Talk:Run out

message: A run cut out is the official term for a bowler running a non-striker at the time of his delivery. I stand by this as I have watched a quiz show, the Bournvita Quiz Contest and a clip was shown with Courtney Walsh attempting to run-out the non-striker. This was telecast back in 1996. ¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉ 19:06, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
:Was the QM Derek O'Brien ? He is well-known for inventing terms on his own and for his "kitchen questions" (ie, cooked-up questions) :-) Tintin (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard it called this before, and cannot find any reference to it (other than this article). I'd request a reference for this (other than a quiz show) :) If it's a local term (eg in India), then the paragraph should probably be rewritten to say this. I think the current wording: "correct" is wrong. The "correct" term (ie the method of dismissal recorded in the scorebook) is "Run Out".  Coatesg 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are quite a few references to 'Mankeded'
* Pushing the Laws to the limit 
* First batsman to be "Mankeded" no more 
* Kapll Dev mankaded Kirsten 
* Stay Grounded (CricInfo explaining the term) 
Does not look to me that their is any dispute about the use of the term Mankeded as a nickname for this form of dismissal.  The Laws of cricket have been changed so that it is more difficult to dismiss in this way.RonaldDuncan (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run cut out 

message: Is there an article somewhere that states that the Windies lost the game where Courtney Walsh didn't mankad Jaffer? A quick search only brings up copies of this article. The match described in the article appears to be this one which the West Indies actually won, though Pakistan still qualified ahead of the West Indies for the semi final of the WC. This appears to be the game in question, which means the article is wrong, I'm happy to be proven wrong though. Dannow 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC87/GROUP-B/WI_PAK_WC87_ODI9_16OCT1987.html is the match. Tintin (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You were right that the article was wrong. This was in the first match between the two times and hence did not directly decide the teams to qualify for the semifinals. But had West Indies won the match and the results of the other matches remained the same, they would eventually have qualified for the semifinal and Pakistan would have been eliminated on run-rate. Tintin (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification. Dannow 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked the wording from back in 2006, but I've amended the current wording to give less weighting to this incident in WI failing to progress. Spike 'em (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walsh non-mankad 

message: On this page it says that walsh refused to mankad saleem jaffar, while on the Vinoo mankad page it says that he refused to mankad abdul kadir...so which one is it Sidmohata (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who did Walsh Mankad?? 

message: As the caption shows, the batsman in the picture is being stumped, not run out. The two types of dismissal are similar, but not the same. 117.4.200.141 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs a Different Picture 

message: I find this section unintelligible.
Particular problems:
"a batsman who is batting with a runner should always be behind the crease at the striker's end". Taken literally that means that both batsmen and up to two runners should be behind the crease at the striker's end.
"a batsman who is batting" - so a batsman then?
"If he forgets that he has a runner a quick minded fielder is able to break the stumps at the striker's end to run him out". Clearly the writer doesn't mean this literally, but it is unclear. Also I don't think there is any requirement for the fielder to be quick minded.
I think it's:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.93.63 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run out with runners 

message: I have reverted the edit of 28 Dec 2010 to invite a discussion of the benefit of including the fuller prior text, which refers to "Hansie Cronje, who is not remembered for excessive sportsmanship."
If anything this phrase demonstrates litotes rather than emotion or subjectivity: Hansie Cronje will not be remembered for his sportsmanship. This is I submit a rare point of consensus amongst the cricket community, whatever contrary remembrances about him there may also be. My reasoning for including the turn of phrase here is to make the very specific and important point that even Cronje wondered whether his action in this incident was sporting, and cricket agrees that it was. That is important because cases discussed on this page, including this one, report some of cricket's cultural conventions and different views that pertain, but this particular part of the conventions of run out not attempting a run is not controversial. I think that point is succinctly and nicely made by this case *because* Cronje was the runner-out, appealer, and appealing captain, and removing the context of his reputation rather neuters it, reducing it to yet another un-noteworthy anecdote. Take away the context and the case should also go. I could, though, describe Cronje more directly if that would be deemed preferable.
Clearly what is felt subjective in cricket is itself subjective. The edit did not object to a description of Thomson's pose as elegant, although this is a much more dubious claim, and later on we discuss WG and gamesmanship. Does the edit aim specifically to avoid using Cronje's reputation to make a point? Does it want to dispute what a reasonable NPOV on him should be? Atconsul (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hansie Cronje effecting a run out not attempting a run 

message: AaronAhoun contributed the following:
"In a related case, Law 38.2 states that if a no-ball has been called, the striker shall not be given run out unless he attempts to run. A notable instance occurred in a West Indies vs Australia Test in 1991, when Australia batsman Dean Jones was bowled off a no-ball, and, not hearing the umpire's call, left the crease assuming he had been dismissed.  Carl Hooper ran in and uprooted the middle stump and the West Indies team appealed for a run out, which appeal was erroneously upheld by the umpire. A lesser known but identical instance led to the dismissal of Pakistan batsman Ramiz Raja during a one-day international against England in 1987."
This reference to Law 38.2 is to the 1980 code, under which "If a no-ball has been called, the striker shall not be given out unless he attempts to run." Under the current Laws the batsman can be run out not attempting a run from a no-ball, and the ball is not dead even if the wicket is down, but the umpire will disallow the appeal under Law 31.7 "Batsman leaving the wicket under a misapprehension" if they judge that the batsman has left the crease wrongly believing themself to be out. The umpire will then call "dead ball". At the time Law 27.5 also protected the batsman against "Batsman leaving the wicket under a misapprehension" but did not mandate a dead ball.
I have removed these cases because they are far from straightforward illustrations of "Run out when the batsmen considers the ball dead," and explaining them against the modern code is complicated. Presumably at the time Jones and Raja left the wicket because they believed they were out, not because they believed the ball was dead, although the ball would indeed have been dead had they just been legally bowled as they thought. As it was, they were not out bowled and therefore the ball was not dead, but it was not possible for them to be run out because it was not then (1980s and 1990s) possible on a no-ball. Even if the umpires had not forgotten 38.2, they could have disallowed the dismissal under "leaving the wicket under a misapprehension" for being bowled, but still allowed a dismissal that was legal under a no-ball. These considerations are probably well-documented somewhere as these incidents will have had some influence on the Law change. Very interesting to some, including me, but too tangential to this context I feel.
Atconsul (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run out when the batsmen considers the ball dead: hard cases 

message: I know the Laws use he/she now. But they are the Laws, and normative language requires this kind of repetitive ugliness. We don't have to do this even though we are an encyclopedia. So if we can't now use 'he' in its old-english neuter sense for entirely laudable modern reasons, I strongly suggest 'they' and 'their' is better than he/she, albeit that we are still doomed to have 'batters' and that both phrases sound clunky to traditional native cricket speakers. Is there any consensus pending on this? Atconsul (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  He/She