Mankading - Why is it not within the "Spirit of the Game"?

[Scaly piscine]

What's your views on Broad refusing to walk after edging? Were the runs he scored after the incident cheap?

There's no comparison to make at all. There's a reason why nobody has been Mankad-ed in international cricket for over 20 years. In that time one or two may have waited for the umpire's finger when they've edged it.

 

[Maximas]

That reason being the spirit of the game only applies to the fielding side?

 

[Burgey]

I think part of the stigma of the Mankad (apart from it really being the preserve of the lesser nations) is it's an act which is committed almost behind the back of the victim. Personally I don't see a problem if a bloke has been warned, but I do if he's just backing up and a bowler delays and baulks the non striker into leaving his crease then runs him out.

For a non striker in Buttler's position it's very difficult to know of a bowler is going to deliver the ball or is hesitating and going to run him out. That's because all these SL blokes have such terrible, jerky, questionable actions that they really could be baulking you every other delivery.

 

[Maximas]

lol, but in all seriousness, it's not difficult to turn sideways to watch the ball out of the hand with your bat in the crease and then move out once you see the ball out of the hand. If your back is turned and you're strolling down the pitch while the bowler mankads you after a warning you're just doing it wrong IMO

 

[Burgey]

The skeletons in the cupb oard are surely haunting. Otherwise difficult to hear about these hallucinations.

Speaking of terrible jerks....

 

[Shri]

And half the time the fieldsmen are still outside the circle when the ball is delivered. Let's get pedantic about 2 inches there as well.


I agree that the batsmen shouldn't be allowed to leave early, but Mankad-ing is not the solution; the time lag between the offence and the bails being broken means that you aren't punishing the batsman for the specific offence of leaving early, you're punishing them for daring back up. Even if they do it correctly, within the laws, they can be out in that manner. I mean, Buttler was 4 feet down the pitch when the bails were removed; he was less than 4 inches out of his ground at the time the delivery swing would have started. If his bat were behind the line at the time the delivery swing would have started, Senanayake could have gone through the same process and Buttler would still have been 4 feet down the track and hence out.


Warn the batsmen, then disallow any runs

Ever seen a replay that checks for a front foot no ball? I have seen a lot of times when the non strier is safely behind the crease. If some of them can do it, maybe the other assholes should find a way to do it as well. You are talking out of your ass.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

As I said earlier, it's the sort of thing one expects from these lesser cricketing nations who have a chip on their shoulder through lack of success. They play all doe eyed and innocent, but they're just conniving little ****ers who want to take every advantage they can.

MCG, 1 Feb 1981

 

[nexxus]

They did warn him first, but they still went ahead of with the appeal when they got him the second time despite everything Dan pointed out. They didn't just try to make sure he stayed in his crease or talk to the umpires as per the above.

I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean. They warned him, then when he didn't abide their warning, suddenly they have to talk to the umpires, make sure he stays in his crease, write a notarised letter to his attorney, the ECB & the Queen, lobby for a governmental intervention, start a social medi....wha? Then do a pretend appeal. He's an international cricketer, for crissake he's responsible for staying in his own darn crease.

Also, I don't get the nonchalance behind him being just a couple inches over, those couple of inches could mean the difference between being in or out if the stumps are hit on the other end. If the umpire spots a fielder a couple inches before the line when walking in, then he should no-ball the bowler (you know, like they occasionally do anyway). An inch over is as good as a foot over.

 

[nexxus]

Jayawardene said: “We gave him a fair chance twice – before the first warning as well, we told the umpires that they’re taking too much of a lead. We had to do that, because they kept doing it."

They did tell the umpires. So maybe you reckon they should have informed the match ref & David Richardson too? Got the ECB/ACB/BCCI triumvirate to write a position paper on it first?

 

[Langeveldt]

I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean. They warned him, then when he didn't abide their warning, suddenly they have to talk to the umpires, make sure he stays in his crease, write a notarised letter to his attorney, the ECB & the Queen, lobby for a governmental intervention, start a social medi....wha? Then do a pretend appeal. He's an international cricketer, for crissake he's responsible for staying in his own darn crease.

Also, I don't get the nonchalance behind him being just a couple inches over, those couple of inches could mean the difference between being in or out if the stumps are hit on the other end. If the umpire spots a fielder a couple inches before the line when walking in, then he should no-ball the bowler (you know, like they occasionally do anyway). An inch over is as good as a foot over.

Yeah this, I still don't see why commentators like Agnew are harking back to a day when everyone played nicely and the result didn't really matter so long as the game was played in the correct "spirit". We have contracts worth millions of dollars, people's careers on the line over a call worth a couple of inches and Senanayake was well within his rights to find Butler stealing a few inches in a must win game. I noticed after the incident that batsmen didn't seem to be stealing any ground, so if they can manage it afterwards, why would Butler have felt cheated at the time?

This just highlights what an absolute batsman's game it has become, as Root demonstrated when he fisted it to the keeper and stood their all doe eyed and innocent.

England are a really difficult team to like at the moment, plodding along at four an over as if they are playing in the 1950's, playing the victim whenever something untoward happens, it's no wonder KP didnt stand a chance.

 

[Dan]

Ever seen a replay that checks for a front foot no ball? I have seen a lot of times when the non strier is safely behind the crease. If some of them can do it, maybe the other assholes should find a way to do it as well. You are talking out of your ass.

Did you actually bother to read my post?

Because if you did, you'd have noticed that I said exactly that -- "I agree that the batsman shouldn't be allowed to leave early". What Buttler did was dumb. Not malicious, just dumb. But it raises questions over the efficacy of the current playing condition that surrounds Mankads.

