XPost: uk.sport.cricket, aus.sport.cricket

Why isn't Charlie Dean being questioned more about gaining an unfair
advantage by backing up several times during the innings?


Except for Peter Della Penna's genius Twitter thread, Dean and England
have hardly faced the kind of scrutiny and questioning of their
intentions that India have had to face.



[Western Racist Whites ALWAYS applied ONE rule for themselves and
another rule for POC.]



As Abhishek Mukherjee has written on wisden.com, this mode of dismissal
was prevalent before Vinoo Mankad too. No questions of morality were
attached to these dismissals when English bowlers used to effect them.


Australia's "hard but fair" cricket is an abstract notion that
accommodates illustrious captains claiming catches off the ground,
vicious sledging, their batters insinuating chucking when walking off
after being dismissed by a bowler but crying murder when Virat Kohli
questions their captain's integrity. When someone sledges them back,
there miraculously appears a line that cannot be crossed, which is drawn
by Australia and whose location only they know.

Using a lozenge to attain reverse swing is fine in England till such
time as others do it or do it in a different way. The definitions of an
ideal pitch that often emerge when a Test ends in two days in Asia
disappear when the old ball is seaming around prodigiously in the second innings as it did in the recent two-day Test at The Oval.

[I knew this FACT more than 30 years ago, that western whites including
kids are GENIUSES in media management and narratives]

when it comes to controlling narratives, Australia and England are still
far superior to other teams. They have more articulate players who are
trained to deal with media from an early age. Their teams and boards
also have the most professional media-management arms. Their
commentators - not all of them - serve to carry the message more
efficiently than those from other countries.



=====================================================================



https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/sidharth-monga-why-is-there-stigma-involved-in-running-out-a-non-striker-because-its-all-about-power-1337221


Why is there stigma involved in running out a non-striker? Because it's
all about power

Turns out one of the laws of the game is immoral if applied, even if why
that is so cannot be explained or defended

Was it premeditated? Did Deepti Sharma intend to even bowl the ball? Why
didn't she do what she did sooner and not when it got really tight if
she was so concerned about the laws of the game? Is she comfortable
winning that way?

Did Harmanpreet Kaur, the captain, know about the plan? Was it an
individual thing or the team plan? Was a warning given? Whom was the
warning given to - the umpire or the batter? Is Harmanpreet comfortable
winning that way?

These make for a pretty impressive and incisive set of questions, which
have been put to the India bowler and captain. A third set of questions, though, deserves to be asked more than they are being asked at the moment.

Why was Charlie Dean out of her crease? Why was she not watching the
ball? Did she premeditate stepping out of her crease before the ball was bowled? Did she ever intend to stay in? How many times did she do it? Is
her batting partner comfortable scoring her runs that way? Is this an individual thing or the team plan?

To be clear, Dean did nothing wrong. There should be no stigma attached
to being out of your crease. Except that there are consequences for it
in the laws of the game, and you should be able to live with them when
they apply. Except for Peter Della Penna's genius Twitter thread, Dean
and England have hardly faced the kind of scrutiny and questioning of
their intentions that India have had to face.

Keemo Paul is a prime example of a player who was at the receiving end
in this way. He effected such a run out to win a crucial Under-19 World
Cup match, sobbed in his hotel room following the reaction it provoked,
and told me he decided to not do it again, not because he thought he was
wrong but because he lost the will to face the attacks in the aftermath.
Three years later the MCC - no less - kept the gaze on R Ashwin's pause
in his delivery stride when he effected one such run out, but didn't
comment on the number of times Jos Buttler, the batter involved, had
stolen ground in the lead-up to the dismissal.

This gaze is integral to sustaining hierarchies of power. The one doing
the gazing is superior to the one who is the object of the gaze. In this
case the usual suspects are claiming moral superiority even though the
MCC has finally followed the ICC in trying to destigmatise the bowler
involved in this latest dismissal.

The first power hierarchy is that of batters over bowlers, which has
existed from the days of amateur batters and professional bowlers in
England. Most international captains are batters; the ICC cricket
committee has eight former batters, two bowlers and one allrounder on
it. The other power structure involved is more sinister.

The financial power in the sport now rests with Asia, more
particularly India, but when it comes to controlling narratives,
Australia and England are still far superior to other teams

As Abhishek Mukherjee has written on wisden.com, this mode of dismissal
was prevalent before Vinoo Mankad too. No questions of morality were
attached to these dismissals when English bowlers used to effect them.
Such confusing, random and exclusionary codes of honour are also
integral to hierarchies. In the wider world, these manifest themselves
in the form of dress codes, customs, etiquette, convenient definitions
of patriotism, blasphemy, and so on.

Players who glorify not walking when out, appealing when aware the
batter is not out, bullying players they identify as "mentally weak",
running in the path of a throw, and who indulge in many such acts to
gain a competitive advantage within the framework of the rules, consider
this kind of run out an immoral act.

It is immoral because it is not "earned", not pure luck as when someone
is caught off the body of the non-striker, and it occurs before the
actual duel has begun, although the laws clearly state the ball becomes
live at the start of the run-up. If the moral police pause to reflect,
they will come face to face with the mental gymnastics they need to
indulge in just to keep the focus off the transgressor.

The mere fact that you question the discrepancy automatically makes you
an outsider incapable of understanding the moral superiority of those
who have decided the act is immoral. It is a vicious, self-sustaining
loop where you either follow blindly or face derision.

Australia's "hard but fair" cricket is an abstract notion that
accommodates illustrious captains claiming catches off the ground,
vicious sledging, their batters insinuating chucking when walking off
after being dismissed by a bowler but crying murder when Virat Kohli
questions their captain's integrity. When someone sledges them back,
there miraculously appears a line that cannot be crossed, which is drawn
by Australia and whose location only they know.

Using a lozenge to attain reverse swing is fine in England till such
time as others do it or do it in a different way. The definitions of an
ideal pitch that often emerge when a Test ends in two days in Asia
disappear when the old ball is seaming around prodigiously in the second innings as it did in the recent two-day Test at The Oval. Such sermons
often flow from these two countries, and are sometimes backed by New
Zealand and South Africa.

The financial power in the sport now rests with Asia, more particularly
India, but when it comes to controlling narratives, Australia and
England are still far superior to other teams. They have more articulate players who are trained to deal with media from an early age. Their
teams and boards also have the most professional media-management arms.
Their commentators - not all of them - serve to carry the message more efficiently than those from other countries.

Look around you. These hierarchies of power exist everywhere. The lower
someone is in the power structure - a religious minority, an immigrant,
a historically disadvantaged caste, non-male, non-heterosexual - the
greater the onus on them to act righteously and carry the weight of
their community on their shoulders. Those exercising the power hardly
face that scrutiny. If someone from a disadvantaged background earns
money and power, they are still liable to be excluded by vague codes.

That is why it is important to turn the gaze around. When Deepti ran
Dean out, the caller on air at the time, Nasser Hussain, who is a superb commentator and is entitled to his opinion, said much more through what
he left unsaid: "I am not so sure. I know it's [permitted] in the laws
of the game..."

It is far from ideal to say something to that effect or question the
integrity of a batter the next time one is caught out of his or her
crease before a delivery is bowled, because morality is best kept to
oneself in a competitive sport played within the rules. But if such a
thing happens, it will make batters experience what it is to doubt
themselves and worry about the backlash - just as much as bowlers do
when effecting these dismissals.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)