• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The mankad- what's the problem?

MrPrez

International Debutant
No one has sympathy with a bowler who has his foot half a centimetre over the crease, or a batsman half a centimetre out of his ground when stumped. The rule on leaving your crease is just as clear cut, and the fact it's easy to do doesn't make it more legal.


Nah. If he's out of the crease in those pictures, which he is, he must have left the crease at an earlier stage, i.e. in breach of the rules.
It depends what constitutes delivery of the ball. Technically the arm moving from the hip up and over is the process of delivery. So this is the end of the delivery process. He would presumably have been in the crease at the beginning of the delivery of the ball.

The alternative interpretation is that delivery is at the point of ball release. But I don't think either is particularly clarified anywhere.

Either way, yet again, the point is not whether Buttler even stole yards in those pictures - it's the events of the Ashwin delivery, which were completely unacceptable in terms of the spirit of the game. When he pulled out of his action Buttler was still in the crease. I have no doubt that Buttler does sometimes actually steal yards - or has at least done so in the past. But this particular delivery was unacceptable as a Mankad.
 

theegyptian

International Vice-Captain
As an aside does anyone reckon its weird the non striker is looking at the striking batsmen instead of the bowler? Both the pink guy and the yellow guy. It looks even stranger in the context of a limited over match where you have to be on the look out for quick runs and the consequential threat of a mankad. There's no way a non striker can reliably know his bat remains behind the crease from that vantage. Whereas if he was looking at the bowler side on he could place his bat behind the crease and watch the bowler deliver the ball until release. Then he can wander down the wicket after the ball is let go.
Not really. It's easier on the body and probably gives you a tiny bit more amout of time to judge singles and race out the blocks for a run between the wickets. If you are staring at the bowler you have to watch them release then quickly change upper body direction and focus to the batsman. It's more natural to just walk in with the bowler whilst watching the batsman.

Of course if mankading is going to become more popular then more batsman will watch the bowler which is fair enough. At the moment batsman do tend to make use of the relative lack of use of mankading.

I tend to do what Buttler. You time yourself to walk in with the bowler, whilst watching the striking batsman. Sometimes the bowler runs in quicker and your stuck half a yard behind the crease when he bowls, and sometimes he's slow getting to the crease and I beat him out of the crease. I too have been done like Buttler as a non striker - you just keep walking as you do every other ball, and the bowler stops, waits and takes the bails off. It tends to happen when you have a score on the board and are relaxed and thinking about other stuff imo.
 
Last edited:

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It depends what constitutes delivery of the ball. Technically the arm moving from the hip up and over is the process of delivery. So this is the end of the delivery process. He would presumably have been in the crease at the beginning of the delivery of the ball.
The delivery is the instant the ball leaves the hand.
 

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
To quote the MCC website

41.16 Non-striker leaving his/her ground early

41.16.1 If the non-striker is out of his/her ground at any time from the moment the ball comes into play until the instant when the bowler would normally have been expected to release the ball, the non-striker is liable to be Run out. In these circumstances, the non-striker will be out Run out if he/she is out of his/her ground when his/her wicket is put down by the bowler throwing the ball at the stumps or by the bowler’s hand holding the ball, whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.
 

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
Just a semi related thought, if someone was to accidentally clip the non strikers end stumps with their hand while bowling that would ordinarily be a no ball (Finn's law). But the bowler could theoretically claim it was a mankad attempt and get away with the no ball, what would happen in that case?
It's only a no-ball if he actually delivers the ball. If he delivers it then there's really no way the umpire will buy an argument that it was a legitimate attempt at mankading.
Interestingly, the law says that it is possible to dismiss a batsman by breaking the wicket and delivering the ball:

41.16.1 If the non-striker ... whether or not the ball is subsequently delivered.
[...]
41.16.3 If the ball is delivered and there is an appeal,

the umpire shall make his/her decision on the Run out.
if the non-striker is not dismissed, the ball remains in play and Law 21.6 (Bowler breaking wicket in delivering ball) shall apply.
if the non-striker is dismissed, the ball shall not count as one in the over.
However, if they are not out, it is a no ball.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not really. It's easier on the body and probably gives you a tiny bit more amout of time to judge singles and race out the blocks for a run between the wickets. If you are staring at the bowler you have to watch them release then quickly change upper body direction and focus to the batsman. It's more natural to just walk in with the bowler whilst watching the batsman.
I just dipped into my big 'collection' of video spanning a wide range of cricket eras from the twenties to seventies and can report that it is possible to both watch the bowler, walk in 'naturally' without having to turn the upper body significantly and then quickly change to watch the striker by a rotational motion of the head actuated by something called a 'neck'.
 

Borges

International Regular
Apparently, the ICC interpretation of 41.16 is:

"During our discussion, we spoke at length about Law 41.16. The intent of the law is that the non-striker should not leave their ground at the bowler's end before the ball is delivered. This is why the ICC has stipulated within their regulations and interpretations that the bowler can dismiss the non-striker run out up until the bowler's arm reaches the top of the delivery swing."

Why Ashwin was right and Dhoni wrong | ESPNcricinfo.com
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I can't wait till the ICC stipulates a different thing in two years time. I saw someone elsewhere on the internet say that the ICC has stipulated that no-balls for above the waist should be judged by the height of the pants, which are on the hips (usually), about 2-3" lower. Of course it would be too hard for them to make such things easily findable on their site (if it's on there at all) because us plebeians clearly have no interest in the rules of the game we watch.
 

