• 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.

Another Mankading

Status
Not open for further replies.

neville cardus

International Debutant
I seem to be the only one in my circle of friends who's following the Under-19 World Cup, but in retrospect I'd rather have watched something else today. It'll take some gargling to lave the sour taste from my mouth.

About ten minutes ago, with three runs needed off the final over, Zimbabwe had a wicket in hand, and were looking good for the win. Keemo Paul ran in -- but not to bowl; he didn't even enter his delivery stride. Instead he trotted on through the crease, snapped off a bail and launched an appeal.

There had been no prior warning, and Richard Ngarava had been taking no chances with his backing up. This was a shot in the dark. The third umpire found that his bat was on the line when the wicket was broken (although a missing frame might have shown otherwise), and an excellent game of cricket ended in the sheerest ignominy.

The Caribbean youngsters made a sorry spectacle even sorrier with their frenzied celebrations. At least their coach had the decency to look embarrassed.
 

neville cardus

International Debutant
On the plus-side, I did get to see Wesley Madhevere for the first time. At fifteen years of age, he's the youngest Zimbabwean in this competition, and probably shorter than James Taylor, but I'd back him before any of his peers to make it to the Big Time. I thoroughly enjoyed his ten overs of off-spin, but it was his 21 off 25 balls, retrieving a difficult situation, which will live longest in the memory. He glanced in-ducking yorkers down to third man, and showed rare composure against the raw pace of Alzarri Joseph. He got out protecting the tail.

Remember the name. This kid's the mustard.
 

Senile Sentry

First Class Debutant
Laws exist for a reason. Deal with it.

I just don't understand this convenient "spirit of cricket" blah blah. How about applying 'spirit of cricket' to a decision where a straight drive past the bowler just grazes his hands and slams into the stumps with the hapless runner out of the crease?

Respect the laws.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
The Caribbean youngsters made a sorry spectacle even sorrier with their frenzied celebrations. At least their coach had the decency to look embarrassed.
And thus concluded the tale of the first Jamaican bobsled team. Gone but not forgotten, forever in our hearts.
 

neville cardus

International Debutant
Please "define" this spirit and how it can override cricketing laws?

I think any further conversation can happen only once we do that.
Then this conversation will have to end. I find I'm extremely suspicious of people whose moral codes require codification.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Unfortunately not. That's just what decent people do.
Do you also think the batsman should warn the bowler that he's attempting to take a shorter run?

Or that a batsman should warn a bowler that he's going to charge down the wicket? Or play a reverse sweep?
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Please "define" this spirit and how it can override cricketing laws?
If a cricketing law is unfair (e.g. bowling underarm) then that law should change.

Mankading is not unfair as all the batsman is required to do is remain in his crease until the bowler delivers the ball.
 

Senile Sentry

First Class Debutant
Then this conversation will have to end. I find I'm extremely suspicious of people whose moral codes require codification.
Respect your views but disagree. The very reason why codifications came into existence was to sort out the ambiguities in what constitutes morality and make them enforceable.

You cannot thrust or police 'morality' upon others, But you can do with laws. Hence laws > morality.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
no, I disagree entirely there. Laws are meant to reflect morality. When they do not, they must be changed.
 

Senile Sentry

First Class Debutant
no, I disagree entirely there. Laws are meant to reflect morality. When they do not, they must be changed.
I am sorry but where did I say laws aren't reflecting morality? Laws are moral codes which are palatable to the majority at the time of their codification of course. And with any other thing in the universe things change with time. But the morality associated with Mankading, at least the majority opinion about it, doesn't warrant a change in the law. There was a debate during Senanayake's dismissal of Joe Root some time back. You don't know the rules? You pay. You know the rules and don't agree with it? Then appeal to the authorities.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
I would be so embarrassed to be one of those West Indians

but yeah how hard is it to stay in your crease until the bowler's bowling the ball ffs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top