• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Bowler run out


It’s going to creep in to the local leagues it’s becoming so frequent and I’m going to get a ban for wrapping my bat round a shithouse bowlers heed
 
I don’t particularly like this, but ultimately the non-striking batsman is trying to gain an unfair advantage and is wholly at fault for their dismissal. I think there should be a different type of penalty for infringing the rule to encourage the non-striking batsman to stay within the crease until the delivery is complete.
 
It is a rule so it is fair, why should the batter be allowed to gain an unfair advantage? I have no problem with this.

The only thing I might change is to give a warning to the batting team the first time it happens but after that if they continue to cheat then run them out.
 
Not sure who it was but some Aussie suggested putting it in the hands of the umpire and offering penalty runs if the batsman continuously looks to gain an advantage, They are then in charge of the run outs too.

Seems the most sensible way.
 
I really don't get the dislike for a 'mankad'. The rule seems sensible. AFAIKS being mankaded is a punishment for attempting a run that wasn't there.
 
Being OUT is a disproportionate sanction for stealing a yard IMO. The rules should encourage positive, attacking cricket (see also lbw 'outside the line' rule change in the 1970s). Should be 4 run penalty.
 
Not a fan of the Mankad especially if the non-striker hasn't been given a warning beforehand. All of this can be solved if they stop it being a form of dismissal, but have the tv umpire monitor the line and penalise the batting side by using the short run rule if the non-striker has left the crease before the ball is bowled
 
I am Boss said:
It’s going to creep in to the local leagues it’s becoming so frequent and I’m going to get a ban for wrapping my bat round a shithouse bowlers heed
Click to expand...
Stay in your ground then
SuperSub said:
Not a fan of the Mankad especially if the non-striker hasn't been given a warning beforehand. All of this can be solved if they stop it being a form of dismissal, but have the tv umpire monitor the line and penalise the batting side by using the short run rule if the non-striker has left the crease before the ball is bowled
Click to expand...
What about league cricket? It’s bound to kick off in local leagues this summer
 
HeroHurley said:
Should be scrapped as a way of dismissal but a penalty of runs deducted after 2 warnings (one from the bowler and one from the umpire)
Click to expand...
If you end the rule the scansion for stealing any distance should be 6 runs and in tests automatically deputed by the third umpire using technology. So no appeal needed, if you are out of your ground as the blower releases the ball your side loses 6 runs. In some games I have seen that would be 36 runs an over. Cheating is cheating and should be stamped out.
pavarotti1980 said:
its the ultimate in shit housery. As a captain I would never allow a bowler to do it and if they did would call the batsmen back. Normally a warning is sufficient to stop it
Click to expand...
Stealing extra yards is the shithousery I dislike. If you do it you risk being given out. The rule is there for a reason.

You say you would never allow a bowler to do it, whit if it was the end of the last over and the batting side need one to win and the batsman is two yards out of his ground taking the piss, would you allow your bowler to do it then?
 
Last edited:
Old Timer said:
Stealing extra yards is the shithousery I dislike. If you do it you risk being given out. The rule is there for a reason.

You say you would never allow a bowler to do it, whit if it was the end of the last over and the batting side need one to win and the batsman is two yards out of his ground taking the piss, would you allow your bowler to do it then?
Click to expand...
No
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top