Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Would this work?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/28724023

I agree with Harmison, who says it's a bit over the top.

Any thoughts?

No way should this happen.

Harmy talks a lot of sense about cricket matters these days. He's bang on here too.

I'm with Harmy. Fine as it is.

my immediate reaction was that it would be way too difficult to apply it fairly , the sort of sanctions for a yellow card being described for the different roles are just not of equal value and getting that balance between what penalty a batsman would get compared to a bowler would just make the whole thing a farce

Not sure there's that much of a problem yet. Umpire's could start by confronting bad behaviour, before we decide they need extra powers to end it.

Umpires already have a warning system in place for bowlers running on the pitch. They don't need the production of red cards for that. Maybe that could be extended for some issues such as sledging.

What do umpires do about batters running on the pitch? They just tell them not to. This seems to work ok.

If I'd change anything, I'd stop mankading resulting in a dismissal, and just make it a lesser penalty.

A lesser penalty for "Mankading", though it probably should be called "Smithing" because it probably happened much earlier with a bloke called Smith, wouldn't be sufficient discouragement.

"Sledging" is something too varied and subject to too much interpretation to allow any individual to judge what should be punished. Legislating for it would bring about howls of protest over inconsistency of application.

The whole idea is a nonsense, really.

Mankading is perfecctly fine, I'd rather bowlers did it more often.

I think Harmison got it right in the BBC article. Umpires, and the match referees, have it within their power to sort out incidents and other minor misdemeanours (time wasting etc). Encourage them to lay the law down more often (without forgoing common sense). If players get fined and banned, they'll learn - generally they know where the line is and therefore push it, so if the line is pushed back by the umpires then they'll adapt accordingly.

As it is, whilst it's disappointing to hear incidents of 'personal abuse', I don't think there is a major problem nor is it a new problem (just look at the article where there is a 30+ year old photo of Miandad trying to hit Lillee with his bat), but would be good to try and reduce some of what is going on.

Making_Splinters wrote:Mankading is perfecctly fine, I'd rather bowlers did it more often.

The cost is draconian. Lessen the penalty, and it will become acceptable, and the batter won't take the risk.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:Mankading is perfecctly fine, I'd rather bowlers did it more often.

The cost is draconian. Lessen the penalty, and it will become acceptable, and the batter won't take the risk.

The cost of being out of your ground when the stumps are broken is to be run out. There is no reason for a batsman to be out of his ground.

That's true. But my way takes all the acrimony out of the incidents, at no real cost.

Personally I'd rather that teams and batsmen stop trying to play the "Spirit of the game" card and simply accepted it. If batsmen didn't back up out of their ground then they wouldn't be out, it would also stop batsmen getting run out by the ball deflecting off the bowler's hand.

Making_Splinters wrote:Personally I'd rather that teams and batsmen stop trying to play the "Spirit of the game" card and simply accepted it.

Not happening soon. But you're probably right, logically. My way is pragmatic.

I agree with Splinters. It's not too difficult to stretch back thus leaving your bat in. Once the bowler lets go, you still have time to get a yard or two down.

Making_Splinters wrote:Mankading is perfecctly fine, I'd rather bowlers did it more often.