Another Mankading

[Furball]

I don't have an issue with Mankading and the idea that a bowler has to warn a batsman to stay in his crease or be run out is nonsense.

However, I also think the wrong decision was reached here because there was absolutely zero attempt by the West Indies player to even bowl. And the Zimbabwe batsmen was a couple of millimetres the wrong side of the lline.

 

[gvenkat]

I don't have an issue with Mankading and the idea that a bowler has to warn a batsman to stay in his crease or be run out is nonsense.

However, I also think the wrong decision was reached here because there was absolutely zero attempt by the West Indies player to even bowl. And the Zimbabwe batsmen was a couple of millimetres the wrong side of the lline.

So if a bowler strays a couple of millimetres outside the line and a batsman gets out it's still a noball right? The bowler stopped in his stride and executed the run out. That's the law.. End of story. It was the perfect decision.

 

[Biryani Pillow]

Personally I have absolutely no issue with the bowler in this situation.

I used to teach young players to watch the bowler's hand and, until the ball is released, make sure they are in their ground. It didn't harm their running in any way but ensured they were not run out in such a manner.

Regarding the 'spirit of cricket' the Laws require the batsman to be in his ground - in the MCC Laws - before the bowler starts his delivery. The batsman has no argument if he fails to do so.

I feel the same when people complain about batsmen not walking. They are not at all obliged to do so.

And I always find it amusing the the Spirit of Cricket preamble in the Laws is under the name of Colin Cowdrey - let's just say a 'selective walker'.

 

[SteveNZ]

I'm right in saying you have to be through your action to run someone out at the bowler's end, don't you?

It's time to drop this charade about spirit of cricket. Future generations, including this one obviously, don't give a **** about it like previous ones might. They don't know who Vinoo Mankad is. They see a law and it's there to be worked under, and there is one that basically allows what happened.

 

[neville cardus]

Regarding the 'spirit of cricket' the Laws require...

Good heavens. You people...

 

[Captain_Cook]

The fact that Windies needed to resort to this is a damning indictment on the team. It's as disgraceful as the underarm delivery bowled by Trevor Chappell. I have no doubt in my mind that if Zimbabwe had more than 1 wicket remaining or a steeper target than the paltry 3 runs needed to win, this incident wouldn't have occurred. The bowler had no intent to bowl the best ball he could at the top of his run. His intention was to run in watching the non-striker to see if he could Mankad him without warning.

The batsman who was run out wasn't excessively backing up (like Jos Buttler, who I have no sympathy with after his Mankad) merely following what player at every level of the game do. Most batters are out of their ground as the bowler enters their delivery stride. Most no-ball checks have a batsman out of his ground on delivery.

I hope that bowler is punished because he's wasn't willing to play cricket to win, only exploit the rules. I doubt he will though.

 

[neville cardus]

The "spirit of cricket" means nothing more or less than "sportsmanship."

Sportsmanship is what happens when you don't accept an advantage you would be entitled to accept, according to the letter of the law, because to do so would feel wrong, and because you recognise that there are more important things, in sport as in life, than hollow victories. This is easily understood, if not applauded and celebrated, by anyone with even a particle of human decency.

To cite the laws of cricket, in a discussion about sportsmanship, is to miss the point. When we're talking about the spirit of a law, it doesn't help in the slightest to invoke its letter. If you haven't grasped this by now, you never will. I only hope I don't ever meet any of you on a cricket pitch.

 

[neville cardus]

The fact that Windies needed to resort to this is a damning indictment on the team. It's as disgraceful as the underarm delivery bowled by Trevor Chappell. I have no doubt in my mind had Zimbabwe had more than 1 wicket remaining or a steeper target than the paltry 3 runs needed to win, this incident wouldn't have occurred. The bowler had no intent to bowl the best ball he could at the top of his run. His intention was the to run in watching the non-striker to see if he could Mankad him without warning.

The batsman who was run out wasn't excessively backing up (like Jos Buttler, who I have no sympathy with after his Mankad) merely following what player at every level of the game do. Most batters are out of their ground as the batsman enters their delivery stride. Most no-ball check have a batsman out of his ground on delivery.

I hope that bowler is punished because he's wasn't willing to play cricket to win, only exploit the rules.

Hear, hear.

 

[honestbharani]

While I agree with the posts of weldone, indiaholic and others in general, in this specific case, I think CaptainCook has hit the nail on the head. IT is one thing to Mankad a batsman who is trying to run before you have bowled, quite another to run in with the idea that you want to Mankad the batsman out somehow. What if the bowler starts to make like he has hit his delivery stride but just stops himself and then effects a Mankad? Mankading is allowed to prevent batsmen from backing up too far, not to enable teams to run in and remove the bails in hope and then wait for the 3rd umpire's not so high quality cam to catch them on the line give or take an inch.

 

[fredfertang]

The sad thing about this is that the West Indian bowler made a deliberate decision to try and win the match this way, and not by getting the striker out - it may be legal, but if bowlers routinely adopted this as a tactic the law would have to change

 

[Furball]

The sad thing about this is that the West Indian bowler made a deliberate decision to try and win the match this way, and not by getting the striker out - it may be legal, but if bowlers routinely adopted this as a tactic the law would have to change

Or batsmen could stay in their crease until the ball's bowled.

 

[Prince EWS]

The sad thing about this is that the West Indian bowler made a deliberate decision to try and win the match this way, and not by getting the striker out - it may be legal, but if bowlers routinely adopted this as a tactic the law would have to change

If bowlers routinely adopted this as a tactic, non-strikers would just stay in their crease longer.

 

[Spark]

I would be more sympathetic to neville cardus's argument here if it didn't boil down to "you're all sociopaths for supporting mankading"

 

[Captain_Cook]

Or batsmen could stay in their crease until the ball's bowled.

Or the bowler could run in to, you know, ****ing bowl rather than looking to mankad the non-striker.

 

[Furball]

Or the bowler could run in to, you know, ****ing bowl rather than looking to mankad the non-striker.

Yes, I agree that on this particular occasion the actions of the bowler were pretty poor, especially as the batsman didn't appear to be deliberately leaving the crease to gain an advantage.

 

[neville cardus]

The sad thing about this is that the West Indian bowler made a deliberate decision

Even sadder, he made that decision before he had any reason to suppose it would come off: When Paul elected to remove the bails, Ngarava was still in his crease; he only vacated it -- and then by millimetres -- at the moment the ball would have been leaving the hand.

 

[fredfertang]

I didn't see the game - had the batsman been taking advantage, or was this a plan?

 

[neville cardus]

I would be more sympathetic to neville cardus's argument here if it didn't boil down to "you're all sociopaths for supporting mankading"

It doesn't boil down to that. Conceivably there is an argument for Mankading which doesn't smack of sociopathy; at any rate, I'm open to the possibility. But that argument isn't the one which asserts that everything is kosher so long as it's within the law. That isn't how decent people think.

I don't see why I should pull my punches here. Some things should be called by their proper names.

 

[Captain_Cook]

I didn't see the game - had the batsman been taking advantage, or was this a plan?

The last thing the bowler wanted to do was bowl the ball. You could technically say he didn't enter his delivery stride so it wasn't out anyway. I think it probably was (and should be) out anyway as the Mankad is a legitimate dismissal if a non-striker is taking the mick.

 

[neville cardus]

I didn't see the game - had the batsman been taking advantage, or was this a plan?

See the OP. I think I gave a fair and detailed account there.