That’s not how to win a cricket match

I only watched this incident this morning as part of a Yahoo news item. The bat was in the crease as the bowler was going past her so I don't see what else she could have done. I thought it was a pretty despicable piece of work by the bowler and what was even more sickening was that the whole Indian team were laughing and smiling about it while the decision was pending.

A decent captain would have gone to the umpire and said scrub it, we're not claiming a wicket for that. Disgraceful behaviour and just an example of how sporting attitudes are gradually being thrown out in favour of a win-at-all-costs attitude. The Indians should be ashamed of themselves for condoning it.

 

Disagree. Watched it back and I'd say the bails are off, or she's on the process of taking them off when the umpire starts to move his arms.

My point about guarding your crease is you only leave it to score runs, or wait until the ball is dead. It's really no different to being stumped, and you can clearly argue that what that happens that it's drastically more likely that the batsmen is not trying to gain an advantage or score a run. Why no warning when their foot is an inch off the ground?

Rule states: "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." The umpires shall deem the bowler to have completed his delivery swing once his bowling arm passes the normal point of ball release"

If she stays in her crease until the ball is released then she cant be out. Problem solved.



Wakey Wakey!

 

If we had achieved the really low and easy total we were set nobody would have had to mention this. We lost because of a batting flop not because of this one thing. Stay in your crease until you've seen the ball leave the bowlers hand. Simple.

 

I’d be interested to know if she’d been persistently coming out of her crease before the ball is balled in the innings. I assume it wasn’t the first time she’d done it, usually the bowler will have clocked it going on before. Now the sporting thing to do is to stop and point out to the batsman, you do it again and I’ll stump you. Then if they do continue to encroach, then fair enough stump them. It’s just a bit of a **** move to do it without warning in my opinion. One of the unique things about cricket is the general sporting spirit it’s played in 99% of the time, makes it a bit different from other sports - maybe Golf is the other one which is similar (and snooker If you count it as a sport). It maybe ok in the letter of the law but the game loses something every time someone does this.

 

Double post

 

I've seen Indian fans mention England in 2019? Something similar happened then?

 

My issue with it is that I don’t think the bowler has any intention to bowl a delivery at any point, and sets out to sell the batter a dummy. Yes, the batter shouldn’t be switching off, but it’s still not far from ‘fake fielding’ which is 5 penalty runs. Also, I think the umpire starts to signal dead ball at the point the bowler pauses, before taking the bails off. But the timing of it doesn’t matter, he still signalled dead ball

 

I know it's in the rules that this is allowed. But did she break the stump before umpire called the dead ball.

 

Should we remove stumpings from the game? After all the batsman isn't seeking to steal a single with the keeper stood up, they just over balance and their foot lifts up by an inch.

If anything this type of run out is far more clear cut than a stumping as it's always non-strikers trying to steal extra yards. Bowlers have a hard time of it as it is in modern cricket without giving warnings before enacting a perfectly reasonable dismissal.

 

The record will say that India won the series 3-0, but they have done themselves a great injustice because the series will only ever be remembered for this incident. So very, very poor and unsporting.

 

Stumping is totally different. Batsmen know if they venture out of the crease there's a chance of being stumped. Its not ungentlemanly behaviour. In this instance the bowler conned the batsman into moving slightly by pretending to bowl. That's unladylike and in football she would have been booked.

 

Unsporting IMO and whilst he is correct in what he says. WOTS is out of tune with the majority here think.

That said, in football is there not a parallel situation where a goalkeeper has wandered up field and is mile off his/her line, and the opposition player sees it and launches one over his/her head to score. After all he/she is hardly expected to not do that and merely 'warn' the keeper about the risk of going walkabout! Just because it 'isn't cricket' it is still a rule. A professional cricketer should be aware of the risk of it happening and stay alert.

 

Question... if the bowlers foot had been over the crease line and a no ball would have resulted, would the stumping be valid or, since the ball did not actually leave the bowlers hand it would not have been classed as bowled so could not be called a no ball? Just hypothetical as the foot was firmly planted on the crease line in this instance.

I would have thought the lateness of the decision not to bowl , having planted the front foot and then backtracked was very borderline e.g. if the bowler saw the batter out of their crease on their run up and took the bails off behind the wicket then that would be, IMO, a fair cop. I am s little surprised the umpire did not confirm it as a non delivery as happens when bowlers sometimes abort a run up at the last moment.

 

The sporting thing to do would be to stay in your crease until the ball leaves the bowlers hand and not try and steal yards. It's not the job of one team to tell the other what to do. You wouldn't see it in other sports like Football for example. The creases are there for a reason otherwise the batter at the non strikers end might as well stand in the crease with the batter facing the bowler to save on some running for themselves. Rules are made to abide to.

 

What's to stop someone trying to Mankad a batter every ball then? Just run in with no intention of releasing the ball and whip the bails off. You might get one wicket every twenty or so balls, but it would be worth the risk.

If "rules are rules" then it's worth a go. May as well never bowl a ball.

 

Was more than a slight move, she was really far out. Is it nit cheating to be halfway up the pitch to make sure of a run before the ball has even left the bowler's hand?

 

Funnily enough Charlie Dean is batting at Lords again right now. Hope she loses again though as it's a final against Headingley based Northern Diamonds.

 

She was nowhere near halfway up the pitch. At the point the bowler should have released the ball she was probably just inside the crease walking slowly forward. She totally conned her by pretending to bowl without releasing it as she had done her previous 20 odd balls.The forward momentum of the batter had taken her just outside the crease. This kind of behaviour could take place every single over and we'd be getting nowhere. I appreciate its within the rules but cricket is supposed to be sporting hence the phrase, "It's just not cricket"

 

That isn’t right Helen, watch again, her bat is grounded behind the crease in what should have been her delivery stride. The bowler sold a dummy and never intended to bowl the ball.

I saw it as akin to dummy fielding which incurs a five run penalty.

If she was genuinely trying to pinch yards, to be fair I’d still want a warning first - it’s cricket, it’s the done thing - then I’d see it as fair enough; but she wasn’t here. Had Sharma bowled the delivery her bat would have been grounded behind the crease at the point of release, or very close to being so if not.

Exceptionally poor and shows the Indians for the sports they aren’t. Shame really as they are a good side and could have been remembered for a very good series win with no controversy, but chose not only to do this, but then double down and laugh about it on the field.

For those making football comparisons, it’d be more like keeping the ball and attacking, and scoring, from a throw in after the opposition had kicked it out for an injury. Nothing in the rules to say it can’t happen. Nothing written saying you have to give the ball back. It would be well within the laws of the game to do so. Like this mode of dismissal. Wouldn’t sit well though.

 

Barnsley fans criticise India for ‘shithousery’. **** me! I’ve seen it all now.