On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:24:26 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> On what planet can bowler making a decision on a legitimate means of
> dismissal ever be deception?

It would be interesting if you took the stance "deception is ok here" (like FBI has), but to say there is no element of deception when there obviously is doesn't deserve much of a response.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 02:13:13 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:24:26?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> On what planet can bowler making a decision on a legitimate means of
>> dismissal ever be deception?
>
>It would be interesting if you took the stance "deception is ok here" (like FBI has), but to say there is no element of deception when there obviously is doesn't deserve much of a response.
>
>
There is no deception to be "ok here", zero, nil.

Show the deception, explain how it is deception and you will be
believed, your position will be understood and others will change
their position to agree with you in the discussion.

Do you mean that you have no response? I think your position is an
empty sack and I have demonstrated that.
You have failed to present any compelling evidence for your claim that
the dismissal is unfair or deceitful in some way.

max.it

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Show the deception

I already have. But I'll try another way.

Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:57:01 -0800 (PST), jack fredricks
<jzfredricks@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Show the deception
>
>I already have. But I'll try another way.
>
If you already had then I wouldn't need to keep asking.
>
>Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>
>
>
I'm sure I probably can if I saw it happening.

Anyway you're a gonner now. You can waste someone else's time, you
can't afford mine.

Plonk.

max.it

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:25:25 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> Anyway you're a gonner now. You can waste someone else's time, you
> can't afford mine.

Finally. We get to the stage where you run off in a fit of uncontrolled anger.

Was the question too hard? Aren't you an umpire?

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:25:25 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> I'm sure I probably can if I saw it happening.

Your intellect is so stunted you can't even *think* of deceptive actions? You need to actually see them first?
It's no wonder you can't understand the deception element of the scenario I've described.
Although it just occurred to me even if you saw it in person, you'd probably shout "BUT I CAN'T READ MINDS!".

On 31/01/2024 00:00, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 6:50:12 AM UTC+11, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:15:55 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>> Pretending to have some kind of
>>> understanding of intention or motive of the action is exactly that -
>>> just pretending.
>> We don't need to pretend. We can just switch to a hypothetical where we both agree the bowler does as I describe - run up with no intention to complete a delivery, but instead pull out of the delivery just before arm is vertical and run out the batsman.
>> This is perfectly legal under today's laws AND it has an element of deception.
>
> So fucking what?
> The batsman's taking a risk by leaving the crease before they see the ball. If they want to risk being run out at the bowler's end in return for a reduced chance being runout while running WTF should anybody be crying for them?
>
>> I would argue this has already happened, a lot (eg here, Zampa's mankad, etc)
>
> When he went past the point of delivery and the batsman was not out?
> Not exactly a strong case...

.... and in this case the bowler stopped very early in his action, when
his bowling arm was still in its downward swing, so hardly "just before
arm is vertical". He stopped so early that he put his front foot down
closer to the bowling crease than the popping crease, with a much
shorter stride than (I assume) he would normally take.

OTOH, the non-striker's bat was still several inches behind the crease
at that point, so that didn't give the bowler any cause to stop. It
seems pretty obvious that the bowler was watching for the non-striker to
turn his head away, and then stopped and waited for him to leave his ground.

--
David North

On 2/1/2024 3:57 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>> Show the deception
>
> I already have. But I'll try another way.
>
> Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?

That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.

It is no longer relevant once cricket administrators and fans understand
that the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT and NOT the other way around.

There will NEVER be a case of deception once administrators make players
understand that bowler has EVERY RIGHT to mankad them out as long as the
ball is NOT released from their hands AND batter is out of the crease.

It can't get SIMPLER than that.

Bad blood happens because humans are brainwashed EMOTIONAL ANIMALS who
REFUSE to think rationally and REFUSE to "CHANGE their mindset".

Solution is to TRAIN PLAYERS to STAY in the fucking crease as long as
the ball is NOT released by the bowler.

QUITE SIMPLE to understand and IMPLEMENT for players, umpires, fans and
administrators.

