Should Mankading law be outlawed?

[HeathDavisSpeed]

This happens already with overhead no balls vs overhead wides, runner rules etc. The amount of times I get lectured on the 'rules' by someone who doesn't know that there is a difference between the MCC Laws and ICC playing conditions is insane.

Well, that's my precise point, but a Mankad is something which will create vastly more angst than any of those other items.

 

[Daemon]

If you pause at 9 seconds and a bit you can see that he's marginally out of the crease at the point where the bowler would've normally released the ball. Not sure whether that means it's out.

I don't like it at all though.

 

[Howe_zat]

Chapman's bat is grounded while the bowler is nearly at the top of his 'delivery swing' - he's doing everything right here. Chapman only left his crease at the moment the ball would normally be released if the bowler wasn't being a dick.

Dog act from the bowler in this case.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah that's clearly a case of the mankad being abused to deceive a player who isn't gaining an unfair advantage at all. I find it astonishing how most of CW has been so binary on this issue and can't see even the mere possibility of how the mankad can be abused to reduce the game to a joke at points.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Bowler looks like a chucker too!

BURN THE WITCH!!!!

 

[Senile Sentry]

Chapman's bat is grounded while the bowler is nearly at the top of his 'delivery swing' - he's doing everything right here. Chapman only left his crease at the moment the ball would normally be released if the bowler wasn't being a dick.

Dog act from the bowler in this case.

"nearly" being the keyword here.

Ultimately what he did was within the laws, even if just. That is to his credit that he used the available laws to the best extent.

Might feel that Chapman was done rather harshly here, but ultimately get out of the crease after the ball has been delivered will have to be the motto for batsmen. The striker follows it in any case so I don't understand why the non striker cannot.

I want more and more Mankads to happen so that batsmen buckle up to understand that one's wicket > shaving off milliseconds of a run.

 

[Burner]

Hopefully batsmen are getting aware of this. It would suck pretty hard if a key batsman got out like this in a knock-out match or something.

 

[Shri]

Maybe the batting team should be penalized straight away instead of a warning. A 10 run penalty if you get caught. Dismissed if the bowler gets you after the warning. The non striker just being warned without consequence in an attempt to cheat doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Spark]

Given that people are talking about the third umpire monitoring all no balls, I don't see any reason why the same shouldn't apply for batsmen backing up. Just have them let the standing umpire know if a batsman is backing up too quickly or too far.

 

[juro]

But is it really a problem if the non-striker is backing up before the ball is bowled? I thought the ball was live once the bowler starts his run-up, so the batsmen were allowed to leave their crease after that. Of course, they are then risking being mankaded (I mean run out).

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Due to traumatic memories of being dismissed like this about a million times in indoor cricket (I'd expect the bowler to let the ball go, then would overbalance when they didn't and usually not be able to get back in time) I say - BAN THEM!!!

The West Indies one I particularly didn't like. It seems unfair to me to be dismissed because you're expecting the ball to be bowled ... which is more or less what happened (without getting into the freeze frame side of it).

Some are a lot more warranted, when the batsman is miles out of their crease when the ball is bowled.

It's tough to think of a solution that would penalise one and not the other.

 

[Niall]

Mankad debate reopens ahead of World T20 | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo


In fact, ESPNcricinfo has learned that before the Asia Cup qualifying round, the Asian Cricket Council met with the four Associate teams and instructed them not to mankad.

Disgraceful, fair play to Oman for sticking to their guns, mankading is not illegal ffs.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

this is just nuts

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Due to traumatic memories of being dismissed like this about a million times in indoor cricket (I'd expect the bowler to let the ball go, then would overbalance when they didn't and usually not be able to get back in time) I say - BAN THEM!!!

The West Indies one I particularly didn't like. It seems unfair to me to be dismissed because you're expecting the ball to be bowled ... which is more or less what happened (without getting into the freeze frame side of it).

Some are a lot more warranted, when the batsman is miles out of their crease when the ball is bowled.

It's tough to think of a solution that would penalise one and not the other.

why should the non-striker be able to assume the ball is going to be bowled? It's one of those things which has been taken for granted for years but doesn't make much sense from a rule perspective. If the batsman just watches for when the ball is actually bowled before moving then the problem vanishes.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I actually want to see more Mankads because when it happens in baseball it's hilarious:

 

[BackFootPunch]

I actually want to see more Mankads because when it happens in baseball it's hilarious:

That's absoutely disgusting. Though mostly because Matt Carpenter is a god and deserves far better treatment.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I don't know any other sport where "but I wasn't paying attention!" is deemed a valid excuse

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Make Kiwi Cricket rules official.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

why should the non-striker be able to assume the ball is going to be bowled? It's one of those things which has been taken for granted for years but doesn't make much sense from a rule perspective. If the batsman just watches for when the ball is actually bowled before moving then the problem vanishes.

Coz that's my point of view?

 

[Dan]

why should the non-striker be able to assume the ball is going to be bowled? It's one of those things which has been taken for granted for years but doesn't make much sense from a rule perspective. If the batsman just watches for when the ball is actually bowled before moving then the problem vanishes.

...because that's how cricket works, last time I checked -- the bowler bowls the ball.