Malcolm

U19 Vice-Captain
"Having extensively reviewed the incident again and after further reflection, we don't think it was within the spirit of the game," - Fraser Stewart, the MCC's manager of the laws of cricket
 

Bijed

International Regular
It is not as clear cut as the vociferous opinions from either camp would suggest:

The umpires on the field and the third umpire felt that what Ashwin did was within the spirit of the game and ruled Buttler out.
The MCC first thought the same, but then thought some more and changed their mind.
Yeah for me the issue isn't really whether Buttler should have been out or not or whether he was behind, a few mm out or a foot out of the crease when Ashwin should have delivered the ball, it's that Ashwin clearly premeditated that he was going to try and trick Buttler into getting mankaded, which basically isn't cricket I particularly want to see. Whereas your more typical mankad may not be the most interesting thing in the world, but I've got no problem at all with them happening.

That said:

Simon Taufel is convinced that Aswin is being vilified in an 'incredibly unfair' manner.
is true. It's not surprising these days, but at the end of the day a sneaky bit of play in a sports match doesn't deserve the level of hate he copped.
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
"Having extensively reviewed the incident again and after further reflection, we don't think it was within the spirit of the game," - Fraser Stewart, the MCC's manager of the laws of cricket
See, this doesn't even make sense, and it's from the manager of the laws.

The "Spirit of Cricket" is just a preamble to the laws that basically asks players to be nice to each other and the umpires.

I don't see how mankadding a batsman is any different from stumping them or running them out. If they are out of their crease and the ball is deemed live at that time, the batsman is out. It's not something that is grey, or should be seen as grey. It's black and white. Which is why the "warning" decorum/expectation makes no sense either.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Never really seen the problem with it myself tbh. If it's in the rules of the game, then hate the game, not the player.

That's not to say I would endorse it. I don't think it's exactly "in the spirit of the game" at all.

But people whinging about other people doing something that is completely within the scope of the rules are tedious in the extreme.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Not really. It's easier on the body and probably gives you a tiny bit more amout of time to judge singles and race out the blocks for a run between the wickets. If you are staring at the bowler you have to watch them release then quickly change upper body direction and focus to the batsman. It's more natural to just walk in with the bowler whilst watching the batsman.

Of course if mankading is going to become more popular then more batsman will watch the bowler which is fair enough. At the moment batsman do tend to make use of the relative lack of use of mankading.

I tend to do what Buttler. You time yourself to walk in with the bowler, whilst watching the striking batsman. Sometimes the bowler runs in quicker and your stuck half a yard behind the crease when he bowls, and sometimes he's slow getting to the crease and I beat him out of the crease. I too have been done like Buttler as a non striker - you just keep walking as you do every other ball, and the bowler stops, waits and takes the bails off. It tends to happen when you have a score on the board and are relaxed and thinking about other stuff imo.
I played cricket at a low level and am probably being boastful in saying I did moderately well even then. As i got older I really got into indoor cricket - fitted my time budget, quick beer after the game with team mates and off home. In Indoor cricket mankading isn't a moral issue that troubled anyone's conscience. Quick singles in Indoor are essential and the batsmen were always straining to pinch an early advantage to beat the attempted run outs. Therefore mankads came into play as a consequence. We were all into it and if the batsman was mankaded then more fool him and he got a serves you right instead of sympathy.

To obtain an advantage in pinching extra ground yet keep myself behind the crease I extended my left arm as far as possible with my bat just inside the crease. Every other part of me was well outside the crease. From there I'd watch the ball until it was released and then walk, not run down the other end. I was amazed how much ground I could cover and was actually more fearful of being run out from a quick return from the keeper than I was from a mankad. By that simple method I could get a ground advantage, watch the bowler and easily take off down the other end just after the ball was released.

Additionally I think the rule is a bad one where it contains the subjective qualification where the bowler normally releases the ball. I mean who's to say? Better you stay in your crease until the ball is released.
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
is true. It's not surprising these days, but at the end of the day a sneaky bit of play in a sports match doesn't deserve the level of hate he copped.
eh happens all the time. Stuart Broad in 2013 was made into a villain for not walking (which no one ever does).

I guarantee that Steve Smith and Warner will be massacred by crowds for ball tampering far in excess of other ball tamperers in recent times, or throughout history.

People love to have targets to make fun of & sledge, and it's not always fair.
 

GoodAreasShane

Cricketer Of The Year
eh happens all the time. Stuart Broad in 2013 was made into a villain for not walking (which no one ever does).

I guarantee that Steve Smith and Warner will be massacred by crowds for ball tampering far in excess of other ball tamperers in recent times, or throughout history.

People love to have targets to make fun of & sledge, and it's not always fair.
FWIW I despised Broad looooooooooooooooong before 2013
 

Borges

International Regular
I guarantee that Steve Smith and Warner will be massacred by crowds for ball tampering far in excess of other ball tamperers in recent times, or throughout history.
They actually weren't. As it turned out, Warner became quite a crowd favourite; Smith wasn't one only because his performance was distinctly underwhelming.

Stuart Broad was made into a villain for a bit of gamesmanship; Smith and Warner cajoled a rookie into callous ball tampering. Attempting draw a parallel between the two is disingenuous;
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
They actually weren't. As it turned out, Warner became quite a crowd favourite; Smith wasn't one only because his performance was distinctly underwhelming.
Lol not talking about IPL m8. Watch what happens in England.

Stuart Broad was made into a villain for a bit of gamesmanship; Smith and Warner cajoled a rookie into callous ball tampering. Attempting draw a parallel between the two is disingenuous;
Seems as though you've completely missed the point, even though I explicitly stated it in the last line of my post
 

Top