On 02/02/2024 05:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 2/1/2024 3:57 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>> Show the deception
>>
>> I already have. But I'll try another way.
>>
>> Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the
>> *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>
>
>
> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.
>
> It is no longer relevant once cricket administrators and fans understand
> that the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT and NOT the other way around.
>
> There will NEVER be a case of deception once administrators make players
> understand that bowler has EVERY RIGHT to mankad them out as long as the
> ball is NOT released from their hands AND batter is out of the crease.
>
> It can't get SIMPLER than that.
>
> Bad blood happens because humans are brainwashed EMOTIONAL ANIMALS who
> REFUSE to think rationally and REFUSE to "CHANGE their mindset".
>
> Solution is to TRAIN PLAYERS to STAY in the fucking crease as long as
> the ball is NOT released by the bowler.
>
> QUITE SIMPLE to understand and IMPLEMENT for players, umpires, fans and
> administrators.

You seems to have missed the word "fielder" in Jack's question.

Law 41.5.1 is about deliberate distraction, deception or obstruction of
a batter after the striker has received the ball - nothing to do with
Mankads.

--
David North

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 3:34:22 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.

I have a feeling the deception part is new-ish. I recall some stuff about "fake fielding" being outlawed.

Here's me, a human with an imagination, having a go at giving an example where this Law might come into play.

A keeper, standing uppish, takes one down legside. He then points to fine leg and shouts "keep it to one!". Batsman set off for a run, thinking it's gone down to fine leg, but the keeper (holding the ball) now attempts a run out.

Please note me bring up 41.5.1 wasn't to say mankads should invoke 41.5.1. I was trying, and failing, to get max to understand what deception is.

On 2/1/2024 10:10 PM, David North wrote:
> On 02/02/2024 05:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 2/1/2024 3:57 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>>> Show the deception
>>>
>>> I already have. But I'll try another way.
>>>
>>> Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the
>>> *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>>
>>
>>
>> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.
>>
>> It is no longer relevant once cricket administrators and fans
>> understand that the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT and NOT the
>> other way around.
>>
>> There will NEVER be a case of deception once administrators make
>> players understand that bowler has EVERY RIGHT to mankad them out as
>> long as the ball is NOT released from their hands AND batter is out of
>> the crease.
>>
>> It can't get SIMPLER than that.
>>
>> Bad blood happens because humans are brainwashed EMOTIONAL ANIMALS who
>> REFUSE to think rationally and REFUSE to "CHANGE their mindset".
>>
>> Solution is to TRAIN PLAYERS to STAY in the fucking crease as long as
>> the ball is NOT released by the bowler.
>>
>> QUITE SIMPLE to understand and IMPLEMENT for players, umpires, fans
>> and administrators.
>
> You seems to have missed the word "fielder" in Jack's question.
>
> Law 41.5.1 is about deliberate distraction, deception or obstruction of
> a batter after the striker has received the ball - nothing to do with
> Mankads.
>

Yes I did, I thought this thread is about bowlers, non-strikers and
mankading.

The point I made about mankading issue is STILL VALID anyway.

On 2/1/2024 10:10 PM, David North wrote:
> On 02/02/2024 05:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 2/1/2024 3:57 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>>> Show the deception
>>>
>>> I already have. But I'll try another way.
>>>
>>> Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the
>>> *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>>
>>
>>
>> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.
>>
>> It is no longer relevant once cricket administrators and fans
>> understand that the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT and NOT the
>> other way around.
>>
>> There will NEVER be a case of deception once administrators make
>> players understand that bowler has EVERY RIGHT to mankad them out as
>> long as the ball is NOT released from their hands AND batter is out of
>> the crease.
>>
>> It can't get SIMPLER than that.
>>
>> Bad blood happens because humans are brainwashed EMOTIONAL ANIMALS who
>> REFUSE to think rationally and REFUSE to "CHANGE their mindset".
>>
>> Solution is to TRAIN PLAYERS to STAY in the fucking crease as long as
>> the ball is NOT released by the bowler.
>>
>> QUITE SIMPLE to understand and IMPLEMENT for players, umpires, fans
>> and administrators.
>
> You seems to have missed the word "fielder" in Jack's question.
>
> Law 41.5.1 is about deliberate distraction, deception or obstruction of
> a batter after the striker has received the ball - nothing to do with
> Mankads.
>

Yes I did, I thought this thread is about bowlers, non-strikers and
mankading.

The point I made about mankading issue is STILL VALID anyway.

