is taken, even if the batsmen have crossed, the incoming batsman has to go to the non striker's end. In a Mankad the batsmen won't have crossed.
It would, actually, simplify everything as, for any dismissal, there would be no change in the ends for batsmen for any incomplete run. Anyone who has umpired will tell you that it is incredibly hard, in certain circumstances, to concentrate on whether a catch is taken or a run out is out and to decide whether the batsmen crossed or not at the time of the dismissal.
It's almost always very easy to decide whether the batters have crossed when it's a run out.
Comments
It would, actually, simplify everything as, for any dismissal, there would be no change in the ends for batsmen for any incomplete run. Anyone who has umpired will tell you that it is incredibly hard, in certain circumstances, to concentrate on whether a catch is taken or a run out is out and to decide whether the batsmen crossed or not at the time of the dismissal.
We lost 42.9% of the games
Shame because he's a useful number 9 batsman.
I thought 170 was on the cards earlier.
Great bowling in the end.