Comments on: Linewatch: A mankad-related clarification from the official custodians of ‘The Line’

By: Ged Ladd

Ged Ladd — Thu, 08 Oct 2020 20:36:07 +0000

It was so much easier when Victorian English gentlemen with beards sitting in the MCC Committee room at Lord’s held sway over all this stuff.

We should never have allowed those precocious upstarts in the dominions to have any influence at all on the way the game is arbitrated. We could have saved ourselves all of this fuss and unpleasantness.

What a pity.

By: Bail-out

Bail-out — Thu, 08 Oct 2020 10:14:47 +0000

In reply to The Smudge.

I quite like the simplicity of that no ball idea since it would involve changing very little else, and would be well-suited to games with TV umpires while being virtually ignorable in games without, but I’m not sure it would shift the cost-benefit analysis of setting off early enough to make a difference, as no balls are relatively rare.

However, it would be absolutely brilliant to watch a batsman you dislike getting out lazily to a blatant no ball, expecting to see a reprieve, then the look on his face as it dawns on him that he has been diddled over by his team-mate. Also the look on the face of the team-mate would be something to look forward to. This would all, however, be pretty horrifying to watch happen to a batsman you like…

By: Marees

Marees — Thu, 08 Oct 2020 05:54:55 +0000

In reply to The Smudge. A much simpler solution could be to award no ball only if batsman is behind bowler(or the line) at time of delivery

By: The Smudge

The Smudge — Wed, 07 Oct 2020 18:09:37 +0000

In reply to Aditya. I think your “run short” solution is elegant and proportionate. No one will steal an advantage if there is no advantage to be stolen. I suspect it is only really enforceable in games with TV umpires who could do it along with the no balls and changing the laws (not rules Balladeer, I expected better of you!) for those small minority of games and inflicting it on village cricketers can be problematic. There is no elegant and proportionate solution to Australian cricketers though.

By: Aditya

Aditya — Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:02:08 +0000

I think the simplest solution is to simply count any runs, where the non-striker has left the crease before the ball is released, as short runs. The batsmen can still cross over, but get no runs. If you want to really put an end to it completely, make it so that the 5th time it happens in a single innings, the batting team loses 5 runs. After that, every second time it happens, the batting team loses 5 runs.

Or simply interpret rule 41.17 a bit more aggressively and enforce it every game.

As for Ponting…. : goes off to look for the video of Harmison landing one on Ponting’s helmet :

By: King Cricket

King Cricket — Wed, 07 Oct 2020 13:47:32 +0000

In reply to Chabuddy.

That incident reinforces exactly why we need Linewatch.

The Line is in different places at different times. Back then sandpaper was classed as merely “butting up against the line” but let’s say the West Indies or someone tried it now. It would definitely be considered “crossing The Line”.

It’s such a fluid, nuanced thing. This is why we need the Australia cricket team: to explain these finer points to us.

By: Chabuddy

Chabuddy — Wed, 07 Oct 2020 13:36:24 +0000

Are the Australians also the sole owners of the sand paper trick as well as the line?
They seem pretty possessive

By: Balladeer

Balladeer — Wed, 07 Oct 2020 13:19:07 +0000

Thank God he’s cleared that up. Otherwise we’d have to rely on the ‘rules of the game’ and then where would we be!?