On 2/1/2024 11:09 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 3:34:22 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.
>
> I have a feeling the deception part is new-ish. I recall some stuff about "fake fielding" being outlawed.
>
> Here's me, a human with an imagination, having a go at giving an example where this Law might come into play.
>
> A keeper, standing uppish, takes one down legside. He then points to fine leg and shouts "keep it to one!". Batsman set off for a run, thinking it's gone down to fine leg, but the keeper (holding the ball) now attempts a run out.
>
> Please note me bring up 41.5.1 wasn't to say mankads should invoke 41.5.1. I was trying, and failing, to get max to understand what deception is.
>

There is a DIFFERENCE between that law 41.5.1 and what we are talking
about in Mankading issue.

In mankading, the ONUS is on the batsman NOT TO CHEAT. Of course he can
CHEAT at his own risk and get mankaded out.

As simple as that.

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:10:50 +0000, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 02/02/2024 05:34, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 2/1/2024 3:57 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 10:05:12?PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
>>>> Show the deception
>>>
>>> I already have. But I'll try another way.
>>>
>>> Can you describe some actions by a fielder that would invoke the
>>> *deception* part of Law 41.5.1 ?
>>
>>
>>
>> That law whatever it is, was created decades ago.
>>
>> It is no longer relevant once cricket administrators and fans understand
>> that the ONUS is on the batter NOT TO CHEAT and NOT the other way around.
>>
>> There will NEVER be a case of deception once administrators make players
>> understand that bowler has EVERY RIGHT to mankad them out as long as the
>> ball is NOT released from their hands AND batter is out of the crease.
>>
>> It can't get SIMPLER than that.
>>
>> Bad blood happens because humans are brainwashed EMOTIONAL ANIMALS who
>> REFUSE to think rationally and REFUSE to "CHANGE their mindset".
>>
>> Solution is to TRAIN PLAYERS to STAY in the fucking crease as long as
>> the ball is NOT released by the bowler.
>>
>> QUITE SIMPLE to understand and IMPLEMENT for players, umpires, fans and
>> administrators.
>
>You seems to have missed the word "fielder" in Jack's question.
>
>Law 41.5.1 is about deliberate distraction, deception or obstruction of
>a batter after the striker has received the ball - nothing to do with
>Mankads.
>
>
I remember that part of the 'new' laws being explained at umpires
meeting. It was pretty much specific to one element of play from
outfielders that had become common, and there was certainly at more
times than not deception involved.
Can you remember?

max.it

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 6:15:31 PM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> I remember that part of the 'new' laws being explained at umpires
> meeting. It was pretty much specific to one element of play from
> outfielders that had become common, and there was certainly at more
> times than not deception involved.
> Can you remember?

The most common fielder deception, that I have seen in all my years of cricket, is pretending to throw the ball at the stumps (when you don't even have it in hand). This can cause runners to dive.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/why-the-fake-fielding-law-is-relevant-1122828

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 8:32:00 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/why-the-fake-fielding-law-is-relevant-1122828

Fraser Stewart, MCC's Laws of Cricket manager (in 2017) said this about fake throwing;

"Fielders may not try to deceive either batsman. The fielder here has tried to deceive the batsmen, attempting to convince them that there is no chance of a run."

and

"As for the fielder sliding - that would depend on context - is he/she trying to convince the batsmen that the ball is closer to being thrown in than it actually is? If so, it is deception."

The umpires are required to make a decision about the intent of the fielder.. If the umpire decides the intent was to cause deception, then the fielding team is punished.

Today's Law 41.5.1 starts "after the striker has received the ball".

If, however, it started earlier, before the mankad attempt (eg at the start of the bowler's run up).. then a *premeditated* mankad (pretending to bowl when you were never going to but instead looking for the run out) would undoubtedly be considered deception under 41.5.1.

That that's my problem. Today's Laws enable and weaponise this deception. This is an act that would be considered against the Spirit and against the Laws if the Law started a mere 1.5seconds earlier (how long it takes to deliver a ball).

I have no problem with a bowler, who sees a non-striker leave early, running that batsman out.
I have a problem with a bowler pretending to bowl in the hope that a batsman wanders out of their crease. This premeditated, fake bowling is happening more and more.