Should Mankading law be outlawed?

[fredfertang]

Part of the problem with mankading is that the punishment is seen to not fit the crime - it's not really any different to a short run but I've never heard it suggested that should result in dismissal - if this is going to become tactical maybe the time has now come for the laws to address it with a penalty measured in runs lost rather than wicket lost

 

[kykweer.proteas]

I am on the fence, sureley a player trying to steal a run should some be countered by the bowler, especially if the batsman is already out of the crease when the bowler is in his stride.

Anyway, I believe that if any law that should be outlawed is the instance where a batsman can clobber the ball back to the bowler, hit his finger/elbow/hip/head, hit the wickets and run a batsman out at the non strikers end.

 

[Niall]

It shouldn't be banned.

It is probably not within the spirit of the game, but is certainly within the laws.

And batsmen shouldn't steal ground - then nobody will ever get mankaded (mancaught?).

I recall Mahela in 2014 when asked to defend the Buttler run out he made the point in the previous ODI Buttler was constantly taking the piss with quick singles. he made a century that day which really hurt Lanka and nearly won England the game.

I fear if you were to ban it, how would you punish people who try and cheat and steal runs?

Mankading isn't perfect, but it is very much needed if batsmen are going to cheat, a runs penalty I don't think is severe enough.

 

[cnerd123]

Right, been thinking about this for a while, and my opinion is as follows:

It was brilliant thinking from the West Indies lads. They knew how the laws worked, they used them to their advantage, and won a crucial game. It really was fantastic IMO.

Do we want to see this become a reoccuring strategy? Idk. It really isn't that hard, as a non striker, to watch the bowler all the way in his runup until he begins to deliver the ball. If you cannot, then make sure your bat is behind the crease until the ball is actually bowled.

I can sympathise with the batsman on this occasion, I really can. But you can sympathise with a batsman when he gets a jaffer of a delivery and still feel he deserves to be out.

This was just very clever cricket from the WI U-19 team. I hope it makes players all over the world wake up and realise that if they are straying out of their crease at the non striker's end, they will be caught out. I personally cannot wait to try this at the next match I play.

 

[Daemon]

Part of the problem with mankading is that the punishment is seen to not fit the crime - it's not really any different to a short run but I've never heard it suggested that should result in dismissal - if this is going to become tactical maybe the time has now come for the laws to address it with a penalty measured in runs lost rather than wicket lost

This is true and a pretty decent suggestion. What happens to unsuccessful Mankad appeals though?

 

[Jono]

Does anyone who saw this dismissal think the young zimbob fella was attempting to leave his crease early? I actually didn't get that impression at all tbh.

I wouldn't have a problem with a bloke running out a batsman where he's sprinting off down the deck. I kind of do in a situation like this though, where the bowler has slowed down and the batsman has done nowt more than back up as he normally would had the bowler delivered the ball.

And that's the problem with the whole Mankad thing IMO. It's a rule which sort of brings in an element of context to me rather than being a straight forward issue.

If you're batting, you usually time your backing up to coincide with the bowler's usual release of the ball, unless of course the batsman is really trying to steal an advantage. Keep in mind, the Mankad happens behind a batsman's back, too. I can understand the pov which says just stay in your crease, but by the same token I think the young bloke was pretty much doing just that, only the bowler here slowed down to get him to move out of his crease.

It's a pretty tough area of the game IMO

I think the fact he wasn't trying to get a head is important, but I wonder whether the reaction would have been that much different anyway.

I think a lot of the cricket world still have a negative view on mankads regardless of whether the player was trying to steal a run. And most importantly, add the fact the WI used it to win the actual match, and in the last over, well I think there would have been outrage whether the batsman had been trying to get a headstart or not.

If he warned him I think the outrage would have been less though. That seems to make everything okay for some people with mankadding.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

So what's the deal with warnings? You warn each individual batsman or assume it applies for the whole team?

 

[Jono]

haha, who knows. People have their own moral criteria with these things.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tony Cozier on the controversy over the mankading dismissal by Keemo Paul in the U-19 World Cup | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

I don't agree with everything he says here but I do find it funny how sledging is far more "accepted" and isn't seen as a taboo, atleast nowhere near to the extent of a mankad. Even though a mankad is completely legal. Does no one else find that utterly ridiculous? It's ok to abuse your opponent to get under their skin, and the excuse is that they do it to win so that's ok (as long as they don't take it too far). And yet a dismissal which is clearly legal as per the rulebook is "against the spirit of the game"? Just nonsense.

Ftr, I'm personally not against sledging or mankading in cricket.

 

[mr_mister]

I don't necessarily see a problem with the dismissal. What I would prefer in good faith would be a bowler, when he first notices it to warn the non striker once. And then if he does it again, dismiss him. But this is not a strict rule, it's more up to the discretion of the bowler. However, mankading is very much within the law and I don't see how it is hurting the game. Firstly, it doesn't even happen all that much.

Having said that, I do think it should be called something else though. The name is horrible and it should be changed.

I agree, should simply be called run out

 

[OverratedSanity]

I agree, should simply be called run out

Well it is called runout officially. Mankad is just cricket slang.

 

[mr_mister]

oh ok, i literally thought it was called mankadded on the scorecard

 

[Burgey]

Tony Cozier on the controversy over the mankading dismissal by Keemo Paul in the U-19 World Cup | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

I don't agree with everything he says here but I do find it funny how sledging is far more "accepted" and isn't seen as a taboo, atleast nowhere near to the extent of a mankad. Even though a mankad is completely legal. Does no one else find that utterly ridiculous? It's ok to abuse your opponent to get under their skin, and the excuse is that they do it to win so that's ok (as long as they don't take it too far). And yet a dismissal which is clearly legal as per the rulebook is "against the spirit of the game"? Just nonsense.

Ftr, I'm personally not against sledging or mankading in cricket.

TBF bowling underarm was legal in 1981 but it stank like a dead cat in the middle of the road.

Apologies, but I won't read the Cozier article. Primarily because if a Zimbabwean had done the same to a West Indian, he'd have bawled his eyes out.

 

[mr_mister]

sledging is **** and ruins the spirit of cricket far more than mankading

 

[harsh.ag]

Not gonna be overtly critical of the Windies boys, but as has been discussed on the forum before, the law is stupid. The penalty should be a run/runs deducted from the batting team's total (basically the batting team's version of a no-ball).

 

[Howe_zat]

Umpire calling one short seems a more reasonable penalty for trying to steal a run than being given out, to me.

I think the reason it seems wrong as a dismissal is that anything that happens before the ball is delivered doesn't really feel like cricket. The ball being bowled is what starts everything. They should really be able to get a wicket without bowling or fielding, just as the batsman isn't able to score runs without hitting it.

 

[Marius]

Not gonna be overtly critical of the Windies boys, but as has been discussed on the forum before, the law is stupid. The penalty should be a run/runs deducted from the batting team's total (basically the batting team's version of a no-ball).

How are you going to police that?

The umpire can't watch for a no-ball and see if the non-striker is gaining ground unfairly.

Will a fielder point it out? But if the umpire didn't see it then it is the fielder's word he has to accept.

 

[hendrix]

the simplest and best option is to keep the law the same and let batsmen adjust.

 

[harsh.ag]

How are you going to police that?

The umpire can't watch for a no-ball and see if the non-striker is gaining ground unfairly.

Will a fielder point it out? But if the umpire didn't see it then it is the fielder's word he has to accept.

3rd umpire could monitor it via the stump camera.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

3rd umpire could monitor it via the stump camera.

But the laws are for more than just international or televised cricket.