Nicely laid out little piece on this issue! I also don't understand why there is so much focus on what the BOWLER does. The batter does something illegal, they should face the consequences however 'distastefully' they may come about.
If we're going to complain about this rule being implemented, then we have to be happy with the non-striker just brazenly camping halfway down the pitch as the bowler runs in. The rule is there so this doesn't happen. Everyone knows the rule, so why should there be a warning? By this logic, we may as well let batters get away with being caught or bowled once, and say it only counts the second time.
Don't want to get locked in jail? Then don't steal.
Don't want to get run out as non-striker? Then stay in your crease.
They need to explain under what circumstances they would find such a dismissal to be fair.
# After a warning that they will 'use' the law that allows them to do so. Why? - because a lot of cricketers still consider this to be beneath them and will have nothing to do with it
They need to explain their position on warnings. Do they want bowlers to warn non-strikers at least once before dismissing them in this way?
# Let them know before hand. Like Ashwin who made it very clear that he will go after the runners who steal.
If they do, they need to explain the contradiction in their position - on the one hand, they object to the bowler “deliberately” trying to dismiss the non-striker, and on the other, they want the bowler to warn the non-striker. How is the warning supposed to occur if the bowler is not looking for the possibility? And if the bowler is looking for the possibility, how can the dismissal not be deliberate?
# Too much generalization in your use of 'they'. Almost 'psychobabble' level. Those who oppose mankading are not a monolith
The problem I have with this particular dismissal is that the bowlers resorted to this method when all else failed. That's against the spirit. We can justify the act by saying that this is legal. But so is appealing on a bump-catch (when only the fielder and that 18th camera knows that it's a bump).
It's a very simple rule. Stay behind the crease till the ball is delivered. If you want to take the chance of a head start, go ahead and do it nothing wrong except you could lose your wicket and don't crib later. Everyone plays to win and hopefully within the rules. If you don't like this rule of running out the non-striker when he is outside the crease when the ball is about to be delivered, get the rule changed.
What's the nonsense about warning. Should the bowler warn the batsman that I can get you out bowled/caught so Saavdhaan.
The reason why a set of fans can't stand the "Spirit of the game" argument is one doesn't walk after nicking, one claims a bump ball and gives liberal gyaan when they don't follow a simple rule. If you want to play the game, leave the decisions to the umpire.
Classic was Mahela after the Thirrimane issue, he preferred not to get wickets that way and lo behold a few weeks later Senanayake did the same and this could hold for many more players.
Imagine that it's a world cup final. One ball, one run to get. Would you not run out the non striker if the non striker is trying to get a head start and haring off even before the ball is bowled?
Nicely laid out little piece on this issue! I also don't understand why there is so much focus on what the BOWLER does. The batter does something illegal, they should face the consequences however 'distastefully' they may come about.
If we're going to complain about this rule being implemented, then we have to be happy with the non-striker just brazenly camping halfway down the pitch as the bowler runs in. The rule is there so this doesn't happen. Everyone knows the rule, so why should there be a warning? By this logic, we may as well let batters get away with being caught or bowled once, and say it only counts the second time.
Don't want to get locked in jail? Then don't steal.
Don't want to get run out as non-striker? Then stay in your crease.
Key word being steal. The non striker is trying to steal a run
They need to explain under what circumstances they would find such a dismissal to be fair.
# After a warning that they will 'use' the law that allows them to do so. Why? - because a lot of cricketers still consider this to be beneath them and will have nothing to do with it
They need to explain their position on warnings. Do they want bowlers to warn non-strikers at least once before dismissing them in this way?
# Let them know before hand. Like Ashwin who made it very clear that he will go after the runners who steal.
If they do, they need to explain the contradiction in their position - on the one hand, they object to the bowler “deliberately” trying to dismiss the non-striker, and on the other, they want the bowler to warn the non-striker. How is the warning supposed to occur if the bowler is not looking for the possibility? And if the bowler is looking for the possibility, how can the dismissal not be deliberate?
# Too much generalization in your use of 'they'. Almost 'psychobabble' level. Those who oppose mankading are not a monolith
The problem I have with this particular dismissal is that the bowlers resorted to this method when all else failed. That's against the spirit. We can justify the act by saying that this is legal. But so is appealing on a bump-catch (when only the fielder and that 18th camera knows that it's a bump).
Bowlers also resort to short pitched bowling when all else fails.
It's a very simple rule. Stay behind the crease till the ball is delivered. If you want to take the chance of a head start, go ahead and do it nothing wrong except you could lose your wicket and don't crib later. Everyone plays to win and hopefully within the rules. If you don't like this rule of running out the non-striker when he is outside the crease when the ball is about to be delivered, get the rule changed.
What's the nonsense about warning. Should the bowler warn the batsman that I can get you out bowled/caught so Saavdhaan.
The reason why a set of fans can't stand the "Spirit of the game" argument is one doesn't walk after nicking, one claims a bump ball and gives liberal gyaan when they don't follow a simple rule. If you want to play the game, leave the decisions to the umpire.
Classic was Mahela after the Thirrimane issue, he preferred not to get wickets that way and lo behold a few weeks later Senanayake did the same and this could hold for many more players.
The other way to phrase this is to call it trying to steal bases as they do in Baseball.
The non striker is trying to steal a run by leaving the crease early.
Imagine that it's a world cup final. One ball, one run to get. Would you not run out the non striker if the non striker is trying to get a head start and haring off even before the ball is bowled?