All I'm saying is that the Mankad rule, as it stands now, doesn't work. It's too over the top when you can literally stop halfway through your action (provided your hand hasn't yet swung past the horizontal), wait for the batsman to continue backing up under the belief that you're actually bowling the ball, and knock the bails off with the batsman 4 feet down the track looking like a fool -- irrespective of whether his bat was in or out of the crease when the bowlers' arm would have passed the horizontal.

Bringing it back to the actual law of cricket on the matter would almost completely prevent that from being a possibility.

 

[Dan]

Yeah this, I still don't see why commentators like Agnew are harking back to a day when everyone played nicely and the result didn't really matter so long as the game was played in the correct "spirit". We have contracts worth millions of dollars, people's careers on the line over a call worth a couple of inches and Senanayake was well within his rights to find Butler stealing a few inches in a must win game. I noticed after the incident that batsmen didn't seem to be stealing any ground, so if they can manage it afterwards, why would Butler have felt cheated at the time?

This just highlights what an absolute batsman's game it has become, as Root demonstrated when he fisted it to the keeper and stood their all doe eyed and innocent.

England are a really difficult team to like at the moment, plodding along at four an over as if they are playing in the 1950's, playing the victim whenever something untoward happens, it's no wonder KP didnt stand a chance.

Isn't the bolded a bit of a contradiction? Agnew's in the wrong for harking back to what he sees as a better day with the game being played in the right spirit, while you're entitled to hark back to what you believe to be a better day where bat and ball were more equal?

 

[Langeveldt]

Agnew's dream is impossible today unless we all go back and play on village greens and money suddenly ceases to exist, I would have thought mine was a bit more attainable. I'd actually love it if cricket was all played in perfect spirit, but that isn't possible while we have an intense and money driven form of competition.

Another load of nonsense last night was from Mathews dedicating his win to Senanayke's percieved chucking issues. I know his nation have enjoyed a whole decade of success from a bowler who throws the ball, but lets see what the tests bring up before putting Senanayake forward as some sort of victim here.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Jayawardene said: “We gave him a fair chance twice – before the first warning as well, we told the umpires that they’re taking too much of a lead. We had to do that, because they kept doing it."

They did tell the umpires. So maybe you reckon they should have informed the match ref & David Richardson too? Got the ECB/ACB/BCCI triumvirate to write a position paper on it first?

If he was warned then tough. Buttler was stupid. I'd only have a problem with it if he hadn't been warned first but he was so he has to suck it up.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

What if it's the 5th day and the light is about to go. The fielding team wants a draw and because of this they deliberately Mankad to waste time, but the captain withdraws the appeal so that the batsman isn't out. They repeat this process each time the non-striker is backing up and sometimes the bowler even stops the delivery half way each time the non-striker does it.

Would you be against this tactic or consider it OK since the non-striker is being a dick?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

What if it's the 5th day and the light is about to go. The fielding team wants a draw and because of this they deliberately Mankad to waste time, but the captain withdraws the appeal so that the batsman isn't out. They repeat this process each time the non-striker is backing up and sometimes the bowler even stops the delivery half way each time the non-striker does it.

Would you be against this tactic or consider it OK since the non-striker is being a dick?

Well, the fielding side is supposed to concede 5 penalty runs for time wasting, so if they did this enough often they'd lose anyway (law 42)

 

[91Jmay]

Sri Lanka obviously reviewed the laws and saw that Satchi could plant his front, go through his motion 90% and then whip the bails off. Maybe Buttler thought it was the same rule as in other FC cricket (delivery stride) where he was centimeters out of his crease. To pretend it is 'poor old Sri Lanka' in this situation is ****ing bollocks though. They obviously had it in their minds to do, and clearly knew that Satchi's action would allow them to do it pretty effectively. I'm certain they came into the game intending to mankad him.

Is that bad, or wrong? Nope but Mathews/Mahela droning on about how they had no other option is pathetic.

 

[Migara]

Agnew's dream is impossible today unless we all go back and play on village greens and money suddenly ceases to exist, I would have thought mine was a bit more attainable. I'd actually love it if cricket was all played in perfect spirit, but that isn't possible while we have an intense and money driven form of competition.

Another load of nonsense last night was from Mathews dedicating his win to Senanayke's percieved chucking issues. I know his nation have enjoyed a whole decade of success from a bowler who throws the ball, but lets see what the tests bring up before putting Senanayake forward as some sort of victim here.

Nah, almost all cricket nations had that advantage. FTR, Senanayke has been tested multiple times and appeared clean. bowls with a bent arm.

 

[Daemon]

Sri Lanka obviously reviewed the laws and saw that Satchi could plant his front, go through his motion 90% and then whip the bails off. Maybe Buttler thought it was the same rule as in other FC cricket (delivery stride) where he was centimeters out of his crease. To pretend it is 'poor old Sri Lanka' in this situation is ****ing bollocks though. They obviously had it in their minds to do, and clearly knew that Satchi's action would allow them to do it pretty effectively. I'm certain they came into the game intending to mankad him.

Is that bad, or wrong? Nope but Mathews/Mahela droning on about how they had no other option is pathetic.

They had warned him and informed the umpires on more than one occasion, and reviewed footage from the previous game to confirm that the batsmen were indeed taking an early start if what Jayawardene said is to be believed. I don't see what other option they had to stop them from doing it.

 

[Cruxdude]

Steyn WAFG

https://twitter.com/DaleSteyn62/status/474136